Gay Marriage - Yes or No?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Pandaren
Here is my solution: Government sanctioned marriage should be prospectively removed and replaced with Civil Union for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

"Marriage", despite its secular use in law & government, still retains much of its religious connotation, which is why I believe conservative Christians have such trouble with the prospect of Gay Marriage.

The Gay community simply wants the equal protections, benefits, and responsibilities of the LAW.

U.S. governments (Federal & State) should thus stop using the term "marriage" and instead adopt the term Civil Union to classify partnerships of Significant Others of all orientations.

The conservative Christians can have their own Church sponsored Marriage, and everyone can have equal protection of the laws. Everyone should then be happy. I think.

I beg to differ.

I say keep marriage as it is. If closed-minded Christians want a church-recognized union then call those religious unions.

The problem is, you create enemies this way; it doesn't matter if they're "close-minded" in this respect, pragmatically they command a large amount of money and a large portion of the voting public.

Well, the law doesn't differentiate between rich and powerful and poor and weak.

Ultimately, if/when this hits the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages will become legal. There's no question.

The law doesn't, but legislators do, unfortunately. This does not make it right, but realistically it must be considered.

That's why I say, ultimately, the Supreme Court will allow same-sex marriages.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: conjur

That's why I say, ultimately, the Supreme Court will allow same-sex marriages.

Depends on who's on the court. Give it another 4 years and another term with Bush and you'll see this issue dead for a long time.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: conjur

That's why I say, ultimately, the Supreme Court will allow same-sex marriages.

Depends on who's on the court. Give it another 4 years and another term with Bush and you'll see this issue dead for a long time.

Are there justices planning to leave the bench in the next 4 years?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Czar
voted yes but if I were a politician in the US I wouldnt touch this issue with a 10foot pole

just to quote my own post to clarify

the US society right now is not ready for either allowing gays and lesbians to marry or banning them to marry
let them have civil union at most but wait with the rest for 5 - 10 years and see where it stands

I agree with you. I'd be perfectly fine with gay marriage, but I guess you have to make at least some progress to get to the final goal.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
Here is my solution: Government sanctioned marriage should be prospectively removed and replaced with Civil Union for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

"Marriage", despite its secular use in law & government, still retains much of its religious connotation, which is why I believe conservative Christians have such trouble with the prospect of Gay Marriage.

The Gay community simply wants the equal protections, benefits, and responsibilities of the LAW.

U.S. governments (Federal & State) should thus stop using the term "marriage" and instead adopt the term Civil Union to classify partnerships of Significant Others of all orientations.

The conservative Christians can have their own Church sponsored Marriage, and everyone can have equal protection of the laws. Everyone should then be happy. I think.

Who says that marriage is only Christian? I'm sure that there is another religion or some sect that will be happy giving 'marriages' to homosexual couples.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Romans828
I have a few more questions and did not want to be accussed of "bumping" my own thread about gay marriage...

1. Are the extended families or gay couples expected to get along?

Why wouldn't they? You lack faith in your fellow man's open-mindedness.

2. If your brother or sister married gay, would thier spouse be your brother in law or sister in law?

Trolling with flamebait. Utterly ridiculous question not worthy of a reasoned response.

3. If a gay couple adopts whose parents would be the paternal grandparents?

None...same as in a heterosexual adoption case. But, again, you're just flamebaiting here.

4. If a gay couple adopts then later one [sic] after the child reaches adult age would he/she having sex with a parent be incest?

Ask Woody Allen.

5. Can a gay marriage end in divorce if the spouse goes straight?

Can a heterosexual marriage end in divorce if the spouse realizes he/she is gay and has been living a lie? (It's happened MANY times.)

6. Should gay wedding aniverseries be celebrated in a traditional sence [sic]? You know paper, silver gold, sort of thing?

Why not?

7. How do you address a gay married couple you know like letters and stuff... Mr& Mr , Mrs and Mrs?

More flamebaiting

8. Are conjugal visits OK in the event one spouse ends up doing time?

Why not?

9. Who gives away who at the wedding? The father of the groom or the father of the other groom.

More flamebaiting

10. I still want to know whose father is expected to pay for the wedding. If my son goes for gay marriage I sure as hell am insisting that he is the not the"bride"

More flamebaiting

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.......

You're welcome!


BTW, I highly recommend you seek professional help to help you work through your very apparent homophobia.

i like how instead of providing answers to questions you couldnt answer, you just claimed it was flamebaiting. try harder next time. id think that after all that time being open minded, you would be able to answer simple questions. oh well, typical lib.

😀

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

BTW, I highly recommend you seek professional help to help you work through your very apparent homophobia.

i like how instead of providing answers to questions you couldnt answer, you just claimed it was flamebaiting. try harder next time. id think that after all that time being open minded, you would be able to answer simple questions. oh well, typical lib.

😀

I recommend you follow him on the road to professional help. It *was* flame-baiting. It was sexist, in the least, and, imo, it was gay-bashing. Those flamebait questions were not worthy of any type of response.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

BTW, I highly recommend you seek professional help to help you work through your very apparent homophobia.

i like how instead of providing answers to questions you couldnt answer, you just claimed it was flamebaiting. try harder next time. id think that after all that time being open minded, you would be able to answer simple questions. oh well, typical lib.

😀

I recommend you follow him on the road to professional help. It *was* flame-baiting. It was sexist, in the least, and, imo, it was gay-bashing. Those flamebait questions were not worthy of any type of response.

i can reccomend the same for you, because we partake in two different schools of thought doesnt mean that either one of us needs 'professional help'. your views to me are as equally absurd as mine are to you [i would imagine, anyway]
just like your comments say:

It *was* flame-baiting. It was sexist, in the least, and, imo, it was gay-bashing

but i didnt see it that way. i saw questions [alebiet a little goofy and nothing real serious] that could be answered, but instead you chose to use some lame excuse to avoid answering them. there was *NO* bashing and there wasnt even any sexist remarks present.

and i also like the "wasnt worthy of a response comment". youve still got no answers to his questions, and you just cant bring yourself to say I DONT KNOW and/or I DONT CARE.

oh well, im through wasting effort on this thread, i dont really care all that much about the issue presented. like most of the people present like to say, live and let live.

 

[SirStev0]

its called freedom... all men are created equal... aslong as they are concenting adults do what ever the hell the want to .. and the gov shouldnt impose on tha t

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: Czar
voted yes but if I were a politician in the US I wouldnt touch this issue with a 10foot pole

I bet whatever politician gets questions about this, would rather answer questions about the Iraq war 😛

This is called a wedge issue because it appeals to bigots to vote their bigotry rather than real issues.

BS - it's only called a "wedge" issue because the left doesn't have the majority opinion on their side but they somehow think that their opinion is better than someone elses. So they try to brand it in a negative light - a wedge issue.
This issue is just the same as many of the other issues that the left and right are on opposite sides about.

CkG

It is properly defined as a wedge issue because it isn't a difference of opinion. It is a difference between the presence and absence of bigotry. Because you are blind to your bigotry you are blind to reality.

 

[Gaard]

Tell me which is worse....people against gay marriages because of the 'definition' of the word, or the president of the most powerful nation on Earth supporting an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriages.

 

[maluckey]

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and has a long colorful history. If that?s what it takes to make you happy, then let no man stand in your way.

Where I have issues, is when the government legislates what is the norm, and what isn?t. Sexual preferences are many, and vary by culture. As far as the government is concerned, except in the interest of public safety, it should not interfere with the private practice of sex between to consenting Humans of legal age. This is not to say that it (the government) must grant all legal standing to a certain group of people with a certain preference, because they shouldn?t. Each group should be allowed to practice their preference in peace, without fear of persecution, or prosecution.

That being said, there is already a person pushing this very limit, as he wants the government to officially allow polygamy. Why not? Why not allow person practicing S & M to petition it to be a National Sport? Why not? Because the government should not recognize one preference over the other. This in effect is discrimination, towards those preferences not recognized by legislation. Is this not illegal? Where do you stop the governmental intrusion into your bedroom? Before it starts is my answer.