| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2004 05:24:12 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by nborton:
that's the point. there have to be rules established and agreed upon. you can't just allow everyone to do as they wish. |
right. and as long as two gay women being married doesn't impact me (which it doesn't), then i don't see the problem.
@achiral - Moral lines? whose morality? Yours? the Churches? that's a crock of sh*t. What is immoral about homosexuality? I'm not gay, but it doesn't offend me. I don't want a relationship with a man, nor do i want a relationship with a really ugly woman. does that mean we should ban marriages between ugly people too? does that somehow take away from your marriage with your pretty wife? Of course not.
How does someone else's relationship 'take away' from your relationship with your wife? 'Marriage' is about the bond, not the word. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 05:24:30 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by rickhd13:
Since I work in the insurance industry, it really angers me that gay couples are allowed to have "partners benefits". However a man and woman living together are not extended these same benefits. Why? Basically because the gays, even being about a 9% minority, have a huge voice and scream louder thatn the heterosexuals couples that are cohabitating. Is this right? No, but that is just the way it is. |
The reason gays have partner benefits is because we are *not allowed* to claim the same benefits open to heterosexual couples upon marriage. Many companies have taken it upon themselves to provide those benefits in an effort to attract competent workers, like me! I do think you're right however, this situation is not what it should be. Yet I would posit that the solution is not denying *me* the benefits to take care of my ill spouse in an emergency so I may remain a productive employee and contribute to society, but to allow me to marry and claim the same benefits *you* already can, or to extend partner benefits to unmarried but cohabitating couples as well. Where's the compassion?
You can't blame companies for trying to pick up the slack to improve their own workforce morale and productivity. Certainly not when there is *no other legal recourse* to obtain the support *any* relationship might need due to life's inherent problems.
- Mousie, who, if gays truly control corporate culture, wants in!
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 05:38:59 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
- Mousie, who, if gays truly control corporate culture, wants in! |
bahahahahah nice |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 05:43:04 PM · #104 |
Hey, I have an idea. How about everyone that uses 'them,' 'their,' 'gays,' or whatever word they favor to refer to homosexuals or homosexuality, substitute the word 'Mousie'.
For example:
"That being said Homosexuality makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust" becomes "That being said Mousie makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust"
It's what you mean, isn't it?
- Mousie, a person, not a concept |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 05:57:03 PM · #105 |
Achiral...Please explain just how a gay marriage "takes away" from the bond with your wife? I just don't understand that line of thinking? Also please explain what moral boundaries are being blurred between a gay couple. If they are doing something wrong in your eyes, well, that's just your eyes, but the state should not have something to say about that because in this country there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state.
Originally posted by achiral:
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. |
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? |
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 05:58:03 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by achiral:
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
|
How? Your bond is between you and your wife. Not between you, your wife, and some unspecified gay couple. As Pedro posted, it's about the bond and the love, not the word. If your love for your wife is affected by someone elses marriage five states away, I think that's pretty sad.
Originally posted by achiral:
but that's just me being ignorant and intolerant, right?
|
If you were to say that the bonds of your marriage were weakened because I'm white and I'm marrying a black girl, then I would say you are being ignorant and intolerant.
If you were to say that the bonds of your marriage were weakened because I'm blond and I'm marrying a brunette girl, then I would say you are being ignorant and intolerant.
If you were to say that the bonds of your marriage were weakened because I'm 18 and I'm marrying a 45 year old girl, then I would say you are being being ignorant and intolerant.
If you were to say that the bonds of your marriage were weakened because I'm 4'2" tall and I'm marrying a girl 6'5" tall, then I would say you are being being ignorant and intolerant.
If you were to say that the bonds of your marriage were weakened because I'm male and I'm marrying another guy, then I would say you are being being ignorant and intolerant.
Do you understand? Do I make myself clear? Here. Let me make it clearer.
I don't believe anyone should be telling me who I should or shouldn't be marrying on the basis that it "weakens the bonds of their own marriage" - regardless of my partners' sex, hair color, occupation, religion, tatoos, age, world view, or any other attribute. Anyone who tells me that I'd call ignorant and intolerant. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:01:29 PM · #107 |
But isn't that the whole point of the debate? Marriage has been traditionally defined as being between just a man and a woman when it really shouldn't be excluding other definitions...
And for some reason people will follow that line of logic to say it will open the doors for polygamy, adult/child relationships, god knows what else... but...
if 2 consenting adults who love each other can marry provided they are the opposite sex, why can't any 2 consenting adults who love each other marry? How is it not discrimination based on gender?
I really can't see how it would devalue any loving marriage a man already has with his wife. Sometimes I feel people think that legalizing gay marriage would cause a wave of gay marriages to sweep all over the country and there will be gay people married everywhere...which will cause moral degeneration, etc..
Well, the fact is that only a subset of the population is gay! And the fact is that only a subset of that population is ready to get married... We're not talking a lot of people on the grand scheme of things.
And people have to stop considering it a "lifestyle". As already mentioned, it doesn't sound like its a picnic being gay, does it? Being mocked in school, hiding who you are, having to face a wave of intolerance and prejudice... Whether being gay is proven genetic or environmental, lifestyle or not, turning straight is not something that's can be easily done if it can be done at all, and I doubt it can... The fact that it is hard to alter someone's sexual "preference", that gay people know they're different from very early on, that despite the difficult life ahead many would not even want to be straight if they could... well, that should put an end to that particular debate... its part of their identity, of who they are. They are part of a minority that is continuing to be discriminated against. Marriage is really one issue out of many.
I think too that religion needs to stay out of it, but I'm surprised how people speak on behalf of God and claim to know how he/she feels on the subject. Did anyone have a personal conversation with him/her? Since there already has been a wide latitutude of the way the Bible is interpreted, with all the out of date passages as well, I wonder why it is the only thing people fall back on.
Originally posted by achiral:
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? |
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:02:39 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
wow this thread got big fast. i have not read every post i have read enough to see a pattern.
that pattern is that those who are against gay marraige are christians or religious somehow (even if there post dosnt say it, a quick look at there profile tells alot).
these are the kinds of reasons i will NEVER belive in any organized religions god or support any organized religion. they cast judgement on everyone they feel like and claim righteousness. (not to mention they belive stuff that cant be proven.. but thats a whole nother topic)
|
i'm sorry you fell this way. ignorance is bliss as you obviously have no intention on taking any religious person seriously. the truth be told, there are a lot of judgemental people in and out of the religious realm, and that's too bad. one thing i can say is that i know the only true judge, God, when you MadMordegon as well as me meet him face to face, we will have to account for our sins, and only then will you be able to understand what this is all about. if you want to continue labeling religious people and religion and all that, go right ahead, but you are performing the same intolerance that you would accuse me of.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:04:45 PM · #109 |
| the central point of this whole issue for me has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. the point is how do we decide what is legal and not legal or moral and immoral. someone has to decide. do we leave it up to a vote and majority rules? because if that were so, there is a chance that gay marriage if would loose, and all those in favor of gay marriage would have to accept the vote. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:16:52 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by nborton:
the central point of this whole issue for me has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. the point is how do we decide what is legal and not legal or moral and immoral. someone has to decide. do we leave it up to a vote and majority rules? because if that were so, there is a chance that gay marriage if would loose, and all those in favor of gay marriage would have to accept the vote. |
And then the courts step in and say, "No, you can't do that. It's unconstitutional." And then Bush says, "Okay, we'll try for a constitutional amendment."
And now we're back to what started this discussion in the first place. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:18:12 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by nborton:
the central point of this whole issue for me has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. the point is how do we decide what is legal and not legal or moral and immoral. someone has to decide. do we leave it up to a vote and majority rules? because if that were so, there is a chance that gay marriage if would loose, and all those in favor of gay marriage would have to accept the vote. |
assuming we all had to conform and be exactly the same, then yes, your logic would apply. Of course, then we'd all have to wear the same clothes, go to the same church, eat the same food, and watch the same TV shows.
Otherwise, your point has zero basis.
The POINT, Nick, is that you have no right to tell me or anyone else how to live if it doesn't affect your rights to live as you would wish. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:23:08 PM · #112 |
To me, religion is about control of people. There have been many wars in the name of religion and many movements in the history of the world against non-believers and "sinners." The church has a long history of this and of their own brand of corruption. They haven't always been for "enlightenment" unless it meant that they would stay in control.
Again, I will posit this question...Why is the federal gov't getting involved with this issue? Isn't there supposed to be seperation of church and state in the US?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:25:38 PM · #113 |
I find it disturbing that people use religion as an excuse to be a bigot. Mousie is an American (I think)and a creation of god just like everyone else and deserves the same rights.
The bible says animal sacrafices are acceptable methods of prayer. It also says it's okay to own slaves. In fact, the Vatican didn't denouce slavery until 20 years after the emancipation proclimation. I'm sure 20 years after homosexuality is proven not to be a choice the vatican will say it's acceptable. The Vatican also just recently said that we are being to hard on priest that molest children!!!
Think for yourself. Don't let your church tell you what is right and wrong. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:28:28 PM · #114 |
ok let me try to explain where i'm coming from...and for the record i'm talking about *hopefully* my future wife.
first of all, the main problem we have here is a mixture of church and state. without the state, marriages wouldn't have the legal ramifications that they do and without the church there would be no marriage, so that's #1.
#2 i gotta get home from work i'll post later
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:28:43 PM · #115 |
Did I miss the bit where we were supposed to act out the open challenge theme, rather than photograph it ?
For people paying attention, it has changed from 'conflict' to 'silence'
- Please adjust your mirrors.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:32:55 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Did I miss the bit where we were supposed to act out the open challenge theme, rather than photograph it ?
For people paying attention, it has changed from 'conflict' to 'silence'
- Please adjust your mirrors. |
lol Gordon :) |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:34:42 PM · #117 |
That's a great job you have that you could spend time posting on the internet and make money doing it...lol We'll be waiting for you :)
Originally posted by achiral:
ok let me try to explain where i'm coming from...and for the record i'm talking about *hopefully* my future wife.
first of all, the main problem we have here is a mixture of church and state. without the state, marriages wouldn't have the legal ramifications that they do and without the church there would be no marriage, so that's #1.
#2 i gotta get home from work i'll post later |
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:35:33 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by nborton:
the central point of this whole issue for me has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. the point is how do we decide what is legal and not legal or moral and immoral. someone has to decide. do we leave it up to a vote and majority rules? because if that were so, there is a chance that gay marriage if would loose, and all those in favor of gay marriage would have to accept the vote. |
assuming we all had to conform and be exactly the same, then yes, your logic would apply. Of course, then we'd all have to wear the same clothes, go to the same church, eat the same food, and watch the same TV shows.
Otherwise, your point has zero basis.
The POINT, Nick, is that you have no right to tell me or anyone else how to live if it doesn't affect your rights to live as you would wish. |
there are laws though that are in place, such as suicide laws, which have no affect on others. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:42:30 PM · #119 |
You are comparing the taking of a life with a marriage? Hardly the same thing. Suicide does have a great effect on alot of other people.
Originally posted by nborton:
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by nborton:
the central point of this whole issue for me has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. the point is how do we decide what is legal and not legal or moral and immoral. someone has to decide. do we leave it up to a vote and majority rules? because if that were so, there is a chance that gay marriage if would loose, and all those in favor of gay marriage would have to accept the vote. |
assuming we all had to conform and be exactly the same, then yes, your logic would apply. Of course, then we'd all have to wear the same clothes, go to the same church, eat the same food, and watch the same TV shows.
Otherwise, your point has zero basis.
The POINT, Nick, is that you have no right to tell me or anyone else how to live if it doesn't affect your rights to live as you would wish. |
there are laws though that are in place, such as suicide laws, which have no affect on others. |
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:44:32 PM · #120 |
as you can see HERE mister Bush has clearly struck a deal with Satan!
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:44:33 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
That's a great job you have that you could spend time posting on the internet and make money doing it...lol We'll be waiting for you :) |
ive been at work this whole time. and in the middle of a large billing outage. shows my dedication to this topic.. ;)
ill be home at 11pm est. so youll have to put up w/ me till then ;) |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 06:54:01 PM · #122 |
Did I miss the bit where we were supposed to act out the open challenge theme, rather than photograph it ?
For people paying attention, it has changed from 'conflict' to 'silence'
- Please adjust your mirrors.
Gordon
OH NO, I have a Sony Digi cam and they all have a lot of noise. Just my luck. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 07:07:43 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by nborton:
there are laws though that are in place, such as suicide laws, which have no affect on others. |
I hope I did this quote thing correctly, but suicide is not illegal anywhere I know. For the simple fact that you would not have anyone to prosecute. It is illegal to assist in suicide (because that's murder, and who is to say that you didn't infact murder the person and then just say "oh they wanted to die and I just helped". Some places have made attempted suicide illegal, but even that is a stupid way to deal with what is essentially a non-criminal, usually mental illness type problem.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:30:17 PM · #124 |
dictionary.com's defenition of "marriage":
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
a. The state of being married; wedlock.
b. A common-law marriage.
c. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 20:30:50. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 09:04:36 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
dictionary.com's defenition of "marriage":
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
|
I guess advertizers, movie reviewers, et. al. are going to get sued silly when our government changes the official definition of marriage. Every time they use it to refer to anything other than the union between a man and a woman it'll be unconstitutional!
I suppose we can always fall back on 'a match made in heaven.'
|
|
