What are your thoughts on Prop 8

112 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
  • |
I live here in California and obviously Prop 8 is the talk of the time.

I don't understand the big deal. I think it should be 100% legal for gay people to get legally married.

What are your thoughts?
  • Profile picture of the author Emailrevealer
    My problem is that the divorce courts are already overwhelmed and this will just make it worse.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[233992].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alex Sol
      ... unfortunately, even in 2008 we still have a lot of closed minded people.

      They want get married? Why not? This will bring more money to the government, and if they get divorced - it'll bring even more money!

      I couldn't care less how others lead their life because it is not of my business, gay or straight...
      Signature
      Alex Sol, Full time online marketer since 2007
      The Extra Paycheck Blog | Extra Paycheck Podcast
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234153].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Ah, once again I am on the outside looking in.
    I do believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way.
    So, I am assuming prop 8 is a bill to let people of the same sex get married, I am 100% against it.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234305].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author acreativetouch
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Ah, once again I am on the outside looking in.
      I do believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way.
      So, I am assuming prop 8 is a bill to let people of the same sex get married, I am 100% against it.
      Prop 8 is a California constitutional amendment making the legal definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

      Dorothy
      Signature

      Dorothy Carlson
      Phoenix Natural Health

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[247109].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        From what I heard it was the large black voter turnout that had a lot to do with it passing. Seems even though they voted for Obama who supports gay marriage they voted against gays getting married.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[247567].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    Why are you ppl acting like marriage = happiness when it's common knowledge marriage=misery? I think marriage should be outlawed period. :p
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234457].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Henderson
      I've just read about this on Wikipedia: California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      ...and I just don't understand what happened to the cherished American ideals of 'liberty' and 'freedom'...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234832].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by John Henderson View Post

        I've just read about this on Wikipedia: California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        ...and I just don't understand what happened to the cherished American ideals of 'liberty' and 'freedom'...
        Meaning? liberty and freedom have nothing to do with this,but seperation of church and state has a lot to do with it.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234850].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author John Henderson
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Meaning? liberty and freedom have nothing to do with this,but seperation of church and state has a lot to do with it.
          Well, the US was founded on the primacy of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

          So why isn't this remembered when a couple of gay people want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives? How come the constitution of the state of California can be changed to prevent them from doing that? What happened to their liberty? Why aren't they free to do that?

          I don't understand. :confused:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234940].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by John Henderson View Post

            Well, the US was founded on the primacy of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

            So why isn't this remembered when a couple of gay people want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives? How come the constitution of the state of California can be changed to prevent them from doing that? What happened to their liberty? Why aren't they free to do that?

            I don't understand. :confused:
            They can commit to each other for the rest of their lives,they just can't get married. The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. not two men or not two women.
            This is not about a committment, you don't need a marriage liscense to be comitted to someone. What's the real purpose behind it? Think about it.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235022].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              I don't mean to blow a hole in the argument, but just who made the "definition" that marriage is only between a man and a woman?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235032].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by myob View Post

                I don't mean to blow a hole in the argument, but just who made the "definition" that marriage is only between a man and a woman?
                I don't know, but if you look it up in the dictionary, that's what you get.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235120].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author jimmymc
              To my way of thinking the purpose of it is to get societies approval of deviant behavior and then I could say it's a Bible prophecy and be glad I wasn't chosen to act it out.

              jimmymc
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235040].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author acreativetouch
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              They can commit to each other for the rest of their lives,they just can't get married. The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. not two men or not two women.
              This is not about a committment, you don't need a marriage liscense to be comitted to someone. What's the real purpose behind it? Think about it.
              Also, it counters procreation. Yes, marriage is more than having kids, but we are in an international de-population. With baby boomers reaching their senior years, there will be more people dying from old age than being born. Also, every 5-8 seconds a child ( not to mention adults ) die from water related illness. So, promoting "gay marriage" will only continue this cycle. Also, as stated by Kim, a lifetime commitment doesn't take a legal document. Two people can live together, set up wills and other forms of legal protection without the "okay dokey" of the state.

              Dorothy
              Signature

              Dorothy Carlson
              Phoenix Natural Health

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239352].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by John Henderson View Post

        I've just read about this on Wikipedia: California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        ...and I just don't understand what happened to the cherished American ideals of 'liberty' and 'freedom'...
        We got rid of them years ago
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234857].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
          Thanks for the feedback... I've been arguing this for weeks with my friends.

          I don't think that it should be up to me or anyone else on whether or not gays should be able to marry.

