DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?
Pages:   ... [266]
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 6629, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/14/2008 11:46:14 AM · #51
Also, do you know how many gay people I know got married in a church?

None!

Nobody (in the practical sense) wants this hypothetical "church who hates me wedding"! It's a complete diversion! I mean, I wouldn't put pulling a stunt like this past some jerk with a chip on their shoulder, but people shoot up postal offices too and that doesn't mean we should ban guns.
10/14/2008 12:47:22 PM · #52
Originally posted by Mousie:

Also, do you know how many gay people I know got married in a church?

None!

Two in my church by my minister.

Praise be!......8>)
10/14/2008 01:47:52 PM · #53
Originally posted by Mousie:

...but people shoot up postal offices too and that doesn't mean we should ban guns.

Sorry to divert, but yes it does.
10/14/2008 02:05:39 PM · #54
Originally posted by Mousie:

Look. This is not about religion, apart from the religious trying to suppress my relationship because it makes them queasy. Stop debating theology, stop debating minutiae of law, this is about everyday life.


One church is on your side. Too bad it's Canadian :(

Canada’s largest Protestant denomination, the United Church of Canada, appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in October 2004, speaking in support of the right of same-sex couples to be legally married.

Wish I could vote no on 8.

Oh, and Mousie... CONGRATS!! In all the debate it nearly got missed that Friday was your big day. PICS??? :D

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 14:07:05.
10/14/2008 02:15:33 PM · #55
Mousie, so, if CA votes "yes," your marriage is not "legal" in that it will no longer be recognized by the state, correct?

I'm assuming your committment to eachother supersedes that, and you will be "bound" to eachother regardless of what the state says.

However, not having "legal" status implicates things like joint property ownership, health benefits to spouses and the likes, am I correct?

(These are honest questions because I do not know. Please do not think I am trying to argue any point, I just wondered,)
10/14/2008 02:24:07 PM · #56
I was incensed that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, who have radically different beliefs about homosexuality, made the exact same statement at the debate.

Let's be clear about this. You either think homosexuality is legitimate or you think it's some sort of perversion or sin. Biden believes the former and Palin believes the latter.

So, if homosexuality is legitimate there is no way on God's green earth that you would want to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That definition only makes sense to people intolerant of homosexuality.

Palin doesn't want civil unions. She's not "tolerant" of homosexuals. She thinks they are sinning and should be shunned. As most people know by now, she doesn't get out much. She hasn't seen homosexual couples in committed relationships, homebuyers, taxpayers, contributors to society. Or if she has, then shame on her.

So both candidates lied, because these are the two views. The only "middle ground" between these two views is for people who refuse to think about the issue, which is not something a candidate for national office can afford to do.

"Civil union but not marriage," the view so popular among politicians, is logically untenable... not that that ever stopped politicians before.
10/14/2008 02:30:04 PM · #57
Karmat, I think you are correct on all points, except that there will be a legal dispute about whether marriages conducted during this "window" between the time the State Supreme Court ruling legalizing marriages between any two consenting adults and the election will still be legal if Prop. 8 passes, as legal precedent does not usually allow retroactive application of a law. This prohibition on ex post facto ("after the fact") legislation prevents a government five years from now defining some perfectly legal activity you engage in today as a crime, providing a reason to arrest you. That's one reason there's a rush to get the licenses issued before the election.

BTW, don't forget one of the biggest differences between being legally married and "civil unioned" -- AFAIK, the IRS does not allow people in civil unions to file taxes jointly ...
10/14/2008 02:30:50 PM · #58
John McCain: "My friends...a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for gay sex, around the clock"

I expect to hear than one when he slips below 38%...

10/14/2008 02:44:13 PM · #59
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Mousie:

...but people shoot up postal offices too and that doesn't mean we should ban guns.

Sorry to divert, but yes it does.


Not really but I guess we're all entitled to our opinion.
10/14/2008 02:48:50 PM · #60
I was disappointed in Biden's response, too, but I couldn't help but think this is not the race to make gay marriage a divisive issue. I understand if you completely disagree, but there are voters (not to mention candidates) who will latch onto *any* opportunity to label the Democrats negatively. I think Biden's response was sad but probably necessary.

