|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court annoys Montanan
Posted: 5/30/2008 12:57:55 PM |
since the thread topic is same-sex marriage, why is anybody even talking about polygamy? The same reason they were talking about bestiality.
They've got it in their heads that same-sex marriage is a gateway drug. | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/30/2008 1:36:31 PM | Actually....I am an advocator of a marriage certificate for hetrosexual unions because that is how I feel it should be. Most of us in all 50 states feel that way. It doesn't deal with rights or wrongs or good or evil to me. It deals with who are willing to come together as nature allows it to happen so they (hopefully) will spend the next 18 years devoting their parental lives to raising those kids. That is who is deserving of that marriage certificate in my opinion. It's been an on-going opinion of much of the world for at least 2,000 years. Name me another tradition of humans all over this world that they all share that has lasted that long and prevailed over any substitutions.
I am not against same sex or bi relationships. I am against them trying to imitate hetro unions and claim they are co-equal in all aspects when that is a lie. Homosexual unions will never be co-equal to hetro unions any more then a hetro union will be co-equal to a homosexual union. These are two totally different relationships holding different reasons for being and existing and trying to make them seem similar is really wrong.
You are entitled to believe anything you want to. Neither you, nor the majority, nor the opinion of the Pope or any other exalted personage of any stripe has the right to impose your opinion on other if doing so would deprive them of equal access to the privileges that others can obtain by law.
You don't have to like it, but you either support the rule of law or you don't. If you don't, admit that your opinion is more important to you than the rights of others and we're done with this conversation. People can then judge for themselves which position they prefer.
However, you cannot have it both ways.
You cannot both argue for democracy--which is based on the principle of equality--and also argue for arbitrary conditions under which some people get equal treatment under law and custom while others don't.
The vast majority of people once believed that the world was flat. Did that make their worldview correct? Was the Pope justified in torturing Gallileo? Was slavery morally justified? Is tradition alone sufficient to validate _any_ belief?
So choose.
Impose your will on others or live free and let others do the same.
Your call. | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/30/2008 2:19:28 PM | Excellent post Ace....
Your words...."You don't have to like it, but you either support the rule of law or you don't."
BUT......speaking of the rule of law.....all fifty states have their own constitution. In each constitution there are mandates and rules set forth for how to bring forth laws to govern the people by. The goverment can set forth laws that the legislature agrees upon that should be passed. Some of these laws are passed to the people for a vote. In this issue, in all fifty states, a marriage license has been given to hetrosexaul couples. In recent times all fifty states have put a vote to the people to see if they want this law/statute to remaine or to be changed. All voters in all fifty states have voted to keep things as is. The marriage document belongs to hetrosexual couples. I support that law in my state Ace. Do you??? Now in three states we have three governors that have decided that how they FEEL on this issue is more important to set NEW laws by then what the majority voted for. They are MAKING....not asking......they are MAKING/ORDERING their legislatures to pass into law what they FEEL is well and correct about marriage and who it pertains to for everybody inspite of the on going FACT that the populace in EACH STATE so far, has shown through voting rights they don't want what the governors/dictators want them to accept.
So now it is down to WHAT you support......a new age dictatorship that is deciding what is best for you in a matter that does not deal with your health and or well being or do you support the state constitutional rights of the populace that have a right to vote to say what they want as a law and what they don't want as a law in this matter??? | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/30/2008 4:59:10 PM |
In recent times all fifty states have put a vote to the people to see if they want this law/statute to remaine or to be changed. All voters in all fifty states have voted to keep things as is.
I'd love to know where you got your information because this is completely and utter BS. Fact of the matter is that while many states have put this to a vote, over half of the states have not put this to a referendum of the people.
Many states have also adopted DOMA, but that was by their legislature and not the people.
Many states have tried to introduce constitutional amendments but have subsequently failed or been vetoed.
There are also some states that have absolutely no policy on the issue.