          I think that there are only two reasons why people vote against gay marriage

          1. because of religion
          2. because there repulsed by it
          I personally don't understand it because I'm not on that side of the fence. But, that's also the same reason why I don't think that it's fair for me to have anything to say about them getting married.

          I lack the knowledge and understanding of why people choose to be gay. However, that's their choice/preference. And that's cool.

          I think it's wrong to interfere with the happiness of others.

          Besides they've been empowered by the opposition and now they are rioting here. So shutting them out has caused more of a problem than what was expected.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235039].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by marcanthony View Post

            Besides they've been empowered by the opposition and now they are rioting here. So shutting them out has caused more of a problem than what was expected.
            They are rioting? That's what jails are for.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235123].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
              I can't say if gay marriage is or is not spoken against in any religious document - if it is, then the couple should not be able to be married by a minister of that faith. But our country is supposed to be about freedom of choice, autonomy, and religion, so while I can understand why a church may decline to recognize such a union - there is not much excuse for the State to refuse them. They are living in a union that shares the work and expense of a household just as a hetro couple - they are paying taxes, etc just as a hetro couple, the benefits of such an arrangement via the state should be the same.
              Signature

              Sal
              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
              Beyond the Path

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235232].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Hey Sal, I agree with you again. Well said. I voted no on prop 8 and pretty much for the reasons Sal gave.

                Here's something I don't get: the conservatives are extremely pro-life right? That's one of their main issues if not THE main issue with them. Well, with gays you don't EVER have to worry about abortions! Isn't that worth reconsidering your anti gay stances? Especially since so many of the conservatives seem to be closet homesexuals anyways. Just saying...



                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                I can't say if gay marriage is or is not spoken against in any religious document - if it is, then the couple should not be able to be married by a minister of that faith. But our country is supposed to be about freedom of choice, autonomy, and religion, so while I can understand why a church may decline to recognize such a union - there is not much excuse for the State to refuse them. They are living in a union that shares the work and expense of a household just as a hetro couple - they are paying taxes, etc just as a hetro couple, the benefits of such an arrangement via the state should be the same.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235423].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author tommyp
                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                I can't say if gay marriage is or is not spoken against in any religious document - if it is, then the couple should not be able to be married by a minister of that faith. But our country is supposed to be about freedom of choice, autonomy, and religion, so while I can understand why a church may decline to recognize such a union - there is not much excuse for the State to refuse them. They are living in a union that shares the work and expense of a household just as a hetro couple - they are paying taxes, etc just as a hetro couple, the benefits of such an arrangement via the state should be the same.
                I pretty much agree overall. I believe in the Bible but I don't care what they do. However, to give them that right the right for churches to reject them also needs to be kept intact otherwise it's a double standard. So if homosexuals do get married let it be recognized by the State and not any particular religious organization if said religious organization chooses not to. The ones that do recognize it, let them and people can still choose wher ethey want to go to church. Sounds fair, but I really don't care cause I don't have a dog in any of these fights. Just my thoughts.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240979].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              They are rioting? That's what jails are for.
              Kim, it's the craziest thing that I have ever seen. I currently live in Long Beach, California. Long Beach has one of the largest gay communities in the country. Believe me when I say that they are extremely upset right now.

              Earlier today a gay protester pulled a guy out of his car and beat him up. This was caught on the news.

              The funniest thing that I've seen so far was a sign that read "No More Mr. Nice Gay"

              So yes they are rioting but, let me keep that in context. The media is calling what they are doing rioting. It's not like they are in large groups robbing and stealing from random people... or looting.

              At best, what they are doing is the epitome of causing a ruckus.

              It's funny... but not so funny!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235569].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author acreativetouch
      Originally Posted by annoyedgirl View Post

      Why are you ppl acting like marriage = happiness when it's common knowledge marriage=misery? I think marriage should be outlawed period. :p
      It's inspiring to see a couple HAPPILY married for like 40+ years! If it's set up right ( no sex or live together ), a year long courtship period, those marriages LAST. It doesn't have to lead to misery. It's just the "dating game" that makes a shaky foundation. The old-fashioned way works.

      Dorothy
      Signature

      Dorothy Carlson
      Phoenix Natural Health

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[250403].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
        Originally Posted by acreativetouch View Post

        It's inspiring to see a couple HAPPILY married for like 40+ years! If it's set up right ( no sex or live together ), a year long courtship period, those marriages LAST. It doesn't have to lead to misery. It's just the "dating game" that makes a shaky foundation. The old-fashioned way works.

        Dorothy
        Yeah I guess if people courted for a year and didn't have sex or live together and then got married, it would last until death did them part Too bad that just doesn't happen anymore. Well actually I do know a couple that dated and saved their virginity till marriage. But these days most ppl live together, have kids, then they might decide to get married and I dont know what the point it really.


        And I feel so totally discriminated against too. I am a total polygamist and I wanna marry Indy, Pat, Phnx, Vince, and HeySal Oh I'm so pissed off I guess we'll have to do it unofficially wink, wink :p
        Signature

        siggy taking a break...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[252027].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by annoyedgirl View Post

          I am a total polygamist and I wanna marry Indy, Pat, Phnx, Vince, and HeySal Oh I'm so pissed off I guess we'll have to do it unofficially wink, wink :p
          Wow. That has brought up a hell of a honeymoon picture in my head. Well, actually I don't know what Indy or PHnx look like, but just you, Pat and Sal makes it interesting. ( I'm trying to keep VV out of it because it just ruins it for me. :-0 )
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[252102].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ShayB
          Originally Posted by annoyedgirl View Post

          And I feel so totally discriminated against too. I am a total polygamist and I wanna marry Indy, Pat, Phnx, Vince, and HeySal Oh I'm so pissed off I guess we'll have to do it unofficially wink, wink :p
          Hey! What about moving to England with me? What happened to me?

          Now I am going to pout.....

          *off sulking in a corner*
          Signature
          "Fate protects fools, little children, and ships called Enterprise." ~Commander Riker
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[252462].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author pcalvert
            Some interesting, recent articles on this...

            Angry, sore losers

            If democracy doesn't work, try anarchy
            Signature

            "If a cat sits on a hot stove, that cat won't sit on a hot stove again.
            That cat won't sit on a cold stove either." - Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[258548].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by pcalvert View Post

              Some interesting, recent articles on this...

              Angry, sore losers

              If democracy doesn't work, try anarchy
              Yep, the people doing this are hypocritical and in the wrong.

              However, that's a different issue than the OP brought up. Just because some of the people are jerks, and they are hurting their own cause, doesn't mean that their anger is "wrong". IMO, they have a right to be angry, it's how they are expressing their anger that is what's wrong.

              Phil, do you believe it was wrong for my Great Aunt to have been arrested and jailed in the 1920's Kansas for marrying outside her race?

              Do you think it was wrong to outlaw marriage between slaves during slavery?

              If so to either, then you believe that marriage has been, and can be, redifined, and isn't set in stone as it's been stated.

              To be honest, IMO most Biblical definitions of marriage are about property, not love.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[258594].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
            Originally Posted by Shay60654 View Post

            Hey! What about moving to England with me? What happened to me?

            Now I am going to pout.....

            *off sulking in a corner*
            It's too cold in england but you go and get yourself a free million dollar house to live in and I'll come visit ya in the summer and we can partay.
            Signature

            siggy taking a break...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[258639].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dumi
    I was a bit surprised that it passed!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[234948].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jimmymc
      Personally, I don't care...but, same sex marriage does make introductions awkward and I really don't think the parts fit together as designed.

      jimmymc
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235013].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    prop 8 passing would be good business for divorce lawyers. Cha-ching. Bad news for clogged up family courts. I never even heard of prop 8 before election day.

    The reason why it's so hard to pass is tradition. Since the beginning of man marriage has always been b/w a man and a woman without any question. Now in the 21st century laws are wanted to change centuries old traditions. It's hard to break traditions that go so far back. The thousands of years old traditions are breaking, but slowly.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235236].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author colmodwyer
    Personally it's all a bit bullshit to me - but then Schwarzenegger is great in Commando, so...

    Toughy.

    Colm
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235291].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Cheesman
    God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

    If it wasn't for man and women life would ceist to exist...

    Dennis

    But this is just my personal opinion...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235330].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nightengale
      Not sure I want to get into the debate and why's about it, but I'll give my opinion. (You asked...)

      I voted AGAINST gay marriage. I'm 100% against it and am so glad the amendments banning gay marriage passed here in FL, AZ and CA. I was surprised it passed in CA, but glad it did.

      Hollywood, gay activists and Matt Damon don't speak for all of us.

      Michelle
      Signature
      "You can't market here. This is a marketing discussion forum!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235404].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I think there needs to be some type of civil union - whatever people want to call it - that gives gay partners the legal rights other couples have.

      If two women or two men love each other - it has no affect on my life. It does nothing to harm me - and most evidence points to sexual orientation as genetic in origin.

      I think tolerance is in short supply in our society - and we need more of it. If it's against God's will, he can make that judgment when the time comes.

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235422].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
      Originally Posted by Dennis Cheesman View Post

      God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

      If it wasn't for man and women life would ceist to exist...

      Dennis

      But this is just my personal opinion...
      But homosexuality still exists. And, it's been accepted in many ways.

      If a man is only attracted to other men, what is he supposed to do?

      Most gay people are not gay because they think it's cool.

      I think that religion should be left out of the picture with this because some people don't even believe in god. And, they don't have to.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235576].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by marcanthony View Post

        Earlier today a gay protester pulled a guy out of his car and beat him up. This was caught on the news.

        Which are the ones that I am saying the jails are for.

        Originally Posted by marcanthony View Post

        But homosexuality still exists. And, it's been accepted in many ways.

        Accepted by some but not all. But that is a true statement because I don't care if a person is gay,but don't try to change society.

        If a man is only attracted to other men, what is he supposed to do?

        Most gay people are not gay because they think it's cool.



        I think that religion should be left out of the picture with this because some people don't even believe in god. And, they don't have to.
        I already said that this is an issue of seperation of church and state,not religion. Marriage was a religious ceremony, the state decided to get in on it for the financial benefits. If the state wants to let their be a legal agreement between two gay people, I don't care,but don't call it a marriage.

        PS: I only used bold to differentiate my statements from the ones being quote.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235741].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
          I guess there are some of the Clergy who have very
          mixed feelings about these issues.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235747].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by Mike Wright View Post

            I guess there are some of the Clergy who have very
            mixed feelings about these issues.
            Definitely
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235789].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
        Originally Posted by marcanthony View Post

        If a man is only attracted to other men, what is he supposed to do?
        1. Pray for guidance and wisdom
        2. See a good psychiatrist
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236226].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
          Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

          1. Pray for guidance and wisdom
          2. See a good psychiatrist
          That's funny!

          But seriously... Should someone be forced to control how they feel about another person?

          If thats what makes them happy, shouldn't they be entitled to the lifestyle they choose?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236254].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
            Originally Posted by marcanthony View Post

            That's funny!
            It wasn't a joke.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236262].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
              Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

              It wasn't a joke.
              Trust me... I know you're not joking.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    I was against it...The I was reminded of the facts, that 52% of straight marriages, including my own, end in divorce. If less than half of the people in this country have marriages that last a life time, I'm not sure we're in a postition to tell gays they can't get married.

    It seems to me divorce is the biggest challenge to marriage, not sexual orientation. This fact changed my mind. If we straight people want to tell others they can't get married, we need to do a lot better job in marriage ourselves.

    Also, anyone find it ironic that the bill was sponsored/financed by the Mormons? When did they become the spokespeople for America on the subject of marriage? Two grown men can't get married, but a grown man can marry 5 teenage girls?
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[235460].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    We've basically forgotten what marriage actually IS. I used to hold to the 'just a piece of paper' but after studying geneology I realised I was wrong.

    From an esoteric or even 'religious' perspective, marriage is a union of two opposites, and from that union the potential for new life is created. The ceremony itself is 'sacred' in that it is an enactment of the Divine Marriage of opposite forces which created the Universe. Hinduism expresses it best in the mating of Shiva and Shakti. Two of the same 'force' cannot produce new life, just as the Universe works on opposites. From a practical point of view 2 of the same cannot produce another worker for the system, so the union has less value to the State. It's not a moral thing, though of course exoteric religion interprets it that way. (If you use a wireless mouse, change the polarity of the batteries so they are the same: doesn't work does it? Those batteries aren't "bad", they just can't work as intended unless the polarities are correctly aligned. Stupid analogy I know, but I haven't eaten yet and I'm tired. :p )

    Marriage has never been viewed as 'private' thing between 2 people either, until fairly recently. That's why the Banns are published before you can get married, and the community is supposed to read them first. In a nutshell it's a committment to the community that you'll fulfil your obligations and raise a child to be a good citizen of that community under 'God'. (Doesn't matter that a lot of people broke the commitment, that was the intent.)That mawkish 'romantic' love everybody insists on today was not a requirement. This has been the best model we had for millenia and the State even gave tax breaks to encourage people to get married because they recognised it's importance to the stability of society.

    All religions would find gay marriage a violation of their religious creed. Mohammed specifically condemns homosexuality period, so there ain't no way in hell they'll accept it. Nor would Catholic Christians. We recently had a big brouhaha about gay priests in the Church Of England (is it called Episcopal in the US?) and the African branches are threatening to break away. They have to do this because their flock, and even many priests, were so disgusted they were converting to Islam at an alarming rate.

    We were no different from other countries in that we arranged marriages. Only the rich and aristocrats do it now, but the working classes used to as well. It was the bourgoise middle classