Other Resources My Cup of Joe » gay marriage ban Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2006-03-21 6:05 PM

User image

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: gay marriage ban
in minnesota there is a state constitutional amendment being proposed that is basically a gay marriage ban...and could also strip away partner benefits, rights to be with a loved one in the hospital if you are not 'family', etc. there were pro-ban protesters out at the capital today. one of the pastors who was speaking at the protest said that humans across time and culture have relied on the man/female bond as the core of the family. yea, and across time and culture that bond was often arranged, based on money and land and not on love at all and the woman was basically property to be exchanged. that still happens, but some cultures have seen the light and treat women and these important relationships with more respect. humans across time and culture have also relied on slavery and servetude to get things done. still happens, but hopefully we are moving away from that as a people. just because it has always been done a certain way, doesn't make it the right way. it makes me so sad for my daughters and any future partner they may have in life. fighting against gay marriage to me demeans all unions, instead of the other way around. love doesn't come from your sex chromosomes, it comes from your soul, mind, and heart. it also irks me that these are some of the same people who rely on faith or spirit when it comes to belief about evolution or abortion, but then want to make marriage out to be something that should be based just on our sex chromosomes instead of our spiritual connection to another human being. what the heck?


2006-03-21 6:21 PM
in reply to: #375942

User image

COURT JESTER
12230
50005000200010010025
ROCKFORD, IL
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

I think that heterosexual law makers are simply nervous.  Heterosexual people have screwed up the concept of marriage (note:  high divorce rate) for so long that they would be embarrased if homosexual couples blew away the divorce curve and actually SHOWED that a loving marriage can work.

Just my $1.05 of thought.

2006-03-21 6:28 PM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
You know...I could give a flying f*&k what churches want to endorse, they being private institutions and all. But for the state to purposefully discriminate against a certain group of people is just plain and simply wrong.
2006-03-21 7:18 PM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Master
1867
10005001001001002525
The real USC, in the ghetto of LA
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
autumn - 2006-03-21 6:05 PM

the woman was basically property to be exchanged.


they aren't?
2006-03-21 8:19 PM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Champion
4902
20002000500100100100100
Ottawa, Ontario
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation!"  ... Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, 1968. 

2006-03-21 8:55 PM
in reply to: #376045

User image

Elite
2421
2000100100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
Machiavelo - 2006-03-21 7:19 PM

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation!" ... Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, 1968.

But that's Canada though... the only thing Canada is known for is terrible food service, weird toppings on hamburgers and nation envy....

I kiiiiiiid, I kiiiiiiid. 

Oh yeah, he is right...

bts 



2006-03-21 8:57 PM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Master
1732
100050010010025
Delafield, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
Right on sister! It makes my stomach turn. Wisconsin is bacically doing the same thing. I'm still confused on how two people in love, who happen to be the same sex, is a threat to the "institution" of heterosexual marriage.
2006-03-21 9:13 PM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
How dare those folks have an opinion based on Christian conviction. Who do they think they are, Americans or something? We should never tolerate opposing opinions. Why to tolerate human difference why that's .......that....that would be politically correct!!!

Edited by gullahcracker 2006-03-21 9:14 PM
2006-03-22 1:10 AM
in reply to: #375942

Master
1315
1000100100100
Shreveport, LA
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban


Edited by mnewton 2006-03-22 1:23 AM
2006-03-22 5:09 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Pro
4189
20002000100252525
Pittsburgh, my heart is in Glasgow
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
I just think the argument that "Gay people being married will undermind my marriage and make it irrelevant". Excuse me? What? How does 2 other people getting married make yours any less valid? If you want to go by that, then your marriage would be a JOKE because of how many straight people get married and divorce. I say, let them marry. Love is not a bad thing, and it isn't my place to judge anyone else's love. I would be seriously pissed if someone I had spent the last 20 years of my life with wasn't allowed to be in the hospital when I died, or they weren't allowed to be part of my healthcare....jeez.
2006-03-22 6:15 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Professor Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
 
 


2006-03-22 6:20 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
So does this make the proposal Constitutional or Anti-Biblical (is this a word).
Just asking.
2006-03-22 6:24 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
uh, Constitutional.  (And Unitarian! )
2006-03-22 6:31 AM
in reply to: #376188

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

possum - 2006-03-22 7:15 AM "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

That's great. 

2006-03-22 6:35 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
Well..OK..but if we're holding the Constitution in such high regard here, then why would we want to "amend" it?
2006-03-22 6:35 AM
in reply to: #376188

User image

Pro
3705
20001000500100100
Vestavia Hills
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

Hmmmm ... careful with the size brush that is being painted with - I know many life long conservative church going Republicans who support the notion of gay marriage and more than one Democrat who do not.

I think the whole concept has less to party or church affiliation than a lack of education.  The more people hear that it is an issue of fairness - healthcare decisions, estate disposition, etc. - the more people will begin to accept gay marriage for what it is?

One of my best friends is gay and I hope he finds someone he loves as much as I love  my wife (provided, of course, that we think he passes the test for him ... )



2006-03-22 6:52 AM
in reply to: #376205

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
huengsolo - 2006-03-22 7:35 AM

Hmmmm ... careful with the size brush that is being painted with - I know many life long conservative church going Republicans who support the notion of gay marriage and more than one Democrat who do not.

I think the whole concept has less to party or church affiliation than a lack of education.  The more people hear that it is an issue of fairness - healthcare decisions, estate disposition, etc. - the more people will begin to accept gay marriage for what it is?

