Do you think that gay marriage would require any church to perform the ceremony? Come on, of course they'd have to find a church that condones their marriage.
But we're not talking about churches here. We're talking about marriage under the law.
I think it says a lot about you that you would have gay people build their own church. There are plenty of denominations in America that accept gays - the problem is that our government discriminates against them when handing out marriage licenses.
But you already knew that, didn't you? Semper 2, Strawmen 0.
Another point to consider is that civil marriage laws are written in part to protect marriage FROM religion. There are denominations, churches, sects, etc. out there who would be perfectly willing to marry a 13-year-old girl to a middle-aged man, or one man to several wives, etc. because "our book says it's OK". They do, too, but these marriages are not legal, and they suffer the ramifications of violating the civil marriage laws when caught. So the precedent is there for the civil marriage laws to trump any religious laws on the matter, so one's "religious convictions" cannot be used as a valid argument against gay marriage.
__________________
I am the antenna, not the source!
Golden Girl loves her city, and her city loves her back!
I live with one foot in my mouth with the other in the twilight zone.
Do you think that gay marriage would require any church to perform the ceremony? Come on, of course they'd have to find a church that condones their marriage.
But we're not talking about churches here. We're talking about marriage under the law.
I think it says a lot about you that you would have gay people build their own church. There are plenty of denominations in America that accept gays - the problem is that our government discriminates against them when handing out marriage licenses.
But you already knew that, didn't you? Semper 2, Strawmen 0.
Of course our government discriminates against them. I have not denied that. Why attack only Republicans? Why not the Democrats? From what I have read more gay people are voting Republican these days.
Senate, House, Governor Races - Election Center 2010 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com "According to a CNN exit poll, more self-identified lesbians, gay men and bisexuals voted for Republicans in the midterm election than ever before. Nearly one third of self-identified gay voters pulled the lever for Republicans on Tuesday, a 4 percentage point increase from the same demographic in 2008. In the blogosphere, the results are shaking up perceptions of gay voters among liberals and conservatives:"
Are you Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual?
Total
Democrat
Republican
Other/No Answer
Yes (3%)
69%
29%
2%
No (97%)
46%
52%
2%
__________________
"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama
I am a Republican, I don't know if I believe in God, and I don't care who gets married. As long as it does not involve harming children or animals do what you will. I am not here to judge your beliefs, your character or your actions. I say to each his own as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
If gay people want to get married then form their own church, get married. The reason I say form your own church is because of this. I believe the Catholics are against gay marriage. Leave them to their belief and don't require them to perform gay marriages. Form a church with all the Catholic laws etc, except for the gay stuff.
As for the rights to tax breaks etc, then I would recommend contact your elected official and do what you can do. My main problem is it is always blamed on Republicans. I live in a Cu l-de-sac and every one of my neighbors are Republicans and not one of us care about who marries who. I think instead of blaming Republicans you should blame the Democrats who you have apparently voted for. Why no hate for the cowards who make promises but do nothing because they are afraid of losing their offices.
Marriage contracts have zero, none, nadda, zip, nothing to do with churches.
My atheist brother and sister in law didn't have to go beg some church to perform the marriage, they didn't have to form some church to get it done. They simply went to the clerk of court and signed the marriage contract, paid their fee, and was done.
Gays are not looking to make any church perform a marriage.
They are looking to have governmental laws changed to recognize the right for same sex couples to go to the clerk of court and sign the marriage contract just like any other couple can.
So to state it again, it has nothing to do with religion. You can continue to believe whatever you want too.
Of course our government discriminates against them. I have not denied that. Why attack only Republicans? Why not the Democrats? From what I have read more gay people are voting Republican these days.
I have plenty of fault with Democrats with their feet dragging about the issue.
However they are not the ones going out campaigning on the issue to keep it illegal. They are not the ones spouting out how sinful it is. They are not the ones running a presidential campaign to make an amendment to the Constitution to keep it illegal.
Republicans are the ones kissing up to the religious right over keeping the rights of gay Americans limited.
because you might just end up with a miserable spouse that does nothing but nag and boss you around, and now you can't watch what you want on tv anymore because you're stuck with having to watch those stupid home design shows 24/7, and remember that hot body you used to be able to have sex with, forget about it.
Why do gay couples need to have the relationship validated by the State? Course to be honest I that s a question that could be posed to any couple.
A marriage, is nothing more than a life long commitment between two people. Is that commitment anh more or less valid if a Church or a government gives it a blessing?
but you may say, but jeff...what about taxes and insurance....pretty much every company recognizes domestic partners now, if your intent for marriage is some type of tax benefit IMO your getting married for the wrong reason.
I will also add this, i'm not objective here, i'm recently divorced and still pretty bitter about it. The evil woman i married used marriage as way to fleece me financially, so i personally can't image why anyone would ever consider getting legally married anymore. From my point of view the fact that gay couples can't enter into all the legal entanglements that marriage brings is a blessing. No one wants to talk about the white elephant in the room, that gay couples have the exact same struggles as straight couples. They will divorce just as straight couple do. They will seek child support, maintenance, and half of property as straight couple do, and it will happen just as often as it as happens to straight couples. What this really does in effect, is it give lawyers a brand new crop of clients to make money off of.
If you love someone, and they love you, you don't need a paper saying your stuck with each for life, gay or straight.
If you love someone, and they love you, you don't need a paper saying your stuck with each for life, gay or straight.
That's your opinion, and you certainly have the right to it.
But it doesn't diminish the opinions of the people who, currently, don't have the right to theirs.
Marriage may have sucked for you, and I'm sorry. It's been great to me. Either way, it's a decision between two people that the government should not interfere in.
"They're better off without it" is not, and has never been, a valid argument for withholding rights from a specific group of people...although it has been argued unsuccessfully ad nauseum.
It will be time when the couple in that horrible appeal to emotion, or any homosexual couple, can naturally procreate. Then the state would have a legitimate interest in homosexual marriage. As it is, we're just talking about people who crave public legitimization of their private actions.
In response to SWJJ's post - I've yet to hear a compelling argument for gay marriage. Don't see how that makes me a bigot, hater, or religious zealot.
There are far too many children without parents to require natural procreation as a means of marriage.
You're wrong, sir. In every aspect of your post. It doesn't make you a bigot, but it comes DAMN close.
Label me homophobic, but that video made me very uncomfortable.
To each his (or her) own, I guess.
st. dave
Being made uncomfortable by gay people doesn't make you a bad person, IMO. I imagine some gay men probably couldn't understand my attraction to women.
Attempting to restrict their rights based on their sexuality is a different story. If you really mean it when you say "to each his (or her) own", then that doesn't sound bad to me.
"to each his own" == "let them get married"
That's a big problem in this debate I think -- a lot of people think that by allowing someone to do something they somehow condone or like it. What folks need to realize is that whether you are comfortable with something or would be willing to do it has no bearing on whether it should be allowed to happen - and vice versa.
ok well I guess I misinterpreted something. I have no problem with gay people being married so long as they are required to abide by the same laws straight people are required to follow.
On a side note I'm kind of curious about something. Is everything just great in gay relationships? I mean I am wondering if there is less to argue about. For instance the communication thing. Is it easier to communicate to another guy than a woman? You know less arguments over what was said and what was meant to be said? It always seemed like an advantage to me in a gay relationship.
__________________
"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama
ok well I guess I misinterpreted something. I have no problem with gay people being married so long as they are required to abide by the same laws straight people are required to follow.
On a side note I'm kind of curious about something. Is everything just great in gay relationships? I mean I am wondering if there is less to argue about. For instance the communication thing. Is it easier to communicate to another guy than a woman? You know less arguments over what was said and what was meant to be said? It always seemed like an advantage to me in a gay relationship.
I don't think it'd be all hunky dory...some things are best kept bottled up by at least one side. And having common interests and being willing to speak your mind isn't necessarily a formula for success.
For example, it'd be cool to have a spouse that would love football like I do, but I also wouldn't like sleeping on the couch because I had a huge fight with my husband over whether P-Rob or Porter was responsible for Cruz on that deep route.
And before anyone says anything about not all men loving football -- well, if I was gay my husband would.
That's your opinion, and you certainly have the right to it.
But it doesn't diminish the opinions of the people who, currently, don't have the right to theirs.
Marriage may have sucked for you, and I'm sorry. It's been great to me. Either way, it's a decision between two people that the government should not interfere in.
"They're better off without it" is not, and has never been, a valid argument for withholding rights from a specific group of people...although it has been argued unsuccessfully ad nauseum.
i'm not trying to interfer at all, i'm simply point out the fact that as you say, its a decision between two people, no need for a blessing by a government to make it valid. I just don't see where there is any practical thing to be gained by it, other than glorified bragging rights.
Linear Mode