Of course, labeling him as someone who has the courage of his convictions might have been nice, too. :-)
10/14/2008 02:51:45 PM · #61
It seem to me that it's more of an issue over semantics and less about respecting the union and the benefits etc.
10/14/2008 02:58:32 PM · #62
Originally posted by pawdrix:

It seem to me that it's more of an issue over semantics and less about respecting the union and the benefits etc.


I agree, if those opposed to gay marriage are willing to allow civil unions with the same benefits as a married hetero couple then it's a matter changing the name. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it's still a duck, it doesn't make a difference what it's called. It's a matter or word play and I feel the only reason they want to call it something different is to make it less than equal to a hetero marriage in their minds, imo.
10/14/2008 03:11:30 PM · #63
Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

It seem to me that it's more of an issue over semantics and less about respecting the union and the benefits etc.


I agree, if those opposed to gay marriage are willing to allow civil unions with the same benefits as a married hetero couple then it's a matter changing the name. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it's still a duck, it doesn't make a difference what it's called. It's a matter or word play and I feel the only reason they want to call it something different is to make it less than equal to a hetero marriage in their minds, imo.


Exactly! If it's a matter of some definition or word that was created under the umbrella of religion then let it be.

As long as people have the same rights, benefits and respect...what's the point of the argument? If the Christian-Judeo...Muslim whatever consider marriage to be between man and a woman, let'em have it and move on.

As I see it...the debate seems to be over a simple word or who owns the definition.

We gotz bigga fish to fry, imo.
<<<pawdrix is frying some very nice Cod Filets, as we speak>>>

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 15:15:24.
10/14/2008 03:42:34 PM · #64
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

It seem to me that it's more of an issue over semantics and less about respecting the union and the benefits etc.


I agree, if those opposed to gay marriage are willing to allow civil unions with the same benefits as a married hetero couple then it's a matter changing the name. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it's still a duck, it doesn't make a difference what it's called. It's a matter or word play and I feel the only reason they want to call it something different is to make it less than equal to a hetero marriage in their minds, imo.


Exactly! If it's a matter of some definition or word that was created under the umbrella of religion then let it be.

As long as people have the same rights, benefits and respect...what's the point of the argument? If the Christian-Judeo...Muslim whatever consider marriage to be between man and a woman, let'em have it and move on.

As I see it...the debate seems to be over a simple word or who owns the definition.

We gotz bigga fish to fry, imo.
<<<pawdrix is frying some very nice Cod Filets, as we speak>>>


The point is that the STATE, not any religion, is defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We can't have the state talking like that or it's discrimination.
10/14/2008 03:54:56 PM · #65
Originally posted by karmat:

Mousie, so, if CA votes "yes," your marriage is not "legal" in that it will no longer be recognized by the state, correct?

I'm assuming your committment to eachother supersedes that, and you will be "bound" to eachother regardless of what the state says.

However, not having "legal" status implicates things like joint property ownership, health benefits to spouses and the likes, am I correct?

(These are honest questions because I do not know. Please do not think I am trying to argue any point, I just wondered,)


The sad fact is that I have no idea what my status will be if Prop 8 passes. It's completely unclear what will happen. That is exactly the sort of burden gays live under every single day. Events beyond our control reach deeply into our personal lives in an invasive and hostile way.

That's one reason 'Marriage' itself is so important to me. It's concrete. It exists, it's well understood, and I should be able to share in it without doing pointless emotional and procedural hoop-jumping. I want to be a full citizen just like any others in the eyes of the STATE. So, when my partner is sick, I can see him in the hospital. So, when one of us dies, a hypothetical estranged relative doesn't swoop in right at our darkest moment and take away the property we've built together over our lives. There are all sorts of life planning and financial things that are covered by CIVIL marriage law that can help protect us, and people are regularly denied these rights TODAY because they can't get married! We want the same protections that everyone else has, and are willing to trade the increased responsibilies of marriage for them.

