Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?

02/25/2004 03:07:53 PM · #76

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by nborton:
the real issue in my opinion is about money. if people didn't get tax breaks for marriage i believe there wouldn't be very much demand for gay marriage.

What freakin' tax break?!?!? Have you ever heard of the Marriage penalty??

The deductions for a married couple are LESS, not more than the deduction for 2 unmarried people.

haha, so true. i didn't mean tax break. i ment the insurance and health care issue.

i was working on taxes today and my mind was sidetracked i guess.

Message edited by author 2004-02-25 15:37:45.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/25/2004 03:44:58 PM · #77

"tolerance" is a farce, it is the most misused word besides "homophobe" that i know of.

tolerance means i don't agree with you, and you need something to call me, so the politically correct way is to call me intolerant. while this is totally ludicrous, it has somehow been thrown around so much people actually believe it

homophobe means someone that doesn't completely endorse and encourage homosexuality, which again is complete bullcrap

whatever happened to being tolerant of the other side of the argument. i have to sit back and suck in your rubbish and then have nothing to say back because that means i'm intolerant and scared of gay people. gimme a break

it makes me sick

Message edited by author 2004-02-25 15:45:28.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/25/2004 03:49:09 PM · #78

No. I think "tolerance" is the idea that you can let people live their lives how they choose.

Which, unfortunately, is not the case when you are talking about gay people marrying who they choose.

I don't think anyone's asking you to change your opinion about your sexuality. I think their asking you to change your opinion about their right to marry.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

02/25/2004 04:03:57 PM · #79

Originally posted by achiral:

+++++
Your off base as far as my use of the word. TOLERANCE.
I didn't mean anything not even from the same planet as you wrote above.
I was addressing the blaming of gays for unfair insurance regulations.
As mbardeen said: let people live their lives how they choose.
You jumped to a conclusion that wasn't there achiral. If my use of that word lead you down that path, then I'm not expressing myself very well.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/25/2004 04:18:29 PM · #80

Originally posted by mbardeen:

but why...i believe marriage has always been and should always be between one man and one woman. i'm not going to change that because a vocal minority says i'm crazy if i don't...that's just silly

02/25/2004 04:23:54 PM · #81

you mean if they allow gay marriages I don't have to become gay and get married? Whew! that's a relief.*

i guess what you're saying is a gay couple's right to be married has not a damn thing to do with me, therefore I have no real reason to oppose it.

Live and let live: what a novel concept.

*before anybody gets offended, please note the utter sarcasm here.

02/25/2004 04:24:01 PM · #82

Originally posted by mbardeen:

No. I think "tolerance" is the idea that you can let people live their lives how they choose.

letting everyone live their lives how they choose is a scary thought. when there are no rules governing life no one is free.

if i like to blow myself up in suicide bombings, under your reasoning i should be allowed to.

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

02/25/2004 04:33:03 PM · #83

When I was growing up Gay meant 'happy and carefree'. Homosexuality was never mentioned, people attracted to the same sex met in secret. These modern days sense prevails and they no longer have to hide away like the lepers or misfits they were wrongly branded.
Myself I see nothing wrong with people who love each other so much they want to express this by getting married. I married my wife because I loved her so much and after nearly 24 years I love her even more than when I first married her. So 2 men or 2 women love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together AND want to show the world this by getting married, then what is the fuss all about? Why do some people make it so difficult for others? Discrimination of ANY kind is wrong.

Society will accept Bill and Janet marrying but when Bill and Ben or Janet and Jane want to marry and have the same legal rights etc then that is different. Well it's not.

Edit for typo:

Message edited by author 2004-02-25 16:42:18.

02/25/2004 04:37:51 PM · #84

here's something else to think about.

if tolerance is letting people live their lives how they choose. why is it that you can't be a cannibal in the US? other places in the world allow it. seems just as arbitrary a law as no gay marriages. just because i live in the US means i can't eat people. i want free rights to cannibalism.

you could argue that cannibalism isn't allowed because it infringes on the rights of others. however, at the same time doesn't the fact that most people don't want to be eaten infringe on the cannibalâ��s rights as well?

edit for typos

Message edited by author 2004-02-25 16:39:06.

02/25/2004 04:41:22 PM · #85

Originally posted by achiral:

but why...i believe marriage has always been and should always be between one man and one woman. i'm not going to change that because a vocal minority says i'm crazy if i don't...that's just silly

That's fine. Your marriage can be between one man and one woman. Why does everyone else have to conform to what you think? That's what I'm talking about when I say "tolerance".

02/25/2004 04:43:56 PM · #86

Originally posted by nborton:

your two examples are ridiculous. the premise is live and let live. the right to not be eaten is probably even in the constitution, but i can't be sure.

02/25/2004 04:44:19 PM · #87

Originally posted by mbardeen:

Originally posted by achiral:

but why...i believe marriage has always been and should always be between one man and one woman. i'm not going to change that because a vocal minority says i'm crazy if i don't...that's just silly

That's fine. Your marriage can be between one man and one woman. Why does everyone else have to conform to what you think? That's what I'm talking about when I say "tolerance".

i would argue that if one side believes mariage is man/woman, and the other side believes man/man or woman/woman, then you have no universally accepted definition anymore and the whole thing looses all meaning.

02/25/2004 04:44:49 PM · #88

Originally posted by nborton:

here's something else to think about.

you could argue that cannibalism isn't allowed because it infringes on the rights of others. however, at the same time doesn't the fact that most people don't want to be eaten infringe on the cannibalâ��s rights as well?

edit for typos

I'm failing to see the logic behind this argument. Are you arguing that people getting married don't want to be getting married?

02/25/2004 04:46:57 PM · #89

Originally posted by nborton:

I think you could call the universally accepted definition as a union before state between two people. How does that float your boat?

02/25/2004 04:48:59 PM · #90

Originally posted by Pedro:

your two examples are ridiculous. the premise is live and let live. the right to not be eaten is probably even in the constitution, but i can't be sure.

what's so ridiculous about my examples when they are taking place all over the planet.

in no way am i comparing gay marriage to cannibalism. i'm just making a statement about tolerance and giving people free reign to do what they please.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

02/25/2004 04:50:43 PM · #91

Originally posted by mbardeen:

Originally posted by nborton:

i would argue that if one side believes mariage is man/woman, and the other side believes man/man or woman/woman, then you have no universally accepted definition anymore and the whole thing looses all meaning.

I think you could call the universally accepted definition as a union before state between two people. How does that float your boat?

the problem is that there is a whole group of people who don't accept between two people.

frisca

Nikon D70

02/25/2004 04:50:57 PM · #92

Originally posted by nborton:

Originally posted by mbardeen:
No. I think "tolerance" is the idea that you can let people live their lives how they choose.

letting everyone live their lives how they choose is a scary thought. when there are no rules governing life no one is free.

if i like to blow myself up in suicide bombings, under your reasoning i should be allowed to.

Let me help: the implied statement that went along with M's "live and let live" is to allow a person to live his or her life by making the choices that affect them (and them alone). And not have those choices and paths chosen by someone else. My rights end where yours begin. Yours begin WELL beyond the confines of my personal relationship. My right to swing my arms ends where my arms strike your body. Let the arms swing freely when they are no where near you.

02/25/2004 04:51:33 PM · #93

Originally posted by nborton:

Originally posted by Pedro:
your two examples are ridiculous. the premise is live and let live. the right to not be eaten is probably even in the constitution, but i can't be sure.

what's so ridiculous about my examples when they are taking place all over the planet.

in no way am i comparing gay marriage to cannibalism. i'm just making a statement about tolerance and giving people free reign to do what they please.

as you put it earlier: as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Clearly, eating me would infringe on my right to not be eaten. Explain to me how a gay couple's marriage adversely affects you.

02/25/2004 04:56:38 PM · #94

Originally posted by Pedro:

Originally posted by nborton:

Originally posted by Pedro:
your two examples are ridiculous. the premise is live and let live. the right to not be eaten is probably even in the constitution, but i can't be sure.

what's so ridiculous about my examples when they are taking place all over the planet.

in no way am i comparing gay marriage to cannibalism. i'm just making a statement about tolerance and giving people free reign to do what they please.

as you put it earlier: as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Clearly, eating me would infringe on my right to not be eaten. Explain to me how a gay couple's marriage adversely affects you.

my intentions weren't related to gay marriage, but to tolerance. the thing that's funny about not infringing on others rights, is it's almost impossible. if i really want to build a house on someone's land and they say no. then by them saying no and keeping their desires, it infringes on my desires.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

02/25/2004 04:58:57 PM · #95

Even though I don't personally agree with the gay lifestyle for many reasons I have no intention of treating gays any differently. If two people of the same sex want to live together legally in a union that is fine by me and is already allowed. Perhaps even more benefits and allowances should be given for such couples. However, the term "marriage" has always meant the union between a man and a woman. It is a privilage that has religious roots and I strongly believe that is how it should remain. Call same sex marrige something else and fight for more benefits if you think that is necessary but don't fight to call it a marriage because the term marriage already has a definition.

02/25/2004 05:00:50 PM · #96

Originally posted by nborton:

except that it's MY land. you don't have rights to MY land. I'll leave yours alone, you leave mine alone, and we're cool.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/25/2004 05:02:39 PM · #97

Originally posted by Pedro:

1) for all time, marriage has been man/woman, this gives great meaning to the word marriage because i'm sorry, it is exclusive
2) because people want to always blur moral lines, you say let men marry men and women marry women...to me that takes away from the bond that i will have with my wife

but that's just me being ignorant and intolerant, right?