PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Where do you stand on gay marriage?


Pages : [1] 2

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 08:38 AM
Fresh off a thread about religion which was debated respectfully. I now pose the question of Gay Marriage. I am interested what the DC and holy land experts think about this issue. It seems to me that we are capable of debating controversial topics without personal attacks. It is my hope this trend continues~

Saul Good
04-17-2011, 08:53 AM
Marriage should be left to the churches. The state should only recognize legal unions between two adult partners and leave it at that.

Easy 6
04-17-2011, 08:55 AM
If they can find a church to do it, i'm all for it.

LiveSteam
04-17-2011, 08:55 AM
Nothing good can ever come from 2 jock straps & a dildo.

vailpass
04-17-2011, 08:58 AM
Hot, nubile, upwardly mobile young women should be allowed to wed publicly so long as the ceremony is nude and the honeymoon is broadcast live.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 09:05 AM
Marriage should be left to the churches. The state should only recognize legal unions between two adult partners and leave it at that.

This. It should be a meaningless religious ceremony with no legal implication at all. If you want to sign a contract that says everything you'll ever earn or own is earned and owned evenly by both of you, fine.

If the state insists on recognizing marriages, then it should be open to any two adults.

SNR
04-17-2011, 09:10 AM
Fresh off a thread about religion which was debated respectfully. I now pose the question of Gay Marriage. I am interested what the DC and holy land experts think about this issue. It seems to me that we are capable of debating controversial topics without personal attacks. It is my hope this trend continues~Don't push it.

Saul Good
04-17-2011, 09:13 AM
The best argument I have ever heard on this is:

"The Bible says 'Adam and Eve', not 'Adam and Steve'".

I found that to be a very compelling argument. I looked it up, and it's accurate. The Bible never mentions "Adam and Steve". That settles it for me.

SNR
04-17-2011, 09:31 AM
The gay marriage threads I've seen and contributed to on here in the past have always turned into heated discussions. Most of them weren't very civil.

Especially when that fucker Comanche was here. I hated that SOB.

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 09:33 AM
Don't push it.

LMAO

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 09:47 AM
The gay marriage threads I've seen and contributed to on here in the past have always turned into heated discussions. Most of them weren't very civil.

Especially when that ****er Comanche was here. I hated that SOB.

That is too bad. I have in the past lost my cool here and made an ass out of myself. It reached a point where I quit going here altogether. I returned with the outlook. I just ignore those who wish to resort to personal attacks. As to the other response the bible has nothing to do with rights afforded us by our government. It is however a valid answer as to how a person stands on the issue~

notorious
04-17-2011, 10:05 AM
Why does anyone really care what goes on between two adults?



Oh ya, the same group in which their religion says it's a sin to judge. The irony.

Direckshun
04-17-2011, 10:13 AM
To this day I fail to understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union.

Can anybody help?

Is there any difference? Legally or actually?

Saul Good
04-17-2011, 10:17 AM
To this day I fail to understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union.

Can anybody help?

Is there any difference? Legally or actually?

There really isn't a difference other than the fact that a lot of religious people are offended by gay marriage.

It makes as much sense for the state to call it marriage as it would be to recognize Bar Mitzvahs or Baptisms.

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 10:18 AM
To this day I fail to understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union.

Can anybody help?

Is there any difference? Legally or actually?

Stange enough it seems to be the use of the word marriage. With all the issues we face as a nation it amazes me this is still a battle ground~

Slainte
04-17-2011, 10:20 AM
To this day I fail to understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union.

People who get married believe they're on the fast track to heaven; Whereas folks in a civil union know they're already in Hell...

banyon
04-17-2011, 10:21 AM
Could not care less, either way. Imo, it's just a red herring to distract people from the issues that are actually important.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 10:27 AM
Stange enough it seems to be the use of the word marriage. With all the issues we face as a nation it amazes me this is still a battle ground~

Well, beyond the word there's also the federal income tax (and often state income taxes) where two "single" people are likely to pay more than if they were married. I'm sure there's also a litany of other federal programs and benefits and legal issues that the gay marriage folks always trot out as being closed to them. But, those things (especially taxes) are a pretty decent difference, and as long as they exist I think gay couples have a legit gripe.

If we ever solved everything on a federal and state level and made civil unions have ALL of the same legal benefits as marriage, in every state and federally, if we get to the point where its just a name, then I won't care as much.

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 10:38 AM
Well, beyond the word there's also the federal income tax (and often state income taxes) where two "single" people are likely to pay more than if they were married. I'm sure there's also a litany of other federal programs and benefits and legal issues that the gay marriage folks always trot out as being closed to them. But, those things (especially taxes) are a pretty decent difference, and as long as they exist I think gay couples have a legit gripe.

If we ever solved everything on a federal and state level and made civil unions have ALL of the same legal benefits as marriage, in every state and federally, if we get to the point where its just a name, then I won't care as much.

I think they deserve the same rights as any other couple. I do not know many gay people and none where I live now. I really have no personal attachment to the issue other than I think it is utter bullshit to treat them different than anyone else~

CoMoChief
04-17-2011, 10:38 AM
Eh, don't approve of it, I think it's gross and goes against everything in human nature, but they have the right to do what they want.

However I don't think they should be able to adopt children.

CrazyPhuD
04-17-2011, 10:41 AM
Personally the actual issue has nothing to do with gay or straight. The real problem is when the government gets to choose which adult you can or cannot marry. That's the real issue and what should concern everyone. Framing it as a gay issue is just the way to get people to not notice when the government is taking away your rights.

CrazyPhuD
04-17-2011, 10:48 AM
Because this is always a great one.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

BigMeatballDave
04-17-2011, 10:52 AM
I don't really care. Live and let live.

go bowe
04-17-2011, 10:54 AM
Fresh off a thread about religion which was debated respectfully. I now pose the question of Gay Marriage. I am interested what the DC and holy land experts think about this issue. It seems to me that we are capable of debating controversial topics without personal attacks. It is my hope this trend continues~yeah? no personal attacks?

you flea-bitten horse blanket closet chiefs fan, you!!!

go die in a flaming bowl of antifreeze laced with aids... :evil: :evil: :evil:

go bowe
04-17-2011, 10:59 AM
wrt to the topic, i am absolutely in favor of gay marriage...

i think they have a right to be as miserable as any other married couple...

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 11:00 AM
yeah? no personal attacks?

you flea-bitten horse blanket closet chiefs fan, you!!!

go die in a flaming bowl of antifreeze laced with aids... :evil: :evil: :evil:

LMAO that is just ugly and hurtful. That and it is false and off topic~

BucEyedPea
04-17-2011, 11:01 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=508901

go bowe
04-17-2011, 11:14 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=508901oh honey, i didn't know you could count that high...

Direckshun
04-17-2011, 11:15 AM
There really isn't a difference other than the fact that a lot of religious people are offended by gay marriage.

It makes as much sense for the state to call it marriage as it would be to recognize Bar Mitzvahs or Baptisms.

Stange enough it seems to be the use of the word marriage. With all the issues we face as a nation it amazes me this is still a battle ground~

People who get married believe they're on the fast track to heaven; Whereas folks in a civil union know they're already in Hell...

Exactly.

The only difference is symbolic.

Legally, there is no difference. Actuarily, there is no difference.

It's just symbolism. So I have no trouble with gay people getting married, since it's the exact fucking thing as being civil union'd.

gblowfish
04-17-2011, 11:16 AM
I have no opposition to this.
I believe gay people ought to have the same rights to be as miserable as straight married people.
Go Bowe and I are in agreement!

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 11:19 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=508901

Well you can join this one or go back and re read one of those~

alnorth
04-17-2011, 11:21 AM
Exactly.

The only difference is symbolic.

Legally, there is no difference. Actuarily, there is no difference.

It's just symbolism.

That is not correct at all.

J Diddy
04-17-2011, 11:26 AM
The government can have my rights to marry a dude. I don't think I'll be needing them.

nstygma
04-17-2011, 11:30 AM
What about a civil union between 3 or more adults?

alnorth
04-17-2011, 11:34 AM
What about a civil union between 3 or more adults?

what about it?

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 11:36 AM
What about a civil union between 3 or more adults?

Wow I never have even thought about that. Laws are in place prevent that also. I guess that would require its own thread~

nstygma
04-17-2011, 11:36 AM
what about it?
if they're consenting adults, why not allow it also

nstygma
04-17-2011, 11:38 AM
Wow I never have even thought about that. Laws are in place prevent that also. I guess that would require its own thread~who is the government to tell a group of roommates that they aren't allowed the same tax breaks as married couples

Okie_Apparition
04-17-2011, 11:38 AM
Get in on the ground floor of the gay divorce private investigator business. ABC, CBS & NBC may want to talk to you.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 11:38 AM
Wow I never have even thought about that. Laws are in place prevent that also. I guess that would require its own thread~

Its a red herring.

As soon as people start talking about gay marriage, someone inevitably goes to the dumb slippery slope argument, and eventually we're arguing about how this will lead to people marrying Kangaroos.

Civil Unions or marriages are between two people. Period. Where's the line? Its right there at two people. Not 3, two. How can we draw that line? Because we can, and its not a line that unfairly discriminates.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 11:38 AM
if they're consenting adults, why not allow it also

because we don't. period.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 11:40 AM
who is the government to tell a group of roommates that they aren't allowed the same tax breaks as married couples

the same government that tells single people that they have to pay more taxes, for no good reason, than married people.