One of my best friends is gay and I hope he finds someone he loves as much as I love  my wife (provided, of course, that we think he passes the test for him ... )

But what about fairness to those who believe otherwise. Are they all to be dismissed as uneducated, redneck dupes. Hardly. They are you and I. They have a conviction that says Holy Matrimony is..well... Holy and their Bible says that's a man and a woman. Don't argue with me, take it up with God. I'm siding with God . I think there is a way to solve this issue of gay unions but not sure how but I know that for matters of fairness we need to be fair to all.

btw Don't start sticking labels on me, you'll find, if you meet me, they don't stick well. I'm not judging, condemning, or condoning anything or anyone.



Edited by gullahcracker 2006-03-22 7:02 AM
2006-03-22 7:06 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
fine. don't call my marriage a holy matrimony.  but call it a marriage so that my spouse and I are treated as one unit by the government, as are you.  I don;t care how you interpret the Bible, that's between you and God. Marriage exists in all kinds of cultures who don;t base their LEGAL decisions on the Bible.
2006-03-22 7:09 AM
in reply to: #376217

User image

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

gullahcracker - 2006-03-22 6:52 AM

But what about fairness to those who believe otherwise. Are they all to be dismissed as uneducated, redneck dupes. Hardly. They are you and I. They have a conviction that says Holy Matrimony is Holy and their Bible says that's a man and a woman. Don't argue with me, take it up with God. I'm siding with God . I think there is a way to solve this issue of gay unions but not sure how but I know that for matters of fairness we need to be fair to all.

btw Don't start sticking labels on me, you'll find, if you meet me, they don't stick well. I'm not judging, condemning, or condoning anything or anyone.

But shouldn't there be a separation of the concepts of religious matrimony and civil unions?  If your religion says it is wrong and you don't want to allow gay marriages in your religion, then fine.  I don't think other people should have the right to tell you what you should do within the context of your religion.  Why does only one religion get to have input on the rules for civil marriages and not another?  I'm not an expert on this issue so maybe I'm mis-understanding the issues here.   I'm not naive, I know "why" in my question above, my point is that if you are going to continue to allow one religion to have influence you have to allow for the possibility that other religions could/should have influence as well and that can get messy.  I'd prefer to see a complete separation of religious marriages and civil marriages.  Everyone gets a civil marriage, and then if you are a member of a religion and you want to be married within that religion have at it.  This concept seems so ridiculously simple to me that I can't understand why it isn't already like this. 

2006-03-22 7:10 AM
in reply to: #376217

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
gullahcracker - 2006-03-22 7:52 AM

They have a conviction that says Holy Matrimony is..well... Holy and their Bible says that's a man and a woman. Don't argue with me, take it up with God. I'm siding with God . I think there is a way to solve this issue of gay unions but not sure how but I know that for matters of fairness we need to be fair to all.

btw Don't start sticking labels on me, you'll find, if you meet me, they don't stick well. I'm not judging, condemning, or condoning anything or anyone.

That was my original point above. Churches can sanctify or not sanctify whatever they want, being private institutions. But the state should recognize civil unions between any consenting adults. 

2006-03-22 7:11 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
I ask the following in an effort to more fully understand some of the finer points of this issue.
Since there are no laws prohibiting love or who you can love there the crux of the issue must be marital rights. Things like healthcare, estates, wills etc. (I think that has been stated previously). These are matters that can be resolved contractually but there are current laws preventing them from being solved with a marriage contract. So here's my question.
Has anyone explored the possibility of "adoption"? Not in the sense of child adoption but wouldn't it work (at least in the interim) if there were laws allowing an "adoption" contract between two consenting adults. It doesn't say your married but it is a contract giving mutual responsibility and can only be broken as per a "divorce". Maybe it already exist, I wouldn't know, hence I'm asking.


2006-03-22 7:14 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
ew, that's just creepy.  But yes, it has been done.  The legal problem (there are so many other problems, I can;t even begin to describe) is that it is NOT a mutual responsibility.
2006-03-22 7:14 AM
in reply to: #376231

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

Interesting, by why invent a whole new institution when a perfectly good one already exists? That seems like another layer of gov't beuracracy which I can pretty safely say we all aren't crazy about.

gullahcracker - 2006-03-22 8:11 AM I ask the following in an effort to more fully understand some of the finer points of this issue.
Since there are no laws prohibiting love or who you can love there the crux of the issue must be marital rights. Things like healthcare, estates, wills etc. (I think that has been stated previously). These are matters that can be resolved contractually but there are current laws preventing them from being solved with a marriage contract. So here's my question.
Has anyone explored the possibility of "adoption"? Not in the sense of child adoption but wouldn't it work (at least in the interim) if there were laws allowing an "adoption" contract between two consenting adults. It doesn't say your married but it is a contract giving mutual responsibility and can only be broken as per a "divorce". Maybe it already exist, I wouldn't know, hence I'm asking.

2006-03-22 7:22 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

I guess I don't really understand why a legal marriage, using this term, is a problem for Christian Bible Literalists.  Aren't there other legal issues that you deem anti-Bible?  Why is this one such a hot issue? 

 

btw, so far, y'all, we are being such nice and respectful discussers.  keep it up! 

2006-03-22 7:32 AM
in reply to: #376245

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
possum - 2006-03-22 8:22 AM

btw, so far, y'all, we are being such nice and respectful discussers. keep it up!

So far so good, but for me this one issue is just a little harder than others for me to keep my cool about. I get the pros and cons about most other hot-button issues, but to me this one in particular is different. I just can't see a downside or a logical (or even emotional) argument against civil marriages that even comes close to making a bit of sense. To me, it seems like if you oppose it, all you're doing is saying a big "f&*k you" to anyone who doesn't happen to be straight. 

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » gay marriage ban Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8