My husband JUST used these rights to check me into the emergency room for neck muscle spasms last Thursday. He was proud to be able to call me husband, comforted knowing that the hospital HAD to respect our relationship, and relieved to be able to sign the forms, so I wouldn't have to endure even more pain to do it myself. When your partner is lying in a hospital bed unable to lift their head without more screaming, these rights become VERY IMMEDIATE.

Civil unions at the federal level sound like such a great idea. I'm all for completely separating the legal institution of marriage from the religious one. But as far as I can tell, that's ALREADY the status quo in California today! I got married without involving any church. I'm holding a ceremony on Friday without involving any church. The government knows I'm wed. My families know I'm wed. Perfect! The church can simply butt out, but apaprently, they don't WANT to. They want to REVOKE my marriage and make sure nobody else can get one!

Let's start talking about civil unions once they're a viable option at the federal level. Unfortunately, I don't see that ever happening, so I'm going to go with what's available today, and that's marriage. It is currently the ONLY option available to protect our rights. Suggesting I choose some alternative that simply DOES NOT EXIST is unfair in the extreme. If you want civil unions so damn badly, why aren't you fighting for them, huh? Why is there only the thundering sound of crickets every time the so called moderates are given the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is?

Let me give you my pessimistic theory why federal-backed civil unions don't exist as of today. All the talk about them is pure lip service, a red herring meant to take energy away from the push for marriage. It lets people who dislike gay relationships sound civil while still insisting that their own relationships are different and somehow more legitimate. When push comes to shove, the average gay marriage opponent wouldn't want two homos shacking up on their block no matter what they called the relationship.

Please donate! The Prop 8 forces are over 10 million dollars ahead and flooding the airwaves with outright lies about the impact of this vote!!! The only things we can do are counter the ads with our own to remind people that the ONLY goal of this proposition is to revoke a right gays currently have by defining marriage to specifically exclude them, and to get out and vote!

No on 8!

Tell your friends! Tell your family! Protect equal rights for everyone!

You can't imagine how important this issue is to me. Be on the right side of history!

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 16:00:35.
10/14/2008 04:16:39 PM · #66
Originally posted by dahkota:

In the United States, there are two kinds of marriage: civil and religious.


Sadly this is not true, I wish it were.

In France the average couple has two ceremonies, one civil where you are granted a marriage license and swear to enter into legal contract and are joined in the eyes of the state; then you go off to the house of worship of your choice and get married in the eyes of god; or not. Either way a priest can not legally create a civil union in the eyes of the state, because he has no civil authority. The county recorder, or mayor or whomever has no right to sanctify a religious bond. In that country the believe in the separation of church and state.

In our country the marriage license is only a preliminary step, incomplete until you are married, whether in a purely civil ceremony or by a religious official. Can you imaging if we allowed churches to preside over divorces? Criminal cases?

The problem most people who oppose gay marriage have is with the notion that the state is intruding into their faith, telling them what is right and wrong, and the state has no business there. We ought to follow any faith we like, if that faith views homosexuality as a crime before God, so be it. But your faith has no right to tell the State how others may enter into contracts, or live their lives outside your church.

If we took the right of churches to forge legal bonds and put a little more daylight between church and state, this wouldn't be an issue

10/14/2008 04:34:16 PM · #67
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:


In case B, the man still has the RIGHT to marry. He chose not to marry and instead chose to be in an alternative relationship. He self-selected to not marry, no one infringed upon his rights. Marriage is DEFINED as one man + one woman. You cannot redefine it. Since the person you used in your example is one man, we see that he fits into that formula just fine. But to have marriage he would need to find "one woman". Otherwise he chooses not to marry.

Simple and reasonable.


As was shown in the other thread, it HAS been redefined many times throughout history, and may be redefined again, so this argument doesn't hold water.


Not sure what you're talking about. But God ordained marriage as one man and one woman. That is the definition for America and there is no need to change it to give SPECIAL rights to a self-selected and unverifiable group.


Mythology has no place in government.


No, but truth does. Regardless, marriage has always been one man + one woman in America. The mistakes of other countries do not apply here.