If it were up to me, I'd eliminate joint returns and lower the tax rate to compensate. I don't care if your married, I'd make everyone file their own return.

Chocolate Hog
04-17-2011, 11:45 AM
If Saul wants to marry his bf good for him.


I never liked how the government was involved in marriage. The term marriage is a religious one that should be between the persons and the church and keep the government out. I am for the government doing civil unions for insurance purposes and things like that.

SNR
04-17-2011, 11:50 AM
Could not care less, either way. Imo, it's just a red herring to distract people from the issues that are actually important.Well, it's a red herring to straight people.

For homosexuals who want to get married, it's a little more than that.

go bowe
04-17-2011, 11:54 AM
Well, it's a red herring to straight people.

For homosexuals who want to get married, it's a little more than that.a striped herring?

nstygma
04-17-2011, 11:58 AM
How can we draw that line? Because we can, and its not a line that unfairly discriminates.how could you say that! your insensitivity toward many muslims and mormons is shocking o:-)

SNR
04-17-2011, 12:00 PM
a striped herring?A pink herring

nstygma
04-17-2011, 12:02 PM
A pink herring
not a red snapper? :spock:

SNR
04-17-2011, 12:05 PM
not a red snapper? :spock:
I went with the pink joke. I stand by it. If you disagree, then you're gay

nstygma
04-17-2011, 12:08 PM
I went with the pink joke. I stand by it. If you disagree, then you're gayif i was gay, will you stand by me? wearing pink?(you, that is)

SNR
04-17-2011, 12:11 PM
if i was gay, will you stand by me? wearing pink?(you, that is)Conversation: "It's not a red herring"

If it's not a red herring, what is it? In a thread about gay marriage, I say pink herring.

That's comedy. It's a great joke. Your red snapper joke sucks penis because it's gay.

nstygma
04-17-2011, 12:12 PM
If it were up to me, I'd eliminate joint returns and lower the tax rate to compensate. I don't care if your married, I'd make everyone file their own return.that'd be nice. also, what if having some sort of prenup agreement was a mandatory part of a marriage/civil union application?

nstygma
04-17-2011, 12:16 PM
That's comedy. It's a great joke. Your red snapper joke sucks penis because it's gay.see, that's where we have fundamental differences. you say things suck penis because its gay. i say things are gay because they suck the penis. (rule not to be applied to all gay things or all penis sucking things)

teedubya
04-17-2011, 12:20 PM
We have enough morality laws in this country... if gays want to have lifelong partners with other gays... let them, who are we to judge?

Ebolapox
04-17-2011, 12:21 PM
honestly couldn't give a shit less. let em' be as miserable as the rest of us.

CrazyPhuD
04-17-2011, 12:34 PM
As soon as people start talking about gay marriage, someone inevitably goes to the dumb slippery slope argument, and eventually we're arguing about how this will lead to people marrying Kangaroos.

What's wrong with marrying Kangaroos? Have you ever been in one of their pouches?

BucEyedPea
04-17-2011, 01:33 PM
Well you can join this one or go back and re read one of those~

Oh, I adding to it just so I don't have to repost. You can find where I stand somewhere in one of them. It's just gotten old for me. ;)


Well, except for the kangaroos that is. I mean it doesn't harm anyone to marry a kangaroo. That is all for new material....I think.:hmmm:

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 02:05 PM
I'd like to see the state of Colorado legalize same-sex marriage through legislative action or citizen initiative. Should that happen, I'd like to see a vigorous debate in my church over whether it would be willing to welcome married same-sex couples and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. I would advocate acceptance, and I would fully expect to be on the losing side of that debate.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 02:07 PM
To this day I fail to understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union.

Can anybody help?

Is there any difference? Legally or actually?

Marketing.

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 02:24 PM
I'd like to see the state of Colorado legalize same-sex marriage through legislative action or citizen initiative. Should that happen, I'd like to see a vigorous debate in my church over whether it would be willing to welcome married same-sex couples and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. I would advocate acceptance, and I would fully expect to be on the losing side of that debate.

In 99% of churches you would be~

DA_T_84
04-17-2011, 02:48 PM
Its a red herring.

As soon as people start talking about gay marriage, someone inevitably goes to the dumb slippery slope argument, and eventually we're arguing about how this will lead to people marrying Kangaroos.

Civil Unions or marriages are between two people. Period. Where's the line? Its right there at two people. Not 3, two. How can we draw that line? Because we can, and its not a line that unfairly discriminates.

Well, it's a red herring to straight people.

For homosexuals who want to get married, it's a little more than that.

a striped herring?

A pink herring

not a red snapper? :spock:

Conversation: "It's not a red herring"

If it's not a red herring, what is it? In a thread about gay marriage, I say pink herring.

That's comedy. It's a great joke. Your red snapper joke sucks penis because it's gay.


Guys, guys, GUYS....

It's a rainbow trout, and let's leave it at that.

DA_T_84
04-17-2011, 02:49 PM
Here's an interesting research chart I've found on the subject.

Baby Lee
04-17-2011, 02:53 PM
Its a red herring.

As soon as people start talking about gay marriage, someone inevitably goes to the dumb slippery slope argument, and eventually we're arguing about how this will lead to people marrying Kangaroos.

Civil Unions or marriages are between two people. Period. Where's the line? Its right there at two people. Not 3, two. How can we draw that line? Because we can, and its not a line that unfairly discriminates.

Thanks for taking the equality argument off the table. ;)

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 02:54 PM
In 99% of churches you would be~

I don't have any hard evidence to back me up, but I'd say the number would be far lower than that.

|Zach|
04-17-2011, 02:56 PM
Here's an interesting research chart I've found on the subject.

Haha. Nice.

Demonpenz
04-17-2011, 03:12 PM
gay peoples time were the 90's they needed to get all they could during that time. Now it's time for Mexican

Baby Lee
04-17-2011, 03:13 PM
gay peoples time were the 90's they needed to get all they could during that time. Now it's time for Mexican

Have you and Snugga mailed your "save the dates?"

CrazyPhuD
04-17-2011, 03:20 PM
gay peoples time were the 90's they needed to get all they could during that time. Now it's time for Mexican

Hell no! I'm ok with letting gay people marry but no way no how do we allow mexicans to marry! :cuss:

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 03:27 PM
I don't have any hard evidence to back me up, but I'd say the number would be far lower than that.

Sorry 98%~

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 03:40 PM
Sorry 98%~

High comedy.

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 04:31 PM
High comedy.

;)

Otter
04-17-2011, 05:31 PM
I'll take the "I don't give a ****" option.

With two gay men who are lawyers going to demonize in a divorce? Hell, I promote gay marrige just to see how that works out and to be able to forcefully apply the same objectivity to conventional marriage/divorces.

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 06:29 PM
I'll take the "I don't give a ****" option.

With two gay men who are lawyers going to demonize in a divorce? Hell, I promote gay marrige just to see how that works out and to be able to forcefully apply the same objectivity to conventional marriage/divorces.

That is the is the stance almost everyone I talk to has. Yet it is still against the law almost everywhere. It is a huge talking point in politics although most find it silly it is not legal. Strange~

alnorth
04-17-2011, 07:05 PM
Guys, guys, GUYS....

It's a rainbow trout, and let's leave it at that.

For the record, I award full comedy credit to SNR. Pink herring was clearly the most superior off the cuff joke.

Chocolate Hog
04-18-2011, 01:29 AM
If Saul wants to marry his bf good for him.


I never liked how the government was involved in marriage. The term marriage is a religious one that should be between the persons and the church and keep the government out. I am for the government doing civil unions for insurance purposes and things like that.

Not sure why this post was ignored.

Saul Good
04-18-2011, 06:08 AM
Not sure why this post was ignored.

Maybe because the first response in the thread said the same thing sans your incessant humping of my leg.

Amnorix
04-18-2011, 06:46 AM
Personally the actual issue has nothing to do with gay or straight. The real problem is when the government gets to choose which adult you can or cannot marry. That's the real issue and what should concern everyone. Framing it as a gay issue is just the way to get people to not notice when the government is taking away your rights.


Err...what adult is the government saying you can/can't marry?

Amnorix
04-18-2011, 06:55 AM
Wow, times sure have changed. Seems like everyone is on board now. I seem to remember being in the minority on this issue when Massachusetts became the first state to allow it, by judicial decree no less (the horror!)

As I've said before, gay marriage is somewhat similar to interracial marriage -- prohibited and abhorred throughout most of human history, and inevitably legal and more accepted on a going-forward basis. The red states can fight it, but that one is a loser.

I think it's fairly obvious, as others here have said, that we should at least recognize civil unions on a governmental level, so that homosexuals can enjoy the same package of rights/benefits that married couples get just by going through the ceremony. The word "marriage", being technically religious, should be left to the discretion of the various churches.

ROYC75
04-18-2011, 07:08 AM
God says it's an abomination, that's good enough for me.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2011, 07:20 AM
Not sure why this post was ignored.