Here are the facts.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576
Now in three states we have three governors that have decided that how they FEEL on this issue is more important to set NEW laws by then what the majority voted for. They are MAKING....not asking......they are MAKING/ORDERING their legislatures to pass into law what they FEEL is well and correct about marriage and who it pertains to for everybody inspite of the on going FACT that the populace in EACH STATE so far, has shown through voting rights they don't want what the governors/dictators want them to accept.
Imagine that, the government going against what people want. Not like they ever do this. Hmmm, let's think, what is one thing that people don't like that the government still enforces? Any clue? I got it. TAXES!!!!
Oh, and once again, the bolded print is BS and is not correct, not even in your sky-green world.
So now it is down to WHAT you support......a new age dictatorship that is deciding what is best for you in a matter that does not deal with your health and or well being or do you support the state constitutional rights of the populace that have a right to vote to say what they want as a law and what they don't want as a law in this matter???
The great thing about the government and the country that we live in is that it is a REPUBLIC and we elect officials to make these kind of decisions. They do it because well, they get the big picture and have an idea of what is really going on. Just like taxes. Just like speeding laws. Just like consumer protection policies. Just like education. Just like police protection. Just like military protection. The government and the people in it have a much better idea of what needs to be done then the ley person does. That is why we have agreed to the social contract to allow them to. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there is a beautiful peace of property way down south that is completely uninhabited that you are more than welcome to create your own country on and do what you wish with it.
Good day. | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/30/2008 5:22:27 PM | The goverment can set forth laws that the legislature agrees upon that should be passed. Some of these laws are passed to the people for a vote. In this issue, in all fifty states, a marriage license has been given to hetrosexaul couples. In recent times all fifty states have put a vote to the people to see if they want this law/statute to remaine or to be changed. All voters in all fifty states have voted to keep things as is. The marriage document belongs to hetrosexual couples.
You cannot vote away another person's rights. You cannot even vote away your own. The Constitution vested the courts with the authority to vacate laws that violate the rights of others regardless of what a majority thinks.
The Constitution is the fundamental document that governs all of the laws that derive from it, and the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection. As an Amendment, it takes precedence over the original provisions, such as the ones that allowed slavery.
So, what I favor is equal protection under the law, and if my ideas about marriage would result in an unequal denial of legal rights and privileges, then I would find myself forced to let go of those ideas. I could practice them all I wanted to amongst myself and my fellow believers, but I would not dare to try to impose them on anyone else, even if there was only 1 person on Earth who would be disadvantaged by them.
I might not like it, but I would do it. And after I was done, I'd be proud to call myself an American--just like the Jewish ACLU lawyer who fought and won the right for the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie Illinois.
I support every law that is Constitutional, and I support the right of every individual to effectively challenge any law that is unconstitutional and have it struck down--because in a free society, the laws are put in place to protect the rights of individuals.
They are not put in place for some people to impose their wills on others.
That, I believe, is the fundamental concept that you aren't getting.
When _your_ rights are at stake, my opinion isn't worth squat. Nor should it be.
Would you argue the same way for female genital mutilation because it's traditional where it's practiced? What's the difference between that position and yours?
You really don't get it do you. You really think somebody's trying to take something away from you. Well, if you really have to see it in those terms then here's what you're going to lose. You're going to lose the exclusive privilege of obligating yourself to someone for the rest of your life so that the government doesn't have to take care of that person when they get too old to care for themselves.
If you really want your taxes to go to all those gay people who can't marry and will therefore become wards of the state when they're old, keep pushing your argument--faulty though it is. And good luck with that! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/30/2008 5:40:00 PM | The fact that majority of people are influenced by their superstitious religious views is all the example needed. The debate about gay marriage stems from this.
Superstitious religious views?
Superstitious- showing ignorance
So then, the majority of people are influenced by their ignorant religious views?
Ignorant in what way? Of their doctrine? Or ignorant because they have a religion? Either way, your incorrect generalization of the religious exposes ignorance at its finest.
