Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.

Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG

I'm sure other bigiots used the same logic to keep blacks from marrying whites. I'm not seeking to say black people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the same rcee as the rest of us.

Yeah you don't sound at all like a bigiot now do you?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.

Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG

I'm sure other bigiots used the same logic to keep blacks from marrying whites. I'm not seeking to say black people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the same rcee as the rest of us.

Yeah you don't sound at all like a bigiot now do you?

No, because marriage isn't defined by race, plus I didn't say that. That was a nice try though. Care to try again?

I find it funny that the people are trying so hard to make this a bigotry issue when it isn't. This is about trying to change definitions and traditions because some don't meet the requirements. They are NOT denied any "rights" - they choose not to conform to them.

Lets just be clear on one more thing - especially for you "power to the people" folks(for the people by the people). Not ONE state has voted for gay marriage - the population doesn't want to change it's definition of marriage. It is being forced by the courts. I find it interesting that some are strangely quiet when it comes to letting the people decide on this.

Think what you people wish - There is no bigotry in my position, you are trying awful hard to manufacture some though. But I do say this is a better tactic that trying to call me a homophobe

Anyway - you people can continue to allow courts to decide your fate - I will continue to work for the values and principles this nation was founded on. Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.

Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG

I'm sure other bigiots used the same logic to keep blacks from marrying whites. I'm not seeking to say black people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the same rcee as the rest of us.

Yeah you don't sound at all like a bigiot now do you?

No, because marriage isn't defined by race, plus I didn't say that. That was a nice try though. Care to try again?

I find it funny that the people are trying so hard to make this a bigotry issue when it isn't. This is about trying to change definitions and traditions because some don't meet the requirements. They are NOT denied any "rights" - they choose not to conform to them.

Lets just be clear on one more thing - especially for you "power to the people" folks(for the people by the people). Not ONE state has voted for gay marriage - the population doesn't want to change it's definition of marriage. It is being forced by the courts. I find it interesting that some are strangely quiet when it comes to letting the people decide on this.

Think what you people wish - There is no bigotry in my position, you are trying awful hard to manufacture some though. But I do say this is a better tactic that trying to call me a homophobe

Anyway - you people can continue to allow courts to decide your fate - I will continue to work for the values and principles this nation was founded on. Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

So you do support the change in the definition of marriage to allow for inter-racial marriages but you don't support the change in definition to allow for same-sex marrieges?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.

Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG

I'm sure other bigiots used the same logic to keep blacks from marrying whites. I'm not seeking to say black people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the same rcee as the rest of us.

Yeah you don't sound at all like a bigiot now do you?

No, because marriage isn't defined by race, plus I didn't say that. That was a nice try though. Care to try again?

I find it funny that the people are trying so hard to make this a bigotry issue when it isn't. This is about trying to change definitions and traditions because some don't meet the requirements. They are NOT denied any "rights" - they choose not to conform to them.

Lets just be clear on one more thing - especially for you "power to the people" folks(for the people by the people). Not ONE state has voted for gay marriage - the population doesn't want to change it's definition of marriage. It is being forced by the courts. I find it interesting that some are strangely quiet when it comes to letting the people decide on this.

Think what you people wish - There is no bigotry in my position, you are trying awful hard to manufacture some though. But I do say this is a better tactic that trying to call me a homophobe

Anyway - you people can continue to allow courts to decide your fate - I will continue to work for the values and principles this nation was founded on. Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

So you do support the change in the definition of marriage to allow for inter-racial marriages but you don't support the change in definition to allow for same-sex marrieges?

Marriage is between a man and a woman - period.It's the law too
Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.

Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG

I'm sure other bigiots used the same logic to keep blacks from marrying whites. I'm not seeking to say black people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the same rcee as the rest of us.

Yeah you don't sound at all like a bigiot now do you?

No, because marriage isn't defined by race, plus I didn't say that. That was a nice try though. Care to try again?

I find it funny that the people are trying so hard to make this a bigotry issue when it isn't. This is about trying to change definitions and traditions because some don't meet the requirements. They are NOT denied any "rights" - they choose not to conform to them.