I just saw your quote since I haven't read most of the thread. Just one thing I have to say marriage wasn't always a religious thing either. People used to just up and marry. It was also primarily an economic union through the joining of families before modern times too. Love didn't have a role or much of one. You should read more 19th century romance novels. ;)

Garcia Bronco
04-18-2011, 07:41 AM
I woukd like to see marriage tax breaks removed and no longer recognized at a state of federal level.

FishingRod
04-18-2011, 07:41 AM
God says it's an abomination, that's good enough for me.


I am certainly no biblical scholar but does God ever change his/her/its mind? Or are people that eat things deemed unclean being disobedient of the Lord? Was it ok to decide the Sabbath should be on Sunday? What does God think of a Bunny that poops Candy being associated with what should be the most important most holy event in the history of the planet? And on and on.

Saul Good
04-18-2011, 07:54 AM
Wow, times sure have changed. Seems like everyone is on board now. I seem to remember being in the minority on this issue when Massachusetts became the first state to allow it, by judicial decree no less (the horror!)

As I've said before, gay marriage is somewhat similar to interracial marriage -- prohibited and abhorred throughout most of human history, and inevitably legal and more accepted on a going-forward basis. The red states can fight it, but that one is a loser.

I think it's fairly obvious, as others here have said, that we should at least recognize civil unions on a governmental level, so that homosexuals can enjoy the same package of rights/benefits that married couples get just by going through the ceremony. The word "marriage", being technically religious, should be left to the discretion of the various churches.

I'm still against it being enacted by judicial fiat. If something is important, enact it the right way.

petegz28
04-18-2011, 07:56 AM
Marriage should be left to the churches. The state should only recognize legal unions between two adult partners and leave it at that.

I'll go for this.

FishingRod
04-18-2011, 08:14 AM
People are way too hung up on who is doing what to whom. Marriage can be defined by whatever criteria a particular religious group deems it to be and should be none of the Governments business. If ones church does not recognize Gay marriage, a marriage after divorce, marriage between people of different religion that should be the business of that religious group and if you don’t like it try and change it from within or get out. Now if as the government has chosen to do, give benefits denied those that chose not to be married (which in my opinion is wrong) a simple form similar to marriage certificate should be available by to the citizens of that state that entities them to all that which is now simply and quickly available to those when they get married. Why can’t it be a Woman and a Woman? What difference should their having or not having sex have to do with it? What if one sister agrees to stay home and raise the children of her widowed sibling? Why should she not be able to be eligible for healthcare and social security just the same as if she were doing this for some man by doing nothing more than signing a marriage certificate at city hall?

Chiefnj2
04-18-2011, 08:16 AM
God says it's an abomination, that's good enough for me.

Does he sound like James Earl Jones?

Jaric
04-18-2011, 08:19 AM
I'll go for this.

Seconded.

Govt doesn't have any business being involved in Marraige. I don't have any business telling consenting adults what they can and can't do in their own bedroom.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2011, 08:50 AM
Seconded.

Govt doesn't have any business being involved in Marraige. I don't have any business telling consenting adults what they can and can't do in their own bedroom.

I don't disagree. But I also don't see how marriage is only about the bedroom or what takes place in it. It's much more than that.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-18-2011, 08:52 AM
I am certainly no biblical scholar but does God ever change his/her/its mind? Or are people that eat things deemed unclean being disobedient of the Lord? Was it ok to decide the Sabbath should be on Sunday? What does God think of a Bunny that poops Candy being associated with what should be the most important most holy event in the history of the planet? And on and on.

1. no
2. not disobedient just hurting themselves.
3. no the original was a floating sabbath, man wasn't made for sabbath the sabbath was made for man. ie you should rest every 7 days.
4. ishtar day was corrupt from the beginning.

Chocolate Hog
04-18-2011, 08:54 AM
Maybe because the first response in the thread said the same thing sans your incessant humping of my leg.

Why are you fantasizing about me humping your leg?

ClevelandBronco
04-18-2011, 09:06 AM
Wow, times sure have changed. Seems like everyone is on board now. I seem to remember being in the minority on this issue when Massachusetts became the first state to allow it, by judicial decree no less...

I absolutely oppose it by judicial decree.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 09:31 AM
I don't disagree. But I also don't see how marriage is only about the bedroom or what takes place in it. It's much more than that.

It's an expression. My point is that if you decide you want to call your lamp your husband, it's none of my business.

FishingRod
04-18-2011, 09:35 AM
1. no
2. not disobedient just hurting themselves.
3. no the original was a floating sabbath, man wasn't made for sabbath the sabbath was made for man. ie you should rest every 7 days.
4. ishtar day was corrupt from the beginning.

I’m not a religious person but find the topic fascinating. I have never heard the concept of a floating Sabbath nor that eating unclean animals was just a really smart suggestion at the time. Very interesting, thanks

KILLER_CLOWN
04-18-2011, 09:41 AM
I’m not a religious person but find the topic fascinating. I have never heard the concept of a floating Sabbath nor that eating unclean animals was just a really smart suggestion at the time. Very interesting, thanks

Well at the time it was THE LAW, and many Jews still adhere to it as such. Christians see it as something that can physically hurt you but not something that sends you to hell. I personally still avoid eating unclean animals.

Brock
04-18-2011, 10:00 AM
God says it's an abomination, that's good enough for me.

God also says you should stone adulterers, is that good enough for you too?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-18-2011, 10:03 AM
God also says you should stone adulterers, is that good enough for you too?

Nothing like a good stonin', maybe we could turn it into a gameshow like the running man/woman.

Detoxing
04-18-2011, 10:05 AM
Let the gays be married if they wanna get married.

WTF difference does it make to you? It's not your life so don't worry about it. It doesn't affect your everyday life so stop trying to pass your beliefs onto others. (not talking to anyone in particular, just my opinion)

ClevelandBronco
04-18-2011, 10:14 AM
God also says you should stone adulterers, is that good enough for you too?

Did you miss the whole Jesus and the stone throwers thing?

Brock
04-18-2011, 10:24 AM
Did you miss the whole Jesus and the stone throwers thing?

Well, Jesus' words aren't the ones used by dumb bigots to condemn gay people. In the words of ROY, "God says it's an abomination".

KILLER_CLOWN
04-18-2011, 10:33 AM
Well, Jesus' words aren't the ones used by dumb bigots to condemn gay people. In the words of ROY, "God says it's an abomination".

Well it is an abomination, but we shouldn't be killing anyone for it. I'll just let GOD take care of it. As far as i'm concerned you can do whatever you want as long as it isn't hurting me. The Angels are the reapers. So in the grand scheme of things this is a Non issue as far as i'm concerned.

SNR
04-18-2011, 10:36 AM
It's an expression. My point is that if you decide you want to call your lamp your husband, it's none of my business.Just as long as you're not a man and you get married to a lamp as your husband. That would be icky.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 10:37 AM
Just as long as you're not a man and you get married to a lamp as your husband. That would be icky.

Well that sort of goes without saying.

Men making love to male lamps... Who ever thought of such a thing?

vailpass
04-18-2011, 10:54 AM
I wonder how the potential for health insurance abuse would be addressed if civil unions were legally allowed?

Baby Lee
04-18-2011, 10:56 AM
Well that sort of goes without saying.

Men making love to male lamps... Who ever thought of such a thing?

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/679240" width="400" height="302" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/679240">I Love Lamp</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user367645">John M</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

ClevelandBronco
04-18-2011, 10:56 AM
I wonder how the potential for health insurance abuse would be addressed if civil unions were legally allowed?

Do you really think it would be any more widespread than it is now?

Baby Lee
04-18-2011, 10:58 AM
I wonder how the potential for health insurance abuse would be addressed if civil unions were legally allowed?

Looking forward to the billable hours litigating green card marriage discrimination suits. :thumb:

patteeu
04-18-2011, 11:35 AM
Its a red herring.

As soon as people start talking about gay marriage, someone inevitably goes to the dumb slippery slope argument, and eventually we're arguing about how this will lead to people marrying Kangaroos.

Civil Unions or marriages are between two people. Period. Where's the line? Its right there at two people. Not 3, two. How can we draw that line? Because we can, and its not a line that unfairly discriminates.

You're going to have to do better than that (at least if you support gay marriage as a matter of equal protection). What makes the line between 2 people and 3 something other than arbitrary? Why isn't it a line that unfairly discriminates?

patteeu
04-18-2011, 11:38 AM
the same government that tells single people that they have to pay more taxes, for no good reason, than married people.

BTW, since this is the second time you've said this I'm going to correct you. That's certainly true some of the time and that was the original intent of the married tax table, but definitely not the case all the time. If the two people have similar incomes, it's very possible that they save money by paying taxes individually rather than using the married tax table. It's an artifact of the progressive rate structure.

patteeu
04-18-2011, 11:45 AM
I'm on the same side as Saul Good, ClevelandBronco, petegz28, jaric, and billay on this (minus the part where billay humps Saul's leg).

vailpass
04-18-2011, 12:27 PM
Do you really think it would be any more widespread than it is now?

You are kidding right?

vailpass
04-18-2011, 12:27 PM
Looking forward to the billable hours litigating green card marriage discrimination suits. :thumb:

I never thought of that possibility.

Brock
04-18-2011, 12:28 PM
You are kidding right?

Ask Boeing or Microsoft if they're experiencing that.

vailpass
04-18-2011, 12:32 PM
Ask Boeing or Microsoft if they're experiencing that.