Religion poisons everything, and the fact that religious minded people hunt down homosexuals for no other reason other than the 'good' book told them homosexuality is 'sinful.' Hunt down? You cant be serious. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/30/2008 5:44:07 PM |
Hunt down? You cant be serious.
Back when I was a kid, people used to make a sport of gay bashing.
I am so glad to hear that you find the idea absurd. We've made some real progress since the 50s and 60s.
Yay!!!! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/30/2008 5:52:27 PM |
Religion poisons everything, and the fact that religious minded people hunt down homosexuals for no other reason other than the 'good' book told them homosexuality is 'sinful.' Hunt down? You cant be serious.
In fact, he is dead right. Here are just a few examples.
Minister of hate to "hunt down" Swedish king
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1961&date=20050825
'Gay Tinky Winky bad for children'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/276677.stm
The Religious Right and Anti-Gay Speech:
In their Own Words
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html
ANd here is even an entire church that is anti-gay and hunts them down.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Need anymore proof? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:22:48 PM |
Back when I was a kid, people used to make a sport of gay bashing.
people? Possibly so, that doesnt mean that said people were true Christians.
I am so glad to hear that you find the idea absurd. We've made some real progress since the 50s and 60s. I disagree. Christians have not changed
or progressed. Truefollowers of Christ have attempted to demonstrate behavior like that of our God, since the begining of our Christian history.
If anything has changed, it is the exposer of our character, manifested by He Who Is loving.
he is dead right. Here are just a few examples.
Minister of hate to "hunt down" Swedish king
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1961&date=20050825
'Gay Tinky Winky bad for children'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/276677.stm
The Religious Right and Anti-Gay Speech:
In their Own Words
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html
ANd here is even an entire church that is anti-gay and hunts them down.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Need anymore proof?
Maybe just one.
Please list any of your personalassociation with said haters?
Godhatesfags? There is no one so distant from God than he who believes that God or His followers hateanyone, including homosexuals. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:39:52 PM |
There is no one so distant from God than he who believes that God or His followers hateanyone, including homosexuals.
Very true.
Only those who would qualify as extremists take the position that they are the "right hand of God" and may enact vengeance for him. And again, it is ignorance of what one learns that is the root of the problem. The Tanakh says, "Spare the rod and spoil the child"... but it is written in the Talmud that the Oral Law teaches that "if you must beat a child, you must not hit them with anything harder than a shoelace."
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Jesus clearly said that we have all sinned and that our sins are between us and God alone...that not one of us is fit to stone or judge another. Those who attempt to judge or harm another are as guilty of sin as any sinner they seek to judge in the eyes of God no matter how righteous they believe they are...that is the horrible irony of it. The ultimate message of the Bible being one of love and service, not hate, a message that evolved over time, not a static message or law, it is pretty clear that those who use it to justify hatred and violence have missed the point, and also understand nothing of the history and language of the book they profess to believe in. Many of them are also, very likely engaging in acts of criminality if they are acting on these beliefs...gay bashing certainly falls under this category and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as should preaching hatred against homosexuality. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:52:52 PM | AP,
You claim to speak for true Christians. So do those other folks.
How can any of us tell the difference? Why should we bother?
If we're all condemned to hell if we don't conform with your beliefs anyway, does it really matter much whether we wait for God to do it to us in the afterlife or if your coreligionists speed things along by pressing us heretics, using iron maidens on us, or stoning to death those of us they suspect of being gay for "sinning against God?"
I'm using this as an example of the kind of mistrust that arises when people commit evil acts in the name of "their" group.
I agree with you that there are Christians who practice their faith, and as I've said before in this thread and others, the ones who do what Jesus said to do have my deepest respect. But, I watch the feet of those who claim to be Christians ad pay very little attention to what comes out of their mouths. If they're walking the walk, I admire them. But any bigot can claim to be a Christian, and if you're claiming that as a Christian you have a right to privileges that others do not have, I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree.