Lets just be clear on one more thing - especially for you "power to the people" folks(for the people by the people). Not ONE state has voted for gay marriage - the population doesn't want to change it's definition of marriage. It is being forced by the courts. I find it interesting that some are strangely quiet when it comes to letting the people decide on this.

Think what you people wish - There is no bigotry in my position, you are trying awful hard to manufacture some though. But I do say this is a better tactic that trying to call me a homophobe

Anyway - you people can continue to allow courts to decide your fate - I will continue to work for the values and principles this nation was founded on. Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

So you do support the change in the definition of marriage to allow for inter-racial marriages but you don't support the change in definition to allow for same-sex marrieges?

Marriage is between a man and a woman - period.It's the law too
Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

As of 2000 it is the law that it is illegal to have interracial marriges in Alabama. If marriage can be changed once why not change it again unless of course you a bigiot.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So if a Man and Women decide to get hitched without some Priest of a Mythical Belief like Christianity doing the service it wouldn't be called a Marriage?

My thought is that there is such a thing as a legal union.
Marriage can be treated as a religious union.

A couple have one type or both.

The legal status allows the proper responsibilies that the currently opposite sex unions have under the term marriage.

One could choose to be legally hitched without a religious blessing (currently done in many places by a local judge, etc)
One could choose to be religiously hitched. There would be no legal benifits, it would be legally the same as living together.

Or one could choose to do both.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So if a Man and Women decide to get hitched without some Priest of a Mythical Belief like Christianity doing the service it wouldn't be called a Marriage?

My thought is that there is such a thing as a legal union.
Marriage can be treated as a religious union.

A couple have one type or both.

The legal status allows the proper responsibilies that the currently opposite sex unions have under the term marriage.

One could choose to be legally hitched without a religious blessing (currently done in many places by a local judge, etc)
One could choose to be religiously hitched. There would be no legal benifits, it would be legally the same as living together.

Or one could choose to do both.

So basically it's the same thing and the Religious zealots just have a problem with the terminology. Figures!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
As of 2000 it is the law that it is illegal to have interracial marriges in Alabama. If marriage can be changed once why not change it again unless of course you a bigiot.

Yep - looks like Alabama's law stems from bigotry. They shouldn't have tried to define marriage as anything other than one man and one woman.

Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.

Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG

I'm sure other bigiots used the same logic to keep blacks from marrying whites. I'm not seeking to say black people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the same rcee as the rest of us.

Yeah you don't sound at all like a bigiot now do you?

No, because marriage isn't defined by race, plus I didn't say that. That was a nice try though. Care to try again?

So bigotry has only to do with race, now?

I find it funny that the people are trying so hard to make this a bigotry issue when it isn't. This is about trying to change definitions and traditions because some don't meet the requirements. They are NOT denied any "rights" - they choose not to conform to them.

So now we have laws that are there because of tradition? Hmmm... So tradition says that the definition is man/woman? ...and because it's tradition, it should be law? You can have your traditions all you want and that is fine. But in the "land of the free" (supposedly) "laws" SHOULD NOT be put in place because of tradition. No one is saying churches must now marry homosexuals. That's where tradition comes into play. Do you define your marriage because of what the laws says? Because if you do you're a pretty sorry lot.

The gov't should have no say in who you should and shouldn't marry. How can you argue with that? The deeper issue with all this is why does the gov't have anything to do with marriage in the first place? What is the business of the gov't have to do with me finding someone I love and want to spend the rest of my life with her?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278
As of 2000 it is the law that it is illegal to have interracial marriges in Alabama. If marriage can be changed once why not change it again unless of course you a bigiot.

Yep - looks like Alabama's law stems from bigotry. They shouldn't have tried to define marriage as anything other than one man and one woman.

Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

That sounds a lot like a veiled "state's rights" argument, Cad. A nice way to state that the majority of people are bigots when it comes to gay marriages. I guess that's why that's "all you have to say"

It's not about changing the law, it's about whether you're willing to deny people equal rights. Denying gay people the right to marry each other is bigotry, just like it was when interacial couples were prevented from marrying. And yes, you're denying them. You people over there, get married all you want, you people over there, you can't get married. Simple as that.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Separate but equal, eh Cad? Gays do not have the same rights as straights. Civil unions, where they exist (of course not all states offer this), do not offer the same rights as marriage. Further, claiming that gays have the right to only marry those you approve of (based on gender or whatever) is just another way of discriminating.

Isn't the easy solution for this then to take the term marriage out of government??, nullify all legal aspects of current hetero marriages and mandate that everyone file paperwork for legal "unions" and then let the church or whatever religious org use the term marriage??

Why are people so insistant on using the term marriage in the government?? if anything the differentiation of terms would further seperate church and state!

As stated in my post above. Seperate the legal aspects from the religious aspects.

So if a Man and Women decide to get hitched without some Priest of a Mythical Belief like Christianity doing the service it wouldn't be called a Marriage?

Yes, and I still think this is the best solution, that way there is no confusion of church/religion and state...religion gets to keep the term "marriage" but everyone still has to be joined under a civil "union" if they want to share benefits, be entitled to alimony and inheritance ...etc, there is no reason for the legal aspect and the religious aspect to use the same terminology and it only complicates situations such as these

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn So basically it's the same thing and the Religious zealots just have a problem with the terminology. Figures!

Currently no, as it stands now it isn't the same thing as the two are too intertwined...if you get married in a Church now generally you also have to fill out all of the necessary legal paperwork and such which to me makes no sense, plus there is the issue that both the church and the state generalize by using the term marriage which confuses many...

I am surprised all of the proponenets of seperating church and state wouldn't love this idea of making every legal aspect be deemed a "union" and the religious a "marriage" as really changing the terminology has a very profound impact on public perception....

but don't limit terminology issues to just the religious community, as the proponents of gay unions seem pretty adamant about it being called "marriage" almost to the point where they aren't willing to compromise even if it means everyone gay or straight being legally classified as a "union"...there is something that drives them to push for the term "marriage" so I think both sides have thier fanatics in this case.

I would love to see a system where the legal aspects were totally seperate, couples could pick and choose what they wanted to "share" with one another such as benefits, inheritance...etc and also the term marriage was taken out of legal docs and replaced with union for everyone, would make things so much easier.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Separate but equal, eh Cad? Gays do not have the same rights as straights. Civil unions, where they exist (of course not all states offer this), do not offer the same rights as marriage. Further, claiming that gays have the right to only marry those you approve of (based on gender or whatever) is just another way of discriminating.

Isn't the easy solution for this then to take the term marriage out of government??, nullify all legal aspects of current hetero marriages and mandate that everyone file paperwork for legal "unions" and then let the church or whatever religious org use the term marriage??

Why are people so insistant on using the term marriage in the government?? if anything the differentiation of terms would further seperate church and state!

As stated in my post above. Seperate the legal aspects from the religious aspects.

So if a Man and Women decide to get hitched without some Priest of a Mythical Belief like Christianity doing the service it wouldn't be called a Marriage?

Yes, and I still think this is the best solution, that way there is no confusion of church/religion and state...religion gets to keep the term "marriage" but everyone still has to be joined under a civil "union" if they want to share benefits, be entitled to alimony and inheritance ...etc, there is no reason for the legal aspect and the religious aspect to use the same terminology and it only complicates situations such as these

Why should gays be denied a church wedding just like anybody else. Who here speaks for God. I thought God loves everybody the same. Who here speaks for God and knows his thinking on this matter.
=========

Hopefully soon the bigots will have their voice heard on this issue - that's all I have to say.

CkG

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why should gays be denied a church wedding just like anybody else. Who here speaks for God. I thought God loves everybody the same. Who here speaks for God and knows his thinking on this matter.

Moonie, now I know you have gone off the deep end....who says they shouldn't have a church wedding?? they could have a church wedding if they wanted one just as long as it is at a church that will do the ceremony...the main thing is that this would only be a religious matter, the legal aspect would be deemed a union, as it would be for everyone else in the country gay or straight

now if you are talking specifically about the catholic and the christian churches well then the church for one says they cannot do it...remember it is still a "private" institution no matter how much they influence govt and they can do whatever they want with regards to marriage ceremonies...now if a church, faction or whatever decides they want to perform same sex cerimonies then that is their business but to mandate that they do so IMHO is about as silly as most of your posts

God and what he accepts really has nothing to do what a Church does or *has* to do....