I didn't apply myself during my undergrad Research Stats class but I do remember something about sample validity coming into play.

I'm not asking the insurance question because I think I know the answer, BTW.

Slainte
04-18-2011, 12:40 PM
The Angels are the reapers.

WTF is this? An outtake from Blue Oyster Cult circa '76?...

KILLER_CLOWN
04-18-2011, 01:24 PM
WTF is this? An outtake from Blue Oyster Cult circa '76?...

The Bible.

Saul Good
04-18-2011, 01:30 PM
I didn't apply myself during my undergrad Research Stats class but I do remember something about sample validity coming into play.

I'm not asking the insurance question because I think I know the answer, BTW.

I haven't seen the data, but I would think that Boeing and Microsoft are large enough to provide a credible sample size. They have around 250,000 employees between them.

For reference, that's the equivalent of every adult in the state of Wyoming.

vailpass
04-18-2011, 01:48 PM
I haven't seen the data, but I would think that Boeing and Microsoft are large enough to provide a credible sample size. They have around 250,000 employees between them.

For reference, that's the equivalent of every adult in the state of Wyoming.


From my strictly amateur recollection it seems sample size is critical but also key is that the members of the sample are representativie.

Whether those employees who qualify to work for those two companies AND who are a member of the group in question AND utilize comapny benefits AND include their "partner" in their coverage AND are/are not comitting fraud are statistically relevant to the country when taken as a whole is not a question I am equipped to answer.

Which brings to mind another thought: would health insurance premiums be affected if employers were suddenly required to cover "partners'?

BucEyedPea
04-18-2011, 02:00 PM
Which brings to mind another thought: would health insurance premiums be affected if employers were suddenly required to cover "partners'?

I would think that's a logical outcome. I only heard this from someone and they did name the company which I can't recall, but there as a gay company that hired gays ( mainly or it was all employees). They had to stop offering health care insurance as the premiums skyrocketed much more than regular increases. They have their own health issues that put them at greater risk due to lifestyle.

RedNeckRaider
04-18-2011, 02:43 PM
Well it is an abomination, but we shouldn't be killing anyone for it. I'll just let GOD take care of it. As far as i'm concerned you can do whatever you want as long as it isn't hurting me. The Angels are the reapers. So in the grand scheme of things this is a Non issue as far as i'm concerned.

As I have already said the bible means nothing as far as rights afforded to us by our government. At least it damn sure should not matter. As far as the bible as an answer for a persons stance on the issue that is a valid answer. I am glad you are able to separate your beliefs from the issue. As far as the fraud response I have a hard time grasping that that line of thinking. "Hey there might be some people who try to scam the system so lets continue denying legal tax paying citizens of their rights just in case!"

Saulbadguy
04-18-2011, 02:56 PM
It will continue to be an issue so Conservatives can have a platform to run on (and get elected), just like abortion...except it's a bigger "non-issue".

ClevelandBronco
04-18-2011, 03:07 PM
As I have already said the bible means nothing as far as rights afforded to us by our government. At least it damn sure should not matter. As far as the bible as an answer for a persons stance on the issue that is a valid answer. I am glad you are able to separate your beliefs from the issue. As far as the fraud response I have a hard time grasping that that line of thinking. "Hey there might be some people who try to scam the system so lets continue denying legal tax paying citizens of their rights just in case!"

Even though I support same-sex marriage, I don't agree that anyone has been denied some fundamental right. I'm just willing to grant an option where none existed before.

Calcountry
04-18-2011, 03:09 PM
Fresh off a thread about religion which was debated respectfully. I now pose the question of Gay Marriage. I am interested what the DC and holy land experts think about this issue. It seems to me that we are capable of debating controversial topics without personal attacks. It is my hope this trend continues~Uppity much?

RedNeckRaider
04-18-2011, 03:11 PM
Uppity much?

LMAO yeah uppity thats me~

SNR
04-20-2011, 03:42 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 02:16 PM
Never got around to it but did want to ask how many think this applies to gays?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

WV
05-18-2011, 02:17 PM
Do I agree with it or condone it no, but who cares....there are much bigger problems to deal with.

tooge
05-18-2011, 02:42 PM
I really could give a rats ass if two adult men want to rub their faces in each others scrotum sweat. Same goes for gals (except for the scrotum part). I have only one issue, and it really isn't so much about gay marriage as it is about gay adoption. I'm not real hip to the idea of a kid having no choice but to be adopted by a couple that live what the majority of americans find to be an alternative life style. Unfortunately, the kid is gonna have to fend of slurs of all kinds and deal with things that kids from a traditional marriage dont have to deal with.

MOhillbilly
05-18-2011, 02:45 PM
If i cant fight roosters, they cant get married.

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 02:45 PM
I'd rather the kid suffer some verbal barbs than live in an orphanage.

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 02:49 PM
I really could give a rats ass if two adult men want to rub their faces in each others scrotum sweat. Same goes for gals (except for the scrotum part). I have only one issue, and it really isn't so much about gay marriage as it is about gay adoption. I'm not real hip to the idea of a kid having no choice but to be adopted by a couple that live what the majority of americans find to be an alternative life style. Unfortunately, the kid is gonna have to fend of slurs of all kinds and deal with things that kids from a traditional marriage dont have to deal with.

The same was said about white and black relationships yet we now have a president who is born from a mixed marriage. Pretty weak reasoning IMO~

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 02:49 PM
If i cant fight roosters, they cant get married.

LMAO

tooge
05-18-2011, 02:51 PM
I'd rather the kid suffer some verbal barbs than live in an orphanage.

I've seen two very good couples go through hell trying to adopt a kid in the past four or five years, and both are opposite sex couples. Let older kids in orphanages decide if they want to go to gay couples, and let little infants go to non gay couples. Flame away!

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 02:52 PM
I've seen two very good couples go through hell trying to adopt a kid in the past four or five years, and both are opposite sex couples. Let older kids in orphanages decide if they want to go to gay couples, and let little infants go to non gay couples. Flame away!

I repeat my reply~

tooge
05-18-2011, 02:52 PM
The same was said about white and black relationships yet we now have a president who is born from a mixed marriage. Pretty weak reasoning IMO~

Yes, we have THAT president. I'd say weak reasoning on your part.

tooge
05-18-2011, 02:53 PM
I repeat my reply~

and it's still wrong. Must drive you crazy to live like that.

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 02:56 PM
Yes, we have THAT president. I'd say weak reasoning on your part.

I detest Barry for reasons having nothing to do with his parents and anyone who has read my posts would know that. However I do not see what that has to do with the question or my reply~

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 02:59 PM
I've seen two very good couples go through hell trying to adopt a kid in the past four or five years, and both are opposite sex couples. Let older kids in orphanages decide if they want to go to gay couples, and let little infants go to non gay couples. Flame away!

I would accept this as a step forward. However the reason couples are having problems getting healthy white babies to adopt is because they're the most in demand.

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 03:01 PM
I would accept this as a step forward. However the reason couples are having problems getting healthy white babies to adopt is because they're the most in demand.

He is either playing the fool for the fun of it or he is indeed a fool~

tooge
05-18-2011, 03:06 PM
He is either playing the fool for the fun of it or he is indeed a fool~

No, not a fool. See, the reason our country is so F'ed up these days is that the most common sense take on a given issue is often the opposite of what is done. Don't want to offend anyone do we? Let me ask you RNR. Would you like to have been adopted by two gay men if your parents had given you up?

NewChief
05-18-2011, 03:08 PM
No, not a fool. See, the reason our country is so F'ed up these days is that the most common sense take on a given issue is often the opposite of what is done. Don't want to offend anyone do we? Let me ask you RNR. Would you like to have been adopted by two gay men if your parents had given you up?

There are tons of kids who are born into, and live through, worse situations. Much, much, much worse situations. If the parents are loving, stable and can offer a nurturing environment, then they've got about 40% of American households beat, irregardless if they're both named Steve.

listopencil
05-18-2011, 03:09 PM
Marriage should be left to the churches. The state should only recognize legal unions between two adult partners and leave it at that.

This is exactly how I feel.

Tom_A_Hawk
05-18-2011, 03:11 PM
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

So, as a Christian I am obviiously against it. I don't hate those that are gay, but I do pray for them.

tooge
05-18-2011, 03:13 PM
There are tons of kids who are born into, and live through, worse situations. Much, much, much worse situations. If the parents are loving, stable and can offer a nurturing environment, then they've got about 40% of American households beat, irregardless if they're both named Steve.

Now you are really making it hard on junior. Can't we at least change one of their names to Neal?

tooge
05-18-2011, 03:15 PM
I dont hate those that are gay or pray for them. I don't find anything wrong with it. Again, I just wouldn't want to be a kid raised with gay parents. Kids can be very mean, and I wouldn't want to have to go through the bs that others would give them, thats all

listopencil
05-18-2011, 03:17 PM
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

So, as a Christian I am obviiously against it. I don't hate those that are gay, but I do pray for them.

The concept of sin really shouldn't be used as a determining factor in whether a particular behavior is made illegal or not, just as Biblical punishment for that sin really shouldn't be used to determine legal actions against American citizens.

kepp
05-18-2011, 03:22 PM
My opinion is that government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. It's a religious institution. The way I see it, it's not so much about being able to get married, it's about having the same rights as married heterosexual couples have. Personally, I don't see a problem with couples of any combination having these same rights. Where this is all messed up is that, forever ago, governments started using marriage as the litmus test for receiving certain rights. Congress should create an institution separate from religious-based marriage and declare rights through that. Then any dedicated couple could receive rights and, at the same time, any church could marry together whomever they wanted.

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 03:26 PM
No, not a fool. See, the reason our country is so F'ed up these days is that the most common sense take on a given issue is often the opposite of what is done. Don't want to offend anyone do we? Let me ask you RNR. Would you like to have been adopted by two gay men if your parents had given you up?

So you never answered my question...does this apply to them.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
As far as when I was a child it was taboo to be gay and few were open about it. Kind of like back when people did not want them black kids going to school with their white kids. I grew up in a Irish family where fighting was the norm and if the old man had a tank full you might catch a beating rather you had it coming or not. I guess that was a politically correct family in your mind because nobody was gay~

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 03:27 PM
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

So, as a Christian I am obviiously against it. I don't hate those that are gay, but I do pray for them.

This crap again?

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

"One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)

blah, blah, blah.

Christians pick and choose what to take literally, what to take figuratively, and what to outright ignore. It's convenient.

nstygma
05-18-2011, 03:34 PM
So you never answered my question...does this apply to them.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
do you believe those truths are self-evident?

Brock
05-18-2011, 03:38 PM
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

So, as a Christian I am obviiously against it. I don't hate those that are gay, but I do pray for them.

Wow, some stuff was written down in a book thousands of years ago and you're using that to determine how people should live in the modern age. Hopefully, you don't eat pork or screw your wife when she's on her period, DON'T WANNA GO TO HELL!

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 03:43 PM
do you believe those truths are self-evident?

I believe they should be. I believe in a creator and I believe we were all created which means we are equal. No person should have the authority to deny another person rights they enjoy themselves~

listopencil
05-18-2011, 03:49 PM
Honestly, to me this is a civil rights matter that will only be solved by a healthy separation of Church and State.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 04:05 PM
If married gay people will agree to all live on the US border to prevent illegal immigration while mining for uranium and gold to pay down the national debt then I am all for gay marriage.
Other than that there are just too many important issues to focus on, lets back-burner (no pun) this one until the real issues are solved.

side note: the local paper here ran a story a couple days ago about a couple of guys married to each other here in PHX who have adopted and are raising 12 kids. I'm happy those children have a home and family of their own. It makes me cry to think about kids in orphanages/no homo.

Brock
05-18-2011, 04:15 PM
If married gay people will agree to all live on the US border to prevent illegal immigration while mining for uranium and gold to pay down the national debt then I am all for gay marriage.
Other than that there are just too many important issues to focus on, lets back-burner (no pun) this one until the real issues are solved.

There's no "issue" to solve. Just grant gay people the same rights and benefits as everyone else, and that's the end of it. It won't cost anybody a thing.

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2011, 04:18 PM
There's no "issue" to solve. Just grant gay people the same rights and benefits as everyone else, and that's the end of it. It won't cost anybody a thing.

You would fucking think~

vailpass
05-18-2011, 04:52 PM
There's no "issue" to solve. Just grant gay people the same rights and benefits as everyone else, and that's the end of it. It won't cost anybody a thing.

That is your view. Certainly you recognize that there are opposing views therefore an issue exists.

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 04:54 PM
That is your view. Certainly you recognize that there are opposing views therefore an issue exists.

So we should probably repeal civil rights. Certainly you recognize that there are opposing views therefore an issue exists.

Brock
05-18-2011, 04:56 PM
That is your view. Certainly you recognize that there are opposing views therefore an issue exists.

Those opposing views aren't based on anything logical. The government's job is to protect us from foreign threats and extend liberty to all people. I don't need to hear about how they're too busy for it.

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 04:58 PM
I don't need to hear about how they're too busy for it.

I'll bet they weren't too busy to pass some resolutions honoring a sports team or some such crap today.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:03 PM
So we should probably repeal civil rights. Certainly you recognize that there are opposing views therefore an issue exists.

Yeah, that's exactly on point. Well done.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:04 PM
Those opposing views aren't based on anything logical. The government's job is to protect us from foreign threats and extend liberty to all people. I don't need to hear about how they're too busy for it.

Again, that is your opinion. Surely you recognize that other opinions aren't to be summarily dismissed simply because you don't like or agree with them?

Brock
05-18-2011, 05:04 PM
Yeah, that's exactly on point. Well done.

OMG how shocking and edgy!

Brock
05-18-2011, 05:05 PM
Again, that is your opinion. Surely you recognize that other opinions aren't to be summarily dismissed simply because you don't like or agree with them?

If your opinion is your opinion because of some thousands of years old book purporting to be the handiwork of God, then yes, your opinion should be swatted down like an annoying gnat.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:07 PM
OMG how shocking and edgy!

You are normally above this sort of comment. I wasn't attempting to be shocking or edgy and I'm pretty sure you know that. I'm attempting to engage in civil discourse here but if we need to take it into the sewers I'm comfortable down there.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:09 PM
If your opinion is your opinion because of some thousands of years old book purporting to be the handiwork of God, then yes, your opinion should be swatted down like an annoying gnat.

You aren't directing that at me are you?
From what I have seen/heard religon is one of but not the only basis on which people object to gay marriage.
Again, what is it that gives you the idea that yours is the correct point of view and other points of view should be dismissed?

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 05:13 PM
You aren't directing that at me are you?
From what I have seen/heard religon is one of but not the only basis on which people object to gay marriage.
Again, what is it that gives you the idea that yours is the correct point of view and other points of view should be dismissed?

For me it's simple. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment for ALL. It says nothing of all the majority, or all that the majority approve of, or all except them horrible queers. It's very explicit. ALL.

So it's either marriage for ALL or for NONE. And I'm ok either way.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:16 PM
For me it's simple. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment for ALL. It says nothing of all the majority, or all that the majority approve of, or all except them horrible queers. It's very explicit. ALL.

So it's either marriage for ALL or for NONE. And I'm ok either way.

When you say 'gay marriage' do you mean their rights to go to a government office and get the legal rights a man and woman receive when they are wed?
Or are you advocating for churches to be forced to allow gays to participate in their wedding rituals?

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 05:18 PM
When you say 'gay marriage' do you mean their rights to go to a government office and get the legal rights a man and woman receive when they are wed?
Or are you advocating for churches to be forced to allow gays to participate in their wedding rituals?

Ah. I'm talking about the government. If church A doesn't want to have ceremonies for gay couples that's their right as well.

blaise
05-18-2011, 05:19 PM
For me it's simple. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment for ALL. It says nothing of all the majority, or all that the majority approve of, or all except them horrible queers. It's very explicit. ALL.

So it's either marriage for ALL or for NONE. And I'm ok either way.

So, does that mean an 8 year old should have a driver's license, or what?

The_Doctor10
05-18-2011, 05:19 PM
When you say 'gay marriage' do you mean their rights to go to a government office and get the legal rights a man and woman receive when they are wed?
Or are you advocating for churches to be forced to allow gays to participate in their wedding rituals?

I don't know about the guy you're quoting, but I could give a fuck if churches don't allow it; they aren't bound by the Constitution of the United States. But there's absolutely no reason same-sex couples shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights hetero couples receive upon marriage.

Now, if that's already legal, then I don't know why this is a debate. But if it isn't, I'm not sure how it isn't a violation of the United States Constitution...

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:21 PM
Ah. I'm talking about the government. If church A doesn't want to have ceremonies for gay couples that's their right as well.

Thanks, I couldn't tell exactly what you were getting at there. Aren't the government procedures called 'civil unions'? Maybe gay advocates should start calling it that instead of marriage to take the "ick" factor out of it for the general public.

The_Doctor10
05-18-2011, 05:22 PM
So, does that mean an 8 year old should have a driver's license, or what?

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

An 8-year old can't have a driver's license, but every person, when they reach a certain age, can go through the process to attempt to procure a driver's license. And I'm relatively sure there are hoops to jump through if couples under 18 want to get married; if I'm remembering correctly, I don't believe two 14-year olds could just walk into a chapel in Vegas and emerge married...

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:22 PM
I don't know about the guy you're quoting, but I could give a **** if churches don't allow it; they aren't bound by the Constitution of the United States. But there's absolutely no reason same-sex couples shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights hetero couples receive upon marriage.

Now, if that's already legal, then I don't know why this is a debate. But if it isn't, I'm not sure how it isn't a violation of the United States Constitution...

Agreed, the church isn't bound. That is why I was asking for the clarification that he provided.

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 05:22 PM
So, does that mean an 8 year old should have a driver's license, or what?

Wrong analogy. The right one is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:23 PM
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

An 8-year old can't have a driver's license, but every person, when they reach a certain age, can go through the process to attempt to procure a driver's license. And I'm relatively sure there are hoops to jump through if couples under 18 want to get married; if I'm remembering correctly, I don't believe two 14-year olds could just walk into a chapel in Vegas and emerge married...

How do you respond to the person who says a logical extension of your arguement is to allow marriage between three or more adults?