Marriage has long been within the purview of the states, not the Federal Government.

Whatever you, or some religious whack-job call marriage, that's fine in your church but your narrow-minded fairy-tale has no place in government.
10/14/2008 04:35:11 PM · #68
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

If we took the right of churches to forge legal bonds and put a little more daylight between church and state, this wouldn't be an issue

Isn't that separation of church & state to a T?

That's how it's SUPPOSED to be!
10/14/2008 04:36:15 PM · #69
Originally posted by posthumous:


The point is that the STATE, not any religion, is defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We can't have the state talking like that or it's discrimination.


In about 5 minutes I'm going to marry some flavors...

Deep Fried Cod Filets and a home made Tartare Sauce ( made with pickles purchased on Delancy Street, some lemon zest and imported capers ) served on toasted Amy's Bread (Seasalt Challah).

Still, I think it's about ownership of a word and who gets to define it. Seems petty on both sides but I don't take religion seriously...more with a grain of salt. Having said that, I'm still willing to concede the word marriage, cus that's the kinda guy I am.

Instead of arguing...let the Christians have it and find a new word for the legal...whatever. I think it's fair game to define the concept of marriage as we wish but again...it seems like a waste of energy as long as the concept of a Union is respected and treated fairly the same way as a Marriage under the law.

All for now.

...back to my fried fish

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 16:55:31.
10/14/2008 04:46:52 PM · #70
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

In France the average couple has two ceremonies, one civil where you are granted a marriage license and swear to enter into legal contract and are joined in the eyes of the state; <snip>

Interesting take on the issue. Btw, in the U.S., after a couple is married in a church ceremony, don't they still have to sign a "state" document, with witnesses, to be legally married?
10/14/2008 04:50:02 PM · #71
Originally posted by pawdrix:


Instead of arguing...let the Christians have it and find a new word for the legal...whatever. I think it's fair game to define the concept of marriage as we wish but again...it seems like a waste of energy as long as the concept of a Union is respected and treated fairly the same way as a Marriage under the law.


That would be fine if you could just snap your fingers and make it happen, but like I said in a previous post, it's not really an argument about a word. The word is being used to hide people's real positions.

Now stop talking to me. You're making me hungry.
10/14/2008 04:50:48 PM · #72
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Still, I think it's about ownership of a word and who gets to define it. Seems petty on both sides but I don't take religion seriously...more with a grain of salt. Having said that, I'm still willing to concede the word marriage.


So it's petty to fight for my equal rights? For real legal protections and real responsibilities in the face of constant whittling away by religious groups?

Petty?

Are you just being flippant, or do you care so little for some of your fellow citizens that their rights, and the struggle for them, you do indeed see them as petty?

And if it's so goddamn petty, why do people fight so hard to take them away from me?

Answers please.

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 17:05:01.
10/14/2008 04:52:40 PM · #73
Mousie, you're getting married on Friday. I know Prop 8 is very important to you, but so is your ceremony, and that alone should be plenty to stress over! :-) So do yourself, your husband, and your families a favor and let this rest for a few days. Concentrate on your wedding. Most of all, ENJOY IT!! And don't forget you promised to share pictures. Now go stress over all the stuff that needs to be ready by Friday! (And best wishes to both of you on your big day, too.)
10/14/2008 04:52:52 PM · #74
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

But God ordained marriage as one man and one woman. That is the definition for America and there is no need to change it to give SPECIAL rights to a self-selected and unverifiable group.

Umm.....no, my God doesn't see it that way.

I reject any God that is not accepting and loving of his own children.

Once again, homosexuality is NOT a choice, it just IS, and terming a section of the human race self-selected and unverifiable just does not fly.

And what's up with this "SPECIAL" rights?

I want my gay friends to have the same rights I do......EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!
10/14/2008 04:54:29 PM · #75
Originally posted by posthumous:

That would be fine if you could just snap your fingers and make it happen, but like I said in a previous post, it's not really an argument about a word. The word is being used to hide people's real positions.


I could not agree with you any more.
Pages:   ... [266]
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:34:43 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:34:43 AM EDT.