When I was speaking about "we," I meant society as a whole. If you're doing God's work without regard to persons--if you're loving every person as the image of God, regardless of their innate characteristics, then more power to you. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/31/2008 5:43:48 AM | True ace of spades! ~ all self proclaimed christian are "not" the real deal
If they're walking the walk, I admire them. But any bigot can claim to be a Christian, and if you're claiming that as a Christian you have a right to privileges that others do not have
Christian , self proclaimed or otherwise ~ should aspire to higher standards ~ only in the fact that ~ "they should know and understand matter of the spirit"
but like all things in this world ~ some really have yet to grasp the material and understand how to apply the knowledge ~ while still calling themself Christian ~
Nature can play evil tricks ~ and it confuses many minds ~ from the position of love thy neighbor "all issues should be address" ~ and that not always an easy thing for some to do. ~ sometimes , it's even hard for me ~ yet I know !
Loving you enemy ~ seems to be such an unnatural thing to do, ~ does it not?
dance | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 5/31/2008 8:12:34 AM | Well, for all of those out there that claim the system doesn't work, apparently it still does here in Wisconsin. Even though I disagree with the ruling, my tacit consent to the Social Contract says that I will obey it until it is changed, if it ever is.
Wis. judge upholds state's ban on gay marriage
By RYAN J. FOLEY | Associated Press Writer
2:45 PM CDT, May 30, 2008
MADISON, Wis. - A judge upheld Wisconsin's constitutional ban on gay marriage Friday, rejecting a challenge that claimed the 2006 referendum was improperly put to voters.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess dismissed a lawsuit brought by a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor claiming the referendum wrongly put two issues to voters at the same time.
The referendum asked voters whether to rewrite the constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman and outlaw the state from granting a similar legal status to unmarried individuals. Nearly 60 percent of voters approved.
"Today's ruling defeats a legal challenge that was aimed at undermining the will of Wisconsin voters," said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican whose office defended the amendment.
Critics said lawmakers unfairly wrapped two questions into one amendment: whether to ban gay marriage and whether to ban civil unions. The lawsuit brought by William McConkey of Baileys Harbor, Wis., claimed the amendment violated a clause in the state constitution limiting referendum questions to a single subject.
Niess, appointed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2004, disagreed in a ruling from the bench after hearing oral arguments on Friday.
"The two propositions ... are two sides of the same coin," he said. "They clearly relate to the same subject matter and further the same purpose: the preservation and protection of the unique and historical status of traditional marriage."
McConkey, a married, straight man who has a gay daughter, said he would ask his lawyers to file an appeal. If so, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals would be required to review the case.
"I'm disappointed, very disappointed," he said. "I'm not totally surprised because it was based on a narrow interpretation of the law. But if you look at the big picture and the rights of people, I'm terribly disappointed."
Niess noted his ruling did not address whether the amendment was good public policy or whether it violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. He said the case only involved a "limited, and purely procedural challenge to the marriage amendment."
Niess cited an 1882 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that upheld a referendum that changed the Legislature's session from one year to two years and granted lawmakers a big pay increase. Not every clause of a sentence requires a separate vote, as long as they deal with the same subject, he said.
The ruling was hailed by the Wisconsin Family Council, the nonprofit successor to the group that championed the amendment's passage in 2006.
"During the campaign we said the first sentence defines the word marriage but the second sentence protects the institution of marriage. It's a package deal," chief executive Julaine Appling said. "Not only did the judge get this but so did 60 percent of the people."
"I'm very encouraged that he recognized the unique place of marriage in society," she added later. "That is a very important statement that should not be lost on anyone."
McConkey's lawyer, Lester Pines, called an appeal "definitely possible" and said he would have 90 days to file after the case is officially dismissed. Niess said during the hearing the Supreme Court would likely ultimately decide the issue.
A ruling striking down the amendment would not legalize gay marriage in Wisconsin because state law still defines marriage as a union between a husband and a wife. Instead, gay rights advocates say, such a ruling could pave the way for lawmakers to allow gay marriage or for additional lawsuits seeking that right.
Fair Wisconsin, the state's largest gay rights group, said it was disappointed in the ruling but determined to continue fighting the amendment in the courts and Legislature.
"This process will likely take years," executive director Glenn Carlson wrote in an e-mail to members. "In the meantime, we will be working with our allies around the state to ensure that gay and lesbian couples receive all possible protections available. We WILL prevail!!"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-gaymarriage,0,4376057.story
| |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:03:49 AM | For those that missed this it was in the headlines yesterday but near buried today. You have to search to find the article.
Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot
If approved by voters, initiative would overturn recent court ruling
updated 7:46 p.m. AKT, Mon., June. 2, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO - An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.
To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.
Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.
Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.
Not everyone in Cali is ready for gays to have a marriage certificate though the governor feels this is not a choice type situation and everyone (as in times past with other type bills/amendments/laws) and a vote to the populace should be outlawed as what he thinks is best and everybody better just accept his thinking and get use to it.
I made some statements earlier that ezzee showed were not correct. My points earlier though were not in "correctness" but were made in the fact that the people of the 50 states are not ready for the marriage license to be shared with any form of human union but male and female.
So now to be exact.....41 US states have statutes prohibiting same sex marriages. 27 states have made constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriages.
Addressing the issue another way are eight states that have adopted marriages alternatives – either domestic partnerships or civil unions. That shows people are not against same sex unions. It shows people are for some sort of a civil union for same sex couples and it's becoming adoptive in possibly more states. BUT....most are still not ready to make a marriage certificate avalible for any union but a hetro union.
If you read some history the first laws put into effect to keep marriage as it had been was a law against polygamy that the Mormons had began doing in the 18 to 1900's. The US goverments wanted a marriage license to remain for a single man and woman, not a single man and several women. You'll find laws against bigamy came into play in some instances also. Now the majority of people are showing through votes that they are not ready for same sex marriages to have a part of the marriage certificate either. Maybe it'll change down the road but it will have a long hard fight to find acceptance.
To an earlier comment of what does polygamy have to do with this thread and Artful's response about it being a gateway for various types of marriages to be found lawful, it is a gateway for the three forms of union that have been outlawed to have their day for being legalized.
The fact is hetro unions are legal. Polygamists (Mormons) had their try at changing and making an acceptance to this rule and failed. Bigamy failed. Same sex proponants in the past failed. Now same sex proponants have found some ground by getting certain liberal governors to turn dictator to force a change of law upon the public at large. People against same sex unions being equal to hetro unions will later then sooner get tired of this issue and will adopt to same sex having the same license as hetros. When same sex unions have finally been legally accepted for the same license as hetros, it will open the door for polygamists next to fight for their right to a marriage certificate. It will happen. Polygamist cases have been hitting the courts for fair treatment under the marriage law for decades. If same sex is allowed in then polygamists will be next in line for acceptance. Later then sooner bigamists will have their day.
| |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:16:03 AM | Now the majority of people are showing through votes that they are not ready for same sex marriages to have a part of the marriage certificate either. Maybe it'll change down the road but it will have a long hard fight to find acceptance.
If the traditional limits on access to marriage are unjust, the fight to end them might well be long and hard--but rest assured it will be fought and eventually won.
It still boils down to a conflict between tradition and justice. Monanan, in your personal opinion, which principle should prevail? | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:46:02 AM | In my personal opinion, a marriage certificate should be for the two species of humans that can produce (so if they choose) other humans. Any other relationship can have various forms of legal unions to help them in the legal aspects of their relationships just as a hetro union.
There is something special about how a man and woman can find each other, (hopefully) remain together and bring forth children and remain committed to raising them for the next 18 years. That is a special relationship that cannot be duplicated. Not by two men or two women, not by artificial insemination to copy what hetros can do. That special relationship is above all others. There is not another like it. A single parent with kids is not like it because the opposite sex spouse is missing for some reason like in my own situation. I am mom and dad, but I lack the quality females have to nuture my kids with that they have to give them. So I have to become a dual parent of sorts. That was not in the original plan when I first married.
A union between a man and woman seeking marriage and or kids should be recognized as a special relationship and should be accounted as such without others trying their best to duplicate what they never will of that special union. That is my opinion.
 | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 11:18:12 AM | Many, many children are conceived and born outside of married relationships. A lesbian can have a child. A gay man can father a child. No marriage necessary for that function. Many hetero couples have to resort to in vitro or artificial insemination - let's deny them marriage, based on that argument. Any halfway competent person or persons can raise a child. So, nothing special there about your argument, montanan76, in my opinion.
It comes down to basic human rights and equal treatment under the law, as I think AceOfSpace pointed out. Laws discriminated against many groups in the past, and many laws still discriminate. Eventually, some of those discriminatory laws will be rewritten, and rightly so. I think we're just beginning to see that process occur with respect to marriage. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 11:24:21 AM |
A union between a man and woman seeking marriage and or kids should be recognized as a special relationship and should be accounted as such without others trying their best to duplicate what they never will of that special union. That is my opinion.
What about two people of the same sex who want to adopt children and raise them? Should they be denied the same status when their motives are perhaps even more charitable? | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 12:22:19 PM | I have honestly always thought this topic was very sad. The fact that we still have a group of people who have to fight so vigorously to get the same rights given to the majority.
The idea of a constitutional amendment denying equal right to a specific group of people is appaling.
A union between a man and woman seeking marriage and or kids should be recognized as a special relationship and should be accounted as such without others trying their best to duplicate what they never will of that special union. That is my opinion.
Marriage is a legal union guaranteeing rights to the participants. There have been way to many instances where the family of a person who is incapacitated has denied access, or decision making to a life long partner because they were not considered the next of kin.
Honestly, I do not care what your idea of marriage is. I believe that all citizens of the US should be guaranteed equal access under the constitution. Yeah, for the judges.
Your desire to discriminate makes me sad.
I cannot remember the comediane who said it but it went like.
I believe in homosexual marriage. i think they should have to suffer just like the rest of us.  | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/3/2008 12:43:53 PM | Having attended a California Supreme Court Hearing because they made some major decision I agreed with, I was quite surprised. It is as if there were a room full of dead people--nobody moved any muscles except to try to appear smarter than the general populace, they dress like they are already for their funerals, they probably make an extreme amount of money, and they figure as long as they move their mouths, people will think they are real.
It amazes me when you take a judge or a small amount of people to preside over the majority--if they think their opinion is more important than most people, what a crock.
(I agree with you 100%, but just as our presiding officer, things have been done the same way for so long, people just take it for granted that's the way it should be.) That's my guess. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/3/2008 12:50:57 PM | I think that Gays should be aloud to get married, I am a baptist and i dont believe half of what my church does, Who am I to judge who can get married and who cant, It is sad that there are people in this world that are playing GOD... God is the only one that can Judge and those who are playing god will get theirs on Judgment day.. So, a man wants to marry a man and a woman wants to marry a woman.. They should be able to do that.. That is how I feel about this issue!!! Amanda | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 12:52:30 PM | Well we've got it up here in Canada and the world hasn't come to a screaching halt.
Pretty much the only issue I have with gay marriage is that sooner or later the two are going to come in to conflict in practise. In other words, are we going to be forcing the religious to act in opposition to their own beliefs ? The way it was explained to us up here is that no, that wouldn't happen. Well apparently it did so now the shoe is on the other foot because now we have two recognized rights in conflict with each other.
What's happening is that Christian marriage commissioners must perform the ceremony for gay couples. At first I figured "Well, that is your job after all so get used to it." After all, technically speaking, they're not working in the name of their religion. Then I realized that if these commissioners were working before the change in the law, they have every right to expect their religious beliefs to be protected in this case. Why can't the same-sex couples simply request another commissioner ? It's different if you started performing ceremonies after the law came into effect because you go in with the understanding that you simply can't pick and choose based on the type of people you'll be serving. On the other hand, the job is in the public domain so perhaps there is no real dilemma.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that into the mix if it hasn't been already. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 1:09:01 PM | Stella wrote....