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:24 PM
Wrong analogy. The right one is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses.

They aren't are they?

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 05:25 PM
Thanks, I couldn't tell exactly what you were getting at there. Aren't the government procedures called 'civil unions'? Maybe gay advocates should start calling it that instead of marriage to take the "ick" factor out of it for the general public.

There are a lot of legal differences between the two.

http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

blaise
05-18-2011, 05:26 PM
Wrong analogy. The right one is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses.

No, (and I don't mind if gays get married by the way). You seemed to be saying the Constitution guaranteed equal treatment for ALL. Or were you just referring to the Constitution saying equal treatment for people who have reached the age of majority to do things. I just wonder because you were emphatic with the all or nothing.

blaise
05-18-2011, 05:27 PM
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

An 8-year old can't have a driver's license, but every person, when they reach a certain age, can go through the process to attempt to procure a driver's license. And I'm relatively sure there are hoops to jump through if couples under 18 want to get married; if I'm remembering correctly, I don't believe two 14-year olds could just walk into a chapel in Vegas and emerge married...

He said all or nothing. That's pretty cut and dry. My point is to say you can't just say all or nothing in every instance.

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 05:27 PM
No, (and I don't mind if gays get married by the way). You seemed to be saying the Constitution guaranteed equal treatment for ALL. Or were you just referring to the Constitution saying equal treatment for people who have reached the age of majority to do things. I just wonder because you were emphatic with the all or nothing.

I was operating under the assumption that we were only discussing consenting adults.

The_Doctor10
05-18-2011, 05:27 PM
How do you respond to the person who says a logical extension of your arguement is to allow marriage between three or more adults?

If we're talking 'civil unions'... who cares? So they get some tax breaks... it's not like there aren't 330 million people in America trying to save a little on their returns... And ultimately, if they love each other as consenting adults, who are we to deny them the rights others receive?

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:28 PM
There are a lot of legal differences between the two.

http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Did not know, thank you. Apparently this issue is more complicated than some care to admit. I support the government focusing the necessary resources to resolve this issue after the real, pressing needs of our conutry have been addressed.

The_Doctor10
05-18-2011, 05:29 PM
Did not know, thank you. Apparently this issue is more complicated than some care to admit. I support the government focusing the necessary resources to resolve this issue after the real, pressing needs of our conutry have been addressed.

BTW didn't mean to come off as harsh earlier; I was replying at the same time as the other response was posted.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:30 PM
If we're talking 'civil unions'... who cares? So they get some tax breaks... it's not like there aren't 330 million people in America trying to save a little on their returns... And ultimately, if they love each other as consenting adults, who are we to deny them the rights others receive?

Thanks for the reply. I have a feeling the gay marriage advocates may not want this particular arguement to be made.

blaise
05-18-2011, 05:30 PM
I was operating under the assumption that we were only discussing consenting adults.

Then the all or nothing standard you referred to above is already being amended. You're saying it could be changed based on age, for instance. Unless, like I said you're saying the Constitution says equal treatment for all those who have reached majority.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:31 PM
BTW didn't mean to come off as harsh earlier; I was replying at the same time as the other response was posted.

Appreciate the thought but no worries, I'm as big a shit stirrer as there is here and expect to have to take like I dish out.

Brock
05-18-2011, 05:35 PM
You aren't directing that at me are you?
From what I have seen/heard religon is one of but not the only basis on which people object to gay marriage.
Again, what is it that gives you the idea that yours is the correct point of view and other points of view should be dismissed?

What are the other objections to it?

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 05:35 PM
Then the all or nothing standard you referred to above is already being amended. You're saying it could be changed based on age, for instance. Unless, like I said you're saying the Constitution says equal treatment for all those who have reached majority.

We all do. I'll be the first to admit that everyone is just drawing a line somewhere. I just like to draw my lines based on actual capabilities instead of "dis book sez homos is bad."

The_Doctor10
05-18-2011, 05:38 PM
Thanks for the reply. I have a feeling the gay marriage advocates may not want this particular arguement to be made.

I don't see why they wouldn't... If the Mormons can marry five or six people at once, is that gonna make them THAT much weirder than they are now? I mean, they all drive Chevy Malibus and wear suits while riding mountain bikes... regardless of how many angry vaginas are at home, there's a screw loose somewhere... But bless em, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, I can't see why anyone would really take offense.

I really think in 20 years, our kids are gonna look at this and go 'really?? This was an ISSUE for you people?' in the same way we look back at segregation, slavery, etc.

blaise
05-18-2011, 05:43 PM
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

An 8-year old can't have a driver's license, but every person, when they reach a certain age, can go through the process to attempt to procure a driver's license. And I'm relatively sure there are hoops to jump through if couples under 18 want to get married; if I'm remembering correctly, I don't believe two 14-year olds could just walk into a chapel in Vegas and emerge married...

Just to clarify about this being "one of the dumbest things" you've ever read. Your own posts here contradicts it being equal treatment for all. You yourself are saying there's equal treatment for all that have reached a certain requirement.
So, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to be an asswipe, but I really don't see how my response to simplex is "one of the dumbest things" you've read. Unless you're just prone to hyperbolic dickishness.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:49 PM
What are the other objections to it?

Traditional family, health insurance implications, objection to gay lifestyle, religion, are all reasons I have heard for people objecting to gay marriage. I don't claim to be an expert, there may be others I'm not aware of.

Pretty good article on it here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp

|Zach|
05-18-2011, 05:53 PM
I would object to it if I thought for a second it had any effect on me.

It doesn't.

It is just a matter of time...

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 05:53 PM
Traditional family, health insurance implications, objection to gay lifestyle, religion, are all reasons I have heard for people objecting to gay marriage. I don't claim to be an expert, there may be others I'm not aware of.

Pretty good article on it here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp

I read page one and the guy went immediately to religion. Then to "it's a sham if you aren't having kids". Well hell, I know a number of straight couples who aren't having kids. Should they not be allowed to be married?

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:56 PM
I read page one and the guy went immediately to religion. Then to "it's a sham if you aren't having kids". Well hell, I know a number of straight couples who aren't having kids. Should they not be allowed to be married?

You didn't read the article, which is fine. I rarely read posted articles here. But you can't hope to discuss an article after reading only 25%.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:57 PM
I would object to it if I thought for a second it had any effect on me.

It doesn't.

It is just a matter of time...

Before you enter into a gay marriage?

|Zach|
05-18-2011, 05:57 PM
Before you enter into a gay marriage?

Nope.

Before there are gay marriages.

patteeu
05-18-2011, 06:45 PM
So you never answered my question...does this apply to them.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
As far as when I was a child it was taboo to be gay and few were open about it. Kind of like back when people did not want them black kids going to school with their white kids. I grew up in a Irish family where fighting was the norm and if the old man had a tank full you might catch a beating rather you had it coming or not. I guess that was a politically correct family in your mind because nobody was gay~

Of course it applies to them. But it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

patteeu
05-18-2011, 06:55 PM
Wrong analogy. The right one is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses.

No, the right analogy is that gays shouldn't be allowed to license a completely different kind of vehicle that heretofore has not been considered street legal.

patteeu
05-18-2011, 06:59 PM
I was operating under the assumption that we were only discussing consenting adults.

What about blind adults? Your "all" is going to keep getting narrower and narrower.

The "all" should be applied before the rational criteria are applied. Age restrictions are rational. Visual ability criteria are rational. The argument is about whether or not a marriage limitation based on the gender composition of the partnership is rational. I understand that you probably don't think it is, but a lot of people disagree with you. I think the majority should rule when an issue is as debatable as this and the minority should try to win the argument through persuasion even though I personally favor gay marriage.

Brock
05-18-2011, 08:08 PM
Traditional family, health insurance implications, objection to gay lifestyle, religion, are all reasons I have heard for people objecting to gay marriage. I don't claim to be an expert, there may be others I'm not aware of.

Pretty good article on it here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp

well, at least 3 of your objections, traditional family, objection to gay lifestyle, and religion, are all based in and or are religious in nature. Health insurance is the same for gay people as it is for anyone else. None of those are reasons to deny people their due rights.

patteeu
05-18-2011, 10:39 PM
well, at least 3 of your objections, traditional family, objection to gay lifestyle, and religion, are all based in and or are religious in nature. Health insurance is the same for gay people as it is for anyone else. None of those are reasons to deny people their due rights.

"Deny people their due rights" lol

That's pretty much the same type of dogmatic viewpoint as the religious objections.

The people of our country don't tax people equally* and we don't dole out government subsidies equally* so why should this one benefit be bestowed equally*?


--------------
* "equally" meaning without regard to distinctions between individuals

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 07:18 AM
"Deny people their due rights" lol

That's pretty much the same type of dogmatic viewpoint as the religious objections.

The people of our country don't tax people equally* and we don't dole out government subsidies equally* so why should this one benefit be bestowed equally*?