My question is why are proponents of same sex unions so hell bent on having them referred to as "marriage" even if an apt and totally workable compromise as deeming every legal aspect of every union (gay or straight) is changed to just that, union, and leave *marriage* to the Church...almost like you looney lefties are out to stick it to the Church and also the bible thumpers....gotta love the hypocracy....you guys gripe about how the religozelots are hung up on the term marriage but then you guys are equally hung up on the term.... things that make you go hmmm....

change every legal aspect for everyone to Union!! seperate the legal terminology from the religious, seperate church from state...make things right!! it is the smart thing to do as it saves a hell of a lot of bandwith and will seriously cut down on the bitching.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why should gays be denied a church wedding just like anybody else. Who here speaks for God. I thought God loves everybody the same. Who here speaks for God and knows his thinking on this matter.

Moonie, now I know you have gone off the deep end....who says they shouldn't have a church wedding?? read below and you will see I say they could have a church wedding if they wanted one just as long as it is at a church that will do the ceremony...

now if you are talking specifically about the catholic and the christian churches well then the church for one says they cannot do it...remember it is still a "private" institution no matter how much they influence govt and they can do whatever they want with regards to marriage ceremonies...now if a church, faction or whatever decides they want to perform same sex cerimonies then that is their business but to mandate that they do so IMHO is about as silly as most of your posts

God and what he accepts really has nothing to do what a Church does or *has* to do....

My question is why are proponents of same sex unions so hell bent on having them referred to as "marriage" even if an apt and totally workable compromise as deeming every legal aspect of every union (gay or straight) is changed to just that, union, and leave *marriage* to the Church...almost like you looney lefties are out to stick it to the Church and also the bible thumpers....gotta love the hypocracy....you guys gripe about how the religozelots are hung up on the term marriage but then you guys are equally hung up on the term.... things that make you go hmmm....

Make it right, change every legal aspect for everyone to Union!! it is the smart thing to do as it saves a hell of a lot of bandwith and will seriously cut down on the bitching.

Also I should add that under my plan same sex couples could get "married" at a church, it would just have to be one that performed ceremonies for same sex couples (chances are it wouldn't be catholic or christian)...but the main thing is that this would only be a religious matter, the legal aspect would be deemed a union, as it would be for everyone else in the country...seperate the legal terminology from the religious, seperate church from state...make things right!!

So the church can refuse to marry a black man and woman because it's a private institution? Just curious you understand. Remember, I'm not the bigot. No no, not me.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So the church can refuse to marry a black man and woman because it's a private institution? Just curious you understand. Remember, I'm not the bigot. No no, not me.

Here I will pull a Democrat political candidate for you:

Define Church?...be more specific...

as a generalization I would say yes, any church could if they so desired, or let me say that they "should" be able to refuse that or anything else they so desired to since they are a private institution/club and they make their own rules, for government to step in and interfere would in my opinion be seriously overstepping their bounds, instead their congregation would have the responsibility of forcing the issue as to whether or not they felt it was right/wrong.....just as an all womens Gym shouldn't be forced to accept a male member if they don't want one as they are a private institution/business, or the Black Panthers doesn't have to accept any white members because they are a private club/organization.

Never said you were a bigot Loonie, just that your as much of a hypocrite as you claim some of the right wingers are...compromise is never good enough for you lefties it always has to be your way or the highway.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So the church can refuse to marry a black man and woman because it's a private institution? Just curious you understand. Remember, I'm not the bigot. No no, not me.

Here I will pull a Democrat political candidate for you:

Define Church?...be more specific...

as a generalization I would say yes, any church could if they so desired, or let me say that they "should" be able to refuse that or anything else they so desired to since they are a private institution/club and they make their own rules, for government to step in and interfere would in my opinion be seriously overstepping their bounds, instead their congregation would have the responsibility of forcing the issue as to whether or not they felt it was right/wrong.....just as an all womens Gym shouldn't be forced to accept a male member if they don't want one as they are a private institution/business, or the Black Panthers doesn't have to accept any white members because they are a private club/organization.

Never said you were a bigot Loonie, just that your as much of a hypocrite as you claim some of the right wingers are...compromise is never good enough for you lefties it always has to be your way or the highway.

That comment wasn't there because you called me a bigot. I often do several things at a time and in many directions. And you are probably out hunting partisans if you think to catch me with some democrat words. I don't care what any democrat thinks about civil union. It is unequal and wrong regardless of who believes it. The prejudice against gays and gay marriage is nothing but a mental disease. I see no reason to compromise with a disease. I much prefer a cure. We don't have civil union for interatial couples nor should we have that for gays. Gays are just a variation of human expression. No need for them to be stigmatized just because people's minds are sick. It's time we grew out of the 14 hundreds. The give and take you propose to me is all take.

I'm not suggesting to station troops in every church to force them to marry gays. I'm just saying they should be able to marry in a church and be married if there's a church that will do so. Marriage is a vow before God. Who speaks for God to say He doesn't want this.

 

[Zebo]

02/06/2004 2:08 PM

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY<- that's all I have to say.

CkG

02/06/2004 2:16 PM

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY - that's all I have to say.

CkG

02/06/2004 2:33 PM

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY - that's all I have to say.

CkG

Rush's lies must be contagious.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zebo
02/06/2004 2:08 PM

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY<- that's all I have to say.
CkG

02/06/2004 2:16 PM

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY - that's all I have to say.
CkG

02/06/2004 2:33 PM

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY - that's all I have to say.
CkG

Rush's lies must be contagious.

You must have failed context class. What was that with? Oh yeah....the same line. So yes, all I have to say is: Hopefully soon people will have their voice heard on this issue.

It is repeated because that is what needs to happen for this issue to be solved. I guess when you don't have any other tripe to spew you go and try to make it up - sure was a nice lame attempt though.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do people marry. Ultimately isn't it because it makes them happy, the longing of one soul to bond permanently to another in an expression of unity of love and spirit.

Why do people allow the bigotry of their own unconscious self hate destroy that possibility for others because they are a handy and visibly different enough to act as a surrogate for the real thing they hate? Because of this constant state of self deception we destroy happiness in this beautiful world. We have met the enemy and he is us. We need to wake up so the world of future children doesn't have to carry and die under the weight of all our hate.

No no, we must use this beautiful government of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to create law to prevent some of our selection from having that. We are the elite and know what's best. Now we will turn truth on its head and claim it is you who are elite telling us.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That comment wasn't there because you called me a bigot. I often do several things at a time and in many directions. And you are probably out hunting partisans if you think to catch me with some democrat words. I don't care what any democrat thinks about civil union. It is unequal and wrong regardless of who believes it. The prejudice against gays and gay marriage is nothing but a mental disease. I see no reason to compromise with a disease. I much prefer a cure. We don't have civil union for interatial couples nor should we have that for gays. Gays are just a variation of human expression. No need for them to be stigmatized just because people's minds are sick. It's time we grew out of the 14 hundreds. The give and take you propose to me is all take.

I'm not suggesting to station troops in every church to force them to marry gays. I'm just saying they should be able to marry in a church and be married if there's a church that will do so. Marriage is a vow before God. Who speaks for God to say He doesn't want this.

Moonbeam, please try and actually read what I am posting as it would make this much less painful....I never said that there should be civil unions for gays only, I said that EVERYONE gay, straight, bisexual, interracial whatever should be legally classified as a union and not married, all of the legal documentation everywhere should be changed to reflect this...something as simple as changing the terminology between the legal and the religious will go a long way with public opinion as too many associate *marriage* with religion, people always push for a strict seperation of church and state and this is a very easy way to accomplish that.

This way you would not be stigmatizing anyone as every couple under the law would be seen as a union, only religious institutions would perform *marriages* and gays could even have that done as long as they found or started a church that would perform said ceremony...we need to seperate church and state in any way possible and IMHO this is one of the easiest and will most likely appease almost everyone except those who are militant on both sides that will never be happy...

 

[SNC]

My question to all of this is: When will it stop?
If you live an alternative lifestyle and demand that everyone else accept that lifestyle, what about mine?
Can I force the government to make you respect my lifestyle?
What if I believe that you should be able to marry more than one person.
If we are to redefine ?marriage?, than why not include all aspects of unions?
If inter sex marriages are OK, why not inter family unions?
Are we going to be so narrow minded in all of this as to exclude some lifestyles?
If we are to redefine what makes up a marriage, let?s do it right.
Let?s do it now. Because if we do allow same sex marriages today,
it will not be long before multi partner or inter family marriage advocates
are demanding the same protection under the law.
The right to marry the person(s) we love.
Will the gay, lesbian, homosexual, Tran gendered lost and confused communities
fight for the rights of Polygamists, and those wishing to marry there 1st cousin or sister?
I would like some input on this from a gay person that is in favor of gay marriages.

There is no, repeat, NO sarcasm in my comments.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That comment wasn't there because you called me a bigot. I often do several things at a time and in many directions. And you are probably out hunting partisans if you think to catch me with some democrat words. I don't care what any democrat thinks about civil union. It is unequal and wrong regardless of who believes it. The prejudice against gays and gay marriage is nothing but a mental disease. I see no reason to compromise with a disease. I much prefer a cure. We don't have civil union for interatial couples nor should we have that for gays. Gays are just a variation of human expression. No need for them to be stigmatized just because people's minds are sick. It's time we grew out of the 14 hundreds. The give and take you propose to me is all take.

I'm not suggesting to station troops in every church to force them to marry gays. I'm just saying they should be able to marry in a church and be married if there's a church that will do so. Marriage is a vow before God. Who speaks for God to say He doesn't want this.

Moonbeam, please try and actually read what I am posting as it would make this much less painful....I never said that there should be civil unions for gays only, I said that EVERYONE gay, straight, bisexual, interracial whatever should be legally classified as a union and not married, all of the legal documentation everywhere should be changed to reflect this...something as simple as changing the terminology between the legal and the religious will go a long way with public opinion as too many associate *marriage* with religion, people always push for a strict seperation of church and state and this is a very easy way to accomplish that.

This way you would not be stigmatizing anyone as every couple under the law would be seen as a union, only religious institutions would perform *marriages* and gays could even have that done as long as they found or started a church that would perform said ceremony...we need to seperate church and state in any way possible and IMHO this is one of the easiest and will most likely appease almost everyone except those who are militant on both sides that will never be happy...

I never had any objection to your plan except I'm gonna feel real funny introducing you to my Civil- Unionness. Maybe gay people will opt for husband and fife.

SNC there are compelling state interests in not creating genetic freaks or in paying out Social Security to 800 women or men as the case may be. Fix those and related problems and it's ok with me.

 

[SNC]

SNC there are compelling state interests in not creating genetic freaks or in paying out Social Security to 800 women or men as the case may be. Fix those and related problems and it's ok with me.

There is a compelling state and insurance interests for gay marring as well.
More gay men die of AIDS than straight men.
Insurance companies will be forced to pay, as will the SSA.
What difference does a number make?
If those 800 women would marry 800 different men, they would still pay out after the death, or retirement.

If we are removing the boundaries you can?t pick and choose for any reason.
Are 2 mentally challenged people allowed to reproduce?
Are the chances pretty good that the child will be challenged in some way?
Yes. I know my family adopted one.
Should the parents have made a wiser choice? Yes. Should our government stop them???
What is the difference? NONE! It is not 100% that close relatives will have ?genetic freaks? is it?
Is there any way to guarantee that to unrelated people will have a perfect child? No.
Where is the argument?

Like I said, if we are going to do this, we need to include all lifestyles.
Why are we limited this to gay marriages? We can?t just pick and choose.

My wife and I are looking into alternative forms of ?union? in the event
this really ends up in allowing gay marriages.
It could really work out in the form of tax breaks.
So maybe there will be some good that comes out of this.

 

[Moonbeam]

The aids thingi would of course disappear if there were real gay marriage, right, and people who marry already get economic rights so married gays would be nothing different. Science says genetic flaws compound with inbreeding so the state says no to that. Gays won't be doing any inbreeding. It's a percentage thing. If the wifes of single men can collect 800 times the social security benefits they do now then you're on. Otherwise the examples of similarities you draw aren't really similar at all.