Jump to content
LTnewsDawg

Wanted: civil talk on gay marriage

Recommended Posts

ToldYouSo

Regulating a legal contract.

 

So, domestic partnerships would be fine? That way you could have a partnership with your friend, your lover, or multiple partners.

 

 

 

social engineering. 

 

You want to be like China?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

So, domestic partnerships would be fine? That way you could have a partnership with your friend, your lover, or multiple partners.

 

 

Separate but equal has a way of not working out.

 

And what would be the reason that the state would refuse to allow gays to "marry"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

Because the state has no reason to be the end all be all of marriage. It serves no purpose for the state. The state's only interest is the contractual obligations of a partnership. Partnerships can be defined and changed and mutilated for a variety of reasons, purposes and other as time moves on. Those who condone religion and the Christian Right frequently bring up the separation of church and state. Here is a perfect time to show they are serious. Compromise and allow the religious to keep their marriage as they define it and get the government out of the marriage business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatdavebeans

So, domestic partnerships would be fine? That way you could have a partnership with your friend, your lover, or multiple partners.

With all of the benefits of a hetro-marriage? Adoption rights too?

 

Hate the new profile pic, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatdavebeans

 

Because the state has no reason to be the end all be all of marriage. It serves no purpose for the state. The state's only interest is the contractual obligations of a partnership. Partnerships can be defined and changed and mutilated for a variety of reasons, purposes and other as time moves on. Those who condone religion and the Christian Right frequently bring up the separation of church and state. Here is a perfect time to show they are serious. Compromise and allow the religious to keep their marriage as they define it and get the government out of the marriage business.

Why don't we just call marriage for folks who don't like teh gays "bigoted marriage"? That way you all could have your own term. Good christians who follow the bible and don't judge god's kids can still call it plain old "marriage".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

Yawn. Why are you bigoted against Christians? 

 

See how that works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatdavebeans

Yawn. Why are you bigoted against Christians?

 

See how that works?

I'm not. I'm not a big fan of hypocrites though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

Everyone is a hypocrite, including yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatdavebeans

 

Everyone is a hypocrite, including yourself.

Ain't nobody without flaws, but at least I try not to have flaws that are rooted in hate, ignorance, and intolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatdavebeans

 

Because Christians do not believe in gay marriage means they are full of hate and ignorance?

Generalize much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatdavebeans

No one can force a priest to marry people he doesn't want to marry, so in terms of a religious ceremony, that is entirely up to churches to decide whose marriages they will sanction, so you don't have to worry about that

 

But judges, mayors and sea captains can also perform marriages. It is not only religious, marriage is also secular. Do you want to change that, so only 'religious' people can marry?

I give your post 4 1/2 out of 5 stars, but only because you made a punctuation error at the end of the first paragraph. Other than that, great job! Can't wait for her attempt at a reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

Do you want to change that, so only 'religious' people can marry?

 

No, anyone could 'marry' but it should not be defined by the state. Would that not appease everyone? You can have your marriage and define it as you wish.

 

BTW, sea captains can not marry someone legally in PA. The ceremony means nothing to the state. Just the piece of paper that you have to pay for.

 

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/23/00.015.003.000..HTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

No, anyone could 'marry' but it should not be defined by the state. Would that not appease everyone? You can have your marriage and define it as you wish.

 

BTW, sea captains can not marry someone legally in PA. The ceremony means nothing to the state. Just the piece of paper that you have to pay for.

 

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/23/00.015.003.000..HTM

 

Well sure, you can define your 'marriage' any way you want. And  everyone else should have that right..

 

I have a "mystical bond stronger than the repulsive force of protons" with my wife. (She probably calls it something different) But my son's lesbian godparents have a marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

For every " staunch" defender of gay marriage there is homo in the woodpile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o311mc

 

I think the debate gets lost a little bit when it comes to the religious angle. 

 

As a supporter of gay marriage and non-believer in God, I fully support the right of those who are religiously opposed to gay marriage to not enter into such a marriage should it become legal.  If the pro gay marriage, non god believers were somehow pushing or forcing heterosexual religious people into gay marriages, I would be totally against that and would fully support the right of god-believers to enter into heterosexual marriages of their choosing. 

 

I really don't understand what business it is or of what consequence it is to those who believe in whatever God they choose, if a homosexual couple that may or may not believe in the same God chooses to marry.  It would be like me suggesting that churches should be outlawed because I don't believe in God.  The argument comes off as a bit silly to me.

 

Later...CI

  I dont mean to offer religion as an argument per say. But religion is the argument of those who oppose gay marriage from what I hear and read. That, to me, makes it it very essence of the argument. Religion doesnt cloud the debate at all, even though there are gays that do believe in God. I just meant to point out that the two sides are already at odds even before the debate starts. The believers in the theory that gay marriage will degrade the moral fiber of the "American way" are not really open to the opinion that a personal choice of a gay couple will not affect it any more that the gay couple are open to the notion they are immoral. When I hear civil debate about gay marriage, I just roll my eyes because based on my observations neither side has any intention of being civil at this point. I believe a gay person and a straight person can get along just fine and respect each others views if they are in a one on one forum. The problem is that one on one is not how this has be solved. It will end up on the floor of congress where hysteria and refusal to even consider compromise seem to be the ruling factions.

  My personal opinion is that gay marriage should be allowed. I wont claim to understand the feelings and view points of gay folks, but I just cant see how allowing gays to marry affects me adversely. I am who I am, and allowing gay people to get married doesn't threaten that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Quite recently, there were laws against homosexual sex acts, and people were arrested for such in the privacy of their own homes. It was struck down by SCOTUS, in a 5 to 4 decision. But it could be revisited. One more conservative vote.

 

The State should stay out of people's bedrooms.

 

In most of the US, including Pa, you can actively discriminate against homosexuals, refusing them employment or housing, with no legal repercussions. Although he doesn't talk about it much anymore, Butts was part of the religiously based cabal who used to campaign and show up at the polls to inform voters which candidates opposed "special rights for homosexuals", which is simply code for being allowed to legally discriminate against gays. And it still is. How about that.

 

Not cool...and a good example of genuine bigotry.

 

A biological argument can be made against sibling marriage. Polygamy often exploits (usually very young) women, locking them into a paternalistic relationship designed for the financial benefit of men.

 

You read my mind about polygamy. Except I was also thinking about polyandry.

 

The US screwed a Mormon's Constitutional rights via the Supreme Court, in the Reynolds case, in its broad-brush prohibition of multiple-partner marriages, in my opinion. In hindsight, it should have criminalized a minor's participation, and, upheld a consenting-adult's right to enter into that arrangement, on 1st-Amendment grounds. 

 

William Penn probably rolled in his hallowed grave, when the decision was read (along with Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin). I know some confident and assertive females who have spoken favorably about such arrangements.

 

For me, it's absolutely bizarre that it's not legally recognized.

 

If marriage is a privilege, what is the states compelling interest in withholding that privilege from homosexuals.

 

Politics, in my opinion.

 

Look. I think gay couples should have the same privileges of entering into a legal contract as do heterosexuals. 

 

Call it "Non-Traditional Marriage" and be done with it. Holy fuck. We have more-important shit to address. 

 

For every " staunch" defender of gay marriage there is homo in the woodpile.

 

Quite interesting assessment, Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

For every " staunch" defender of gay marriage there is homo in the woodpile.

 

I think what has confused you is the dictionary definition of "fagot". Just because a "fagot' is a bundle of sticks does not mean there are homosexuals in the woodpile.

 

It's OK, that's an easy mistake to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatdavebeans

I think what has confused you is the dictionary definition of "fagot". Just because a "fagot' is a bundle of sticks does not mean there are homosexuals in the woodpile.

 

It's OK, that's an easy mistake to make.

Ha!

 

My buddy who helped us out while short handed came back from the porta pot on a job site in stitches. He was quite impressed that one of the fellows on the job sight knew French. He said someone wrote on the porta pot wall that somebody was a fagot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...