Gay Marriage Debate...

[Keith 0]

He was just pulling your leg. Nothing to get bent about.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

He was just pulling your leg. Nothing to get bent about.

Maybe you're right. I just don't see how my views on this marriage thing make me a homophobe. I've repeatedly stated that I agreed with the concept of equal rights for everyone. I just want change to occur within the boundries of the law. Churches ought to perform marriages and the government can create civil unions.

never pull low......unless you are

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...then how about a constitutional amendment that bans "marriage" performed by public entities.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Ok...then how about a constitutional amendment that bans "marriage" performed by public entities.

What are you getting at? How would that help this situation?

never pull low......unless you are

[PhillyKev 0]

Your words:

Quote

Churches ought to perform marriages and the government can create civil unions.

So, instead of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, ban the gov't from being involved in marriages at all and let private groups like churches handle it.

Then, there is no issue.

[Treejumps 0]

Been out all day and missed the action. Only 45 new posts on this subject?

I think that the general concensus of the average American is that gays can live and do what they want unemcumbered. When I say average, I'm talking about the majority in the USA who are against gay marriage. You can tell that it is a majority because even most of the Democrats are coming out against "gay marriage". For those in this majority what people do to and with each other is their own business, as un-natural and/or immoral as many folks think it may be. Live and let live. However, trying to pawn off same sex couples as "families" is just pushing too far. This majority does not want to see children raised by same sex couples, and I would have to imagine they don't want to explain to their children why the neighbors have 2 mommies or 2 daddies. If you really don't think that constantly throwing homosexuallity into the faces and minds of impressionable young children or confused adolesencents will have adverse results you are truly fooling only yourself. Children emulate what they see. Adolescents already have enough indentity crisis. Now you want to add this to the mix? The 2 or 3 percent of the population who are gay willl not win this one. You can push so much and a tolerant society will tolerate, but the majority in the US is about fed up with this aberant lifestyle be constantly publicizewd, advertised, and pracitcally agrandized. I would expect a backlash against the gay culture now that they have pushed so far that there is in fact a majority against them on this issue.

Thank you again for this nice soap box.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

However, trying to pawn off same sex couples as "families" is just pushing too far. This majority does not want to see children raised by same sex couples, and I would have to imagine they don't want to explain to their children why the neighbors have 2 mommies or 2 daddies.

FYI....gay couples already do have kids. They can be in heterosexual relationships, have kids, and then enter a homosexual relationship. Also, one of them could adopt a child. As it stands now, however, if a child is being raised by a homosexual couple, only one of them has legal custody of that child. If that person were to die, even if the kid's 12 years old and has been raised by that couple their whole life, the surviving partner loses the child.

Quote

the majority in the US is about fed up with this aberant lifestyle be constantly publicizewd, advertised, and pracitcally agrandized.

Similar to bi-racial marriages not too long ago, eh?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So, instead of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, ban the gov't from being involved in marriages at all and let private groups like churches handle it.

Then, there is no issue.

Nicely put. Still wonder what it'll cost once it's all added up though.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 10]

Quote

Heterosexual marriage costs me plenty.

I pay to put your kids through public school

You don't have to be married to have kids.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Heterosexual marriage costs me plenty.

I pay to put your kids through public school

You don't have to be married to have kids.

Very true. So why is the most common argument I hear in favor of an amendment that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they aren't capable of pro-creating?

[Jayruss 0]

Quote

If you really don't think that constantly throwing homosexuallity into the faces and minds of impressionable young children or confused adolesencents will have adverse results you are truly fooling only yourself. Children emulate what they see. Adolescents already have enough indentity crisis. Now you want to add this to the mix? The 2 or 3 percent of the population who are gay willl not win this one. You can push so much and a tolerant society will tolerate, but the majority in the US is about fed up with this aberant lifestyle be constantly publicizewd, advertised, and pracitcally agrandized.

Is the majority really fed up with is? Considering shows like "Queer Eye", "Sex in the City" and "Six Feet Under" make money I think more than 2% of the population are watching. They don’t keep TV shows running if there aren’t audiences watching. I hardly consider that cramming a lifestyle down anyone's throat.

I do agree with you in that gay people wont get the title "Marred" this time around, but I'm sure a constitutional amendment banning it isn't going to pass.

__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Ron 10]

Quote

Very true. So why is the most common argument I hear in favor of an amendment that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they aren't capable of pro-creating?

I don't know.

I'm not sure how I feel with them adopting either.

I don't think being gay is normal...And I don't want a child to grow up thinking it is.

However, I would rather have a child in a caring couples care than foster care.

I think Homosexuality is wrong...But I also don't think its the goverments business.

So you have to ask.

Is marriage a religion issue, or politics?

I think in the case of religion then the churches should make that call.

As for politics, then the government should make that call.

I lean to religion on this one.

So I would have to say Gays can't marry.

Now if the government wants to have some legal agreement LIKE marrage its more complicated.

Do they get the same rights as a "normal" relationship?

Tax breaks? Allowed to be included in health plans? Considered in death benefits? Allowed to adopt?

To be honest I'm leaning to allowing gay unions (And silly you thought I was right wing). But not calling it a marriage...Since marriage is in the scope of religion.

Issues with allowing gay unions.

If they wanted kids they would HAVE to adopt...That takes kids out of foster situations, and in some cases out of my pocket. And thats good.... You would have to deal with the whole "gay is normal" thing...Which I don't think it is. But homosexuality is not going away.