--------------
* "equally" meaning without regard to distinctions between individuals

My response would be why wouldn’t they be afforded the same rights in a union/marriage that everyone else is? I see it no differently than the civil rights issues of the past. This moral high ground argument is bullshit as is the majority is against it. We are not that far removed for the majority thinking blacks should be restricted from drinking fountains, restaurants and schools. I have no dog in this fight other than seeing the hypocrisy of the situation~

stevieray
05-19-2011, 07:24 AM
We are not that far removed for the majority thinking blacks should be restricted from drinking fountains, restaurants and schools.
Woodrow Wilson segregated the military and govt in the the early 20th century. It wasn't always like that. Blacks who fought in the Revolutionary War were pensioners of the US.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 07:35 AM
My response would be why wouldn’t they be afforded the same rights in a union/marriage that everyone else is? I see it no differently than the civil rights issues of the past. This moral high ground argument is bullshit as is the majority is against it. We are not that far removed for the majority thinking blacks should be restricted from drinking fountains, restaurants and schools. I have no dog in this fight other than seeing the hypocrisy of the situation~

They are. Do you know of or have you ever heard of any man and woman who were ever turned down for a marriage license because one or both of them was gay?

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 07:42 AM
Woodrow Wilson segregated the military and govt in the the early 20th century. It wasn't always like that. Blacks who fought in the Revolutionary War were pensioners of the US.

And in my lifetime they still suffered ridiculous racism. Your argument could be taken back to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation from 1863. Although anyone who has done any reading from that time knows that was a crock of shit loaded with selective enforcement and allowing exceptions. It was not until the 50s and 60s that serious change was made. I point to the civil rights movement because of the similarities although that subject would require a thread of its own~

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 07:48 AM
They are. Do you know of or have you ever heard of any man and woman who were ever turned down for a marriage license because one or both of them was gay?

They are widely denied social benefits and financial benefits and it is out right illegal in most states. I guess I don’t understand your answer~

stevieray
05-19-2011, 07:55 AM
It was not until the 50s and 60s that serious change was made.

ya, drop out rate, incarceration, abortion and illegitmacy alll went through the roof.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 08:16 AM
They are widely denied social benefits and financial benefits and it is out right illegal in most states. I guess I don’t understand your answer~

No, it's legal in all states. What's not authorized, with a handful of exceptions, is for men to marry men and for women to marry women, regardless of whether those men and women are straight or gay.

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 08:35 AM
No, it's legal in all states. What's not authorized, with a handful of exceptions, is for men to marry men and for women to marry women, regardless of whether those men and women are straight or gay.

I see this entire issue as hypocritical. That said we will most likely not change each other’s mind. You see it as fine and I don’t. It is as simple as that~

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 08:38 AM
ya, drop out rate, incarceration, abortion and illegitmacy alll went through the roof.

I would enjoy that discussion and it would require its own thread~

Simplex3
05-19-2011, 08:42 AM
I would enjoy that discussion and it would require its own thread~

Agreed.

mikey23545
05-19-2011, 08:57 AM
I would object to it if I thought for a second it had any effect on me.

It doesn't.

It is just a matter of time...

Thanks for admitting just how self-centered you are.

Brock
05-19-2011, 09:00 AM
"Deny people their due rights" lol

That's pretty much the same type of dogmatic viewpoint as the religious objections.

The people of our country don't tax people equally* and we don't dole out government subsidies equally* so why should this one benefit be bestowed equally*?


--------------
* "equally" meaning without regard to distinctions between individuals

This is not a monetary argument. Allowing gay people to form civil unions doesn't cost anybody a thing.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 09:06 AM
I see this entire issue as hypocritical. That said we will most likely not change each other’s mind. You see it as fine and I don’t. It is as simple as that~

I don't see it as fine. I'm in favor of gay marriage because I think it would be good for society. But I'm also in favor of using our deliberative legislative process for sorting out what we collectively believe is good for society.

I think it's hypocritical to believe that gay people have a right to government subsidized marriage but close blood relatives or groups of three or more people do not. Or to believe that the current home mortgage interest deduction is fine but to refuse to believe that a wealthy person who splits time between 5 expensive houses doesn't have a right to deduct the interest from all 5 of his mortgages.

Cave Johnson
05-19-2011, 09:07 AM
Traditional family, health insurance implications, objection to gay lifestyle, religion, are all reasons I have heard for people objecting to gay marriage. I don't claim to be an expert, there may be others I'm not aware of.

Pretty good article on it here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp

In the interest of being open minded, I read the article. I'll take the points in order.

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage......This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.

Progressive (that is, a majority) Christians and all secularists would disagree with the Biblical control of women model outlined above.

Second, kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry (someone from the right clan or family, of the right age, with proper abilities, wealth, or an adjoining vineyard), but, more important, whom one may not marry. Incest prohibition and other kinship rules that dictate one's few permissible and many impermissible sweethearts are part of traditional marriage. Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints.

Sorry, that's just scaremongering. Incest is prohibited by law, and there's no reason the law can't evolve to address this "issue".

Third, marriage changes the nature of sexual relations between a man and a woman. Sexual intercourse between a married couple is licit; sexual intercourse before marriage, or adulterous sex during marriage, is not......Gay sexual practice is not sortable into these categories.

That just predisposes gay sex is illicit. Gay married couples can work out monogamy or adultery just as well as the straights.

Fourth, marriage defines the end of childhood, sets a boundary between generations within the same family and between families, and establishes the rules in any given society for crossing those boundaries. Marriage usually takes place at the beginning of adulthood; it changes the status of bride and groom from child in the birth family to adult in a new family.

So only 18 year old straights can marry? Got it.

And here's the best part of the article.

Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done

Allow me to retort. F**k off, you twice divorced MF. So much hypocrisy. Vailpass, this is a shit article, as are pretty much all arguments against gay marriage. There's a reason the pro-Prop 8 experts got pwned at trial.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 09:10 AM
This is not a monetary argument. Allowing gay people to form civil unions doesn't cost anybody a thing.

This is definitely about money. Survivor benefits from SS to name just one example. There are some non-monetary interests involved as well, for example the rules of intestacy. Most of the non-monetary interests can be solved by a lawyer though (for example, having a will drafted to make the rules of intestacy irrelevant) which boils down to money.

Brock
05-19-2011, 09:26 AM
This is definitely about money. Survivor benefits from SS to name just one example. There are some non-monetary interests involved as well, for example the rules of intestacy. Most of the non-monetary interests can be solved by a lawyer though (for example, having a will drafted to make the rules of intestacy irrelevant) which boils down to money.

Yeah, that stuff too!! /bible thumpers

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 09:53 AM
Amazingly 235 years later we still have people agreeing some people are “more equal” than others~

Cave Johnson
05-19-2011, 09:59 AM
This is definitely about money. Survivor benefits from SS to name just one example. There are some non-monetary interests involved as well, for example the rules of intestacy. Most of the non-monetary interests can be solved by a lawyer though (for example, having a will drafted to make the rules of intestacy irrelevant) which boils down to money.

So we can't afford equal protection now? Is that what you're hanging your hat on?

Might as well bring up the Chuck and Larry fraud scenario while you're at it.

Graystoke
05-19-2011, 10:22 AM
Amazingly 235 years later we still have people agreeing some people are “more equal” than others~

Dang Straight! No pun intended.
I was very proud of Iowa to be one of the first States in the Union to recognize Gay Marriage. Then things got very political and the hard righters had a recall on the Iowa Supreme Justices.
I have Christian values and faith. But I can't fathom why the Value's Crowd ignores a basic fundamental Christian saying.

Love One Another.
It is not our job to judge. Let God sort it out.

vailpass
05-19-2011, 10:23 AM
Dang Straight! No pun intended.
I was very proud of Iowa to be one of the first States in the Union to recognize Gay Marriage. Then things got very political and the hard righters had a recall on the Iowa Supreme Justices.
I have Christian values and faith. But I can't fathom why the Value's Crowd ignores a basic fundamental Christian saying.

Love One Another.
It is not our job to judge. Let God sort it out.

Shut the f*** up.

Graystoke
05-19-2011, 10:48 AM
Shut the f*** up.

Or I could do that:thumb:

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 10:54 AM
Or I could do that:thumb:

LMAO

vailpass
05-19-2011, 10:56 AM
Or I could do that:thumb:

God I miss Skip. This isn't as easy as it looks.

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 11:00 AM
God I miss Skip. This isn't as easy as it looks.

LMAO

tooge
05-19-2011, 11:19 AM
So you never answered my question...does this apply to them.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
As far as when I was a child it was taboo to be gay and few were open about it. Kind of like back when people did not want them black kids going to school with their white kids. I grew up in a Irish family where fighting was the norm and if the old man had a tank full you might catch a beating rather you had it coming or not. I guess that was a politically correct family in your mind because nobody was gay~

to answer your question, no, I dont think it applies the same way to white/black relationships. We live here and now, not in the 1960's. I can't tell you what my thoughts would have been 50 years ago as I'm only 44. Inter-racial marriages as pretty accepted these days, so here and now, I think it applies to gays but not black/white couples. The other thing is that it is all over nature that the opposite sexes of a species create offspring. We see that from when we are born all around us. I have two kids that aren't of the age yet where they know how it all works. They simply think there is supposed to be a mommy(whatever animal) and a daddy. Two daddy's is different and strange. Again, not saying I'm homophobic or anything, just wouldn't want to be a kid raised by gay parents.

tooge
05-19-2011, 11:20 AM
I believe they should be. I believe in a creator and I believe we were all created which means we are equal. No person should have the authority to deny another person rights they enjoy themselves~

so its ok if I spank off in public whenever I want then?

|Zach|
05-19-2011, 11:25 AM
Thanks for admitting just how self-centered you are.