"I cannot remember the comediane who said it but it went like.
I believe in homosexual marriage. i think they should have to suffer just like the rest of us."
Excellently remembered Stella, gave me a good laugh. Zentral had some points also. I can go with those points. So lets elaborate on them and consider possible consequences shall we? Lets go 50 to 100 years down the road.......
Hetro unions are now nothing special. There is no importance given to them then what is given to any other relationship that can be brought to be by two men adopting kids or having a female birth a baby for them or for two women to have sperm injected into them or having a fertilized egg implanted or adopting kids. A marriage certificate is a common document for any human union. Polygamists and bigamists are fully recognized as legal so now we also have a man with more then one female partner and a woman with more then one male partner and a woman with more then one female partner and a man with more then one male partner. All has been done to equalitize the definition of marriage to all those it was so long denied to.
Now divorce and spousel abuse in all it's forms and kid abuse in all it's forms that was so trumpted up to being specifically a part of hetro unions prior to the redefinition of marriage we now have stemming from all the NEW legally sanctioned definitions of marriage unions and these problems are now on a HUGE.....GRANDER scale as never recorded before. We now have more laws dealing with the specifics of marriage then at any time before. We have tens of thousands of kids who don't know/don't care who their real biological parent is. Geneaology is becoming a farce for it's biological connections. We also have a new culture of feminized males with less and less male traits and qualities that once they had because they now are by being raised by two female parents. In essence, science has noted the male of old is no longer around. Society at large of males raised by female parents are very female in a ever growing mental capacity. Those males that are raised to be a male by traditionalists are seen as odd balls by peers because it is an old way to raise a child. A male now should be part female and male mentally as females are also noted by science to be making the switch but not as much as males are making the transformation. The term gender is still now undefined because of the ever changing psychic of kids being raised by two same sex parents and as the generations evolve in this union, so also evolves the psychic of the kids.
None of the above is neither a discussion of wrong or right but how I see the future developing from what is now. Personally, I like how things are. But, I am sure in 50 to 100 years those living then will like how things are at that time. If they don't, they will make changes as we are doing now. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 2:03:42 PM |
In my personal opinion, a marriage certificate should be for the two species of humans that can produce (so if they choose) other humans. Any other relationship can have various forms of legal unions to help them in the legal aspects of their relationships just as a hetro union.
So, is this a reflection of a general view that tradition is more important than justice, or a specific exception that you feel is warranted for the sake of child-rearing? | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 2:12:54 PM |
Hetro unions are now nothing special. There is no importance given to them then what is given to any other relationship that can be brought to be by two men adopting kids or having a female birth a baby for them or for two women to have sperm injected into them or having a fertilized egg implanted or adopting kids. A marriage certificate is a common document for any human union
Who said that a relationship between a man and a woman would not be special?
Are you really saying that what makes a marriage between a man and woman special is that gays cannot do it? That is ridiculous and insulting! Why are you so afraid of 2 people of the same sex getting married and enjoying the same protections under the law as heterosexuals? Honestly, you are showing yourself to be just as reactionary as the Christian right hate mongers.
Polygamists and bigamists are fully recognized as legal so now we also have a man with more then one female partner and a woman with more then one male partner and a woman with more then one female partner and a man with more then one male partner
Please cut it out with the "slippery slope" arguments. Do you even know that is what you are doing? It is a completely fallacious argument. Look it up. No one is buying it here. And by the way your view of the future is absolutely bizzare! Is that really what you are afraid of? Who has warped your head? Which preacher fed you that?
There is a reason why in the US Christians are pretty much considered hate mongering, judgemental, intollerant hypocrates. It is topics like this.
You think you would have something more to worry about. | |
|
|
| Page 7 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