They could add each other to health care...And thats a big issue these days...So it could be good there.
However, then you would jump into companies rights...Lets say I have a very religious company...Now you could come along and tell me I HAD to support gay unions? Thats infringing on my rights.

I support gay people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. Just like I don't think I should have to be MADE to do shit for a black guy, or a female.

Affirmitive action is a load of crap. Be the best qualified canidate, and you should get the job.

So the first thing you have to do is decide WHY they want to get married...If its just to get the tax breaks...Then its the goverments right to say....

If its to have a union under god...Its the churches.

Sorry for the ramble...But its not an easy issue if you get away from the emotions.

Edit to ADD....Im not gay so Happythoughts stop calling me

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[happythoughts 0]

I'd be careful with taking a stance on this issue, you're awfully cute.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

To be honest I'm leaning to allowing gay unions (And silly you thought I was right wing). But not calling it a marriage...Since marriage is in the scope of religion.

Fair enough...but do you think we need a constitutional amendment to change a word?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Fair enough...but do you think we need a constitutional amendment to change a word?

Well it is actually DEFINING a word..And I think it is over kill.

But who else is gonna do it? And how else can they do it?

Are the other options exhausted?

It seems with some States saying it s OK, that it needed to be brought up, and settled once and for now....Like how I said that??? Chances are it will change anyway. But just cause it will change does not mean we should not deal with it now.

While I might think its over kill...Something needed to be done.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[labrys 0]

Quote

If they wanted kids they would HAVE to adopt...

Huh? Wow... that's pretty severe. Maybe sterilizing all gays would help. That way they WOULD HAVE to adopt. I can't even think. Do you really mean that?

Owned by Remi #?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It seems with some States saying it s OK, that it needed to be brought up, and settled once and for now

Precisely why SF is doing what they're doing. To bring it to a head so it can be resolved.

Also, the states permitting gay marriage are doing so because it's the only option that they currently have to provide the same rights to gays. AFAIK, gays aren't demanding the right to be married because of the word, but because of the legal aspects.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Huh? Wow... that's pretty severe. Maybe sterilizing all gays would help. That way they WOULD HAVE to adopt. I can't even think. Do you really mean that?

I mean they would have to adopt as in they can't have sex and pop out a kid.

And Im not sure they should be allowed to adopt anyway.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Precisely why SF is doing what they're doing. To bring it to a head so it can be resolved.

Well...It worked. now Congress can work it out.

And you know how good they do things

Quote

Also, the states permitting gay marriage are doing so because it's the only option that they currently have to provide the same rights to gays. AFAIK, gays aren't demanding the right to be married because of the word, but because of the legal aspects.

Are they entitled to the same rights? I don't know.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Are they entitled to the same rights? I don't know.

Any reason they shouldn't be that don't have to do with religious beliefs?

The female partner of a man is entitled to certain rights if they sign a document.

The male partner of a man is not...seems pretty clearly to be gender discrimination to me.

[billvon 3,112]

>This majority does not want to see children raised by same sex
> couples, and I would have to imagine they don't want to explain to
> their children why the neighbors have 2 mommies or 2 daddies.

Why? "They love each other and want to live with each other." Simple, and they will accept that as readily as accepting that men and women can love each other and live with each other. Children are very accepting; they don't hate other people unless you teach them to.

> If you really don't think that constantly throwing homosexuallity into
> the faces and minds of impressionable young children or confused
> adolesencents will have adverse results you are truly fooling only
> yourself. Children emulate what they see.

So if you had seen a little more 'gayness' when you were growing up you would have given up on women and gone after men? Somehow I doubt that.

>The 2 or 3 percent of the population who are gay willl not win this one.

Hey, blacks are only 12 percent of the population, and they have all the civil rights of everyone else (although it took a long time to get there.) That will come with gays as well; it just takes time to break down old prejudices.

[labrys 0]

Quote

I mean they would have to adopt as in they can't have sex and pop out a kid.

You are so uninformed. Where the hell did you get that idea? Being gay has zilch to do with the ability to have sex and procreate. Most gay people have no desire to have hetero-sex, but all are capable and quite a few do. Better re-think.

Owned by Remi #?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Any reason they shouldn't be that don't have to do with religious beliefs?

Yes and no.

If they permit gays to be "Married" for lack of a better word. Then that means that I HAVE to treat them as a normal couple. And that would be making me do things for them that my religious beliefs (If I had any) say is wrong to allow.

So when do you cut it off? What about friends that live together but never dated? Should they get the same breaks? Should I have to put them on my health insurance rider?

What about just roommates? If you and I shared a house could we claim a deduction on taxes?

Marriage was started as the union under God. Then there came financial benefits to it given by the government.

I personally think the right thing to do is remove the benefits given under law...But then that pushes many folks out without healthcare.

So its a hard call.

I don't think they should be allowed to be married...Not because I think its wrong (thats a religious issue), but because it pushes other issues up (Economic issues).

If I could make it so Gay couples could just claim the Tax break that would be ok with me. Allow them to collect SS and such, ok with me. But to make companies put "partners" on health plans in my opinion is wrong.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

You are so uninformed. Where the hell did you get that idea?

OK..Bob and Steve can't go fuck each other and have a kid from it.

Sally and Suzie can't either.


If Bob and Sally fuck..Guess what? It's not being gay now is it?

In case you need some help HOMO sexual means SAME.

So two guys can't fuck and create a kid.

Questions?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[labrys 0]

Quote

Then that means that I HAVE to treat them as a normal couple

Give an example, please? Under what conditions will you be forced to interact with a gay couple and how will a law change how you would have otherwise treated them?

Owned by Remi #?