What can I say. I just don't feel like I need to get all up in other adults lives.

Like you. You being a tin foil hat wearing paranoid idiot isn't any of my business and it is not on me to try and change it.

Bump
05-19-2011, 11:27 AM
since divorces are happening at a higher rate than marriages, should we really care about what the church has to think about marriage? Let them get married, who cares.

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 11:51 AM
so its ok if I spank off in public whenever I want then?

I do not see that as a right, and do not see how it relates to the subject~

patteeu
05-19-2011, 01:02 PM
So we can't afford equal protection now? Is that what you're hanging your hat on?

Might as well bring up the Chuck and Larry fraud scenario while you're at it.

That's a perverse interpretation of equal protection that certainly wasn't what was intended by those who wrote and those who ratified the 14th amendment.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 01:05 PM
I do not see that as a right, and do not see how it relates to the subject~

Why do you see SS survivor benefits as a right?

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 01:13 PM
Why do you see SS survivor benefits as a right?
Because it is afforded to other marriages/unions. I do not see why two taxpaying law abiding citizens should be granted benefits while two different taxpaying law abiding citizens are not. At this point you appear to be playing word chess. I have said the same thing from the beginning and still see hypocrisy in our system, you do not. The OP was a question and you have answered it as have I~

go bowe
05-19-2011, 02:11 PM
How do you respond to the person who says a logical extension of your arguement is to allow marriage between three or more adults?as long as i'm the one that gets multiple hot wives, i'm all in favor of it...

go bowe
05-19-2011, 02:24 PM
why hasn't anybody brought up bestiality and inanimate objects?

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 02:44 PM
why hasn't anybody brought up bestiality and inanimate objects?

That type of argument seems to always come up. Where I see this issue as apples to apples. As in two people in a marriage vs two people in a marriage. I will now sit back and wait for the inevitable banana joke~

patteeu
05-19-2011, 03:04 PM
Because it is afforded to other marriages/unions. I do not see why two taxpaying law abiding citizens should be granted benefits while two different taxpaying law abiding citizens are not. At this point you appear to be playing word chess. I have said the same thing from the beginning and still see hypocrisy in our system, you do not. The OP was a question and you have answered it as have I~

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just challenging your assumptions. Feel free to agree to live with the inconsistencies if you want. Plenty of other people do. I'm not necessarily trying to get into a long back and forth with you, but as long as you continue to characterize the opposing viewpoint as hypocritical, I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of the typical "gay marriage is a right" viewpoint. On the actual issue of gay marriage, I think we're in agreement.

BTW, two law abiding, tax paying brothers can't get SS survivor benefits.

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 03:09 PM
I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just challenging your assumptions. Feel free to agree to live with the inconsistencies if you want. Plenty of other people do. I'm not necessarily trying to get into a long back and forth with you, but as long as you continue to characterize the opposing viewpoint as hypocritical, I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of the typical "gay marriage is a right" viewpoint. On the actual issue of gay marriage, I think we're in agreement.

BTW, two law abiding, tax paying brothers can't get SS survivor benefits.

Where I see this issue as apples to apples. As in two people in a marriage vs two people in a marriage~

tooge
05-19-2011, 03:15 PM
I do not see that as a right, and do not see how it relates to the subject~

Oh, I thought you said "a persons right to enjoy themselves". My bad.

RedNeckRaider
05-19-2011, 03:16 PM
Oh, I thought you said "a persons right to enjoy themselves". My bad.

LMAO

go bowe
05-19-2011, 03:51 PM
I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just challenging your assumptions. Feel free to agree to live with the inconsistencies if you want. Plenty of other people do. I'm not necessarily trying to get into a long back and forth with you, but as long as you continue to characterize the opposing viewpoint as hypocritical, I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of the typical "gay marriage is a right" viewpoint. On the actual issue of gay marriage, I think we're in agreement.

BTW, two law abiding, tax paying brothers can't get SS survivor benefits.

but the social security act can be amended if brothers not getting ss survivor benefits is a problem...

and fwiw brothers are not like spouses (unless incest is involved which will no doubt remain illegal)...

spouses get special treatment under the law, for good reason...

treatment that the law does not extend to brothers, and i don't see any reason that it should...

BIG_DADDY
05-19-2011, 04:24 PM
I'd rather be raised by wolves.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 05:34 PM
but the social security act can be amended if brothers not getting ss survivor benefits is a problem...

and fwiw brothers are not like spouses (unless incest is involved which will no doubt remain illegal)...

spouses get special treatment under the law, for good reason...

treatment that the law does not extend to brothers, and i don't see any reason that it should...

Gay couples can be granted SS survivor benefits too if it's a problem.

We can draw distinctions between opposite sex spouses, same sex spouses, and brothers just like we can find similarities between them. Opposite sex spouses currently get special treatment under the law, but same sex couples and brother couples do not. One question is whether or not same sex spouses should be granted a similar special treatment. Another is whether or not brothers should be granted a similar special treatment. I'm all for debating these and legislating on the basis of consensus. But if the basis for someone's argument for gay marriage is that same sex couples should receive the same special treatment as opposite sex couples as a matter of equality, then why shouldn't brother couples? Are brother couples less equal than same sex (but not related) couples?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 05:39 PM
That type of argument seems to always come up. Where I see this issue as apples to apples. As in two people in a marriage vs two people in a marriage. I will now sit back and wait for the inevitable banana joke~

Except that isn't apples to apples either. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman.
Everyone is allowed to marry of age and not a relative, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's the same rule for everyone. Some refuse to marry someone of the opposite sex is simply refusing to marry. I don't see this a natural right. Best solution for me is just make it a private contract and let people customize it.

go bowe
05-19-2011, 08:38 PM
Gay couples can be granted SS survivor benefits too if it's a problem.

We can draw distinctions between opposite sex spouses, same sex spouses, and brothers just like we can find similarities between them. Opposite sex spouses currently get special treatment under the law, but same sex couples and brother couples do not. One question is whether or not same sex spouses should be granted a similar special treatment. Another is whether or not brothers should be granted a similar special treatment. I'm all for debating these and legislating on the basis of consensus. But if the basis for someone's argument for gay marriage is that same sex couples should receive the same special treatment as opposite sex couples as a matter of equality, then why shouldn't brother couples? Are brother couples less equal than same sex (but not related) couples?

maybe brothers are discriminated against and the ss act should be amended to redress their grievances...

but to my mind, the issue is the treatment of spouses under the law...

i am of the opinion that gay spouses are as entitled to legal benefits as straight spouses, and that brothers, cousins, room mates and drinking buddies are not spouses and not entitled to spousal benefits...

which imo is a rational basis for the distinction/discrimination against non-spouses...

patteeu
05-19-2011, 09:12 PM
maybe brothers are discriminated against and the ss act should be amended to redress their grievances...

but to my mind, the issue is the treatment of spouses under the law...

i am of the opinion that gay spouses are as entitled to legal benefits as straight spouses, and that brothers, cousins, room mates and drinking buddies are not spouses and not entitled to spousal benefits...

which imo is a rational basis for the distinction/discrimination against non-spouses...

I think there's adequate rational basis for discrimination of either kind. I'm not sure why it would be rational to deny brothers who choose to commit to a life of mutual support but not same sex partners who aren't so closely related.

My personal view is that we draw the line at spouses, like you suggest though.

RedNeckRaider
05-20-2011, 04:16 AM
maybe brothers are discriminated against and the ss act should be amended to redress their grievances...

but to my mind, the issue is the treatment of spouses under the law...

i am of the opinion that gay spouses are as entitled to legal benefits as straight spouses, and that brothers, cousins, room mates and drinking buddies are not spouses and not entitled to spousal benefits...

which imo is a rational basis for the distinction/discrimination against non-spouses...

That is what I have been trying to say. I just don't talk as pretty damn it ;)

whoman69
05-20-2011, 10:53 AM
To this day I fail to understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union.

Can anybody help?

Is there any difference? Legally or actually?

There is no separate but equal legally recognized.

whoman69
05-20-2011, 11:04 AM
Except that isn't apples to apples either. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman.
Everyone is allowed to marry of age and not a relative, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's the same rule for everyone. Some refuse to marry someone of the opposite sex is simply refusing to marry. I don't see this a natural right. Best solution for me is just make it a private contract and let people customize it.
Except that you leave those persons with no rights. A private contract is not recognized in most states in the first place. The opening of gay marriage in Iowa came about because recognition of those contracts in other states did not meet the equal protection under the law clauses built into most states constitutions. Specifically other states do not have laws to recognize those contracts whereas almost all states recognize marriages of other states.

The debate is centered upon the rights of gay couples and the lack of protections they have without a full marriage. By law a person involved in a same sex couple does not have the right of family to visit their partner in a hospital. If the couple have a child together and one of them dies, the other partner has no parental rights to be the guardian of the child if its contested unless they are a biological parent of the child. There are a ton of other issues at hand.

Separate but equal is a concept long outdated going back to segregation of schools.

ClevelandBronco
05-20-2011, 11:19 AM
Separate but equal is a concept long outdated going back to segregation of schools.

Except that there's no separation involved. The only part of this concept that is being applied currently is the "equal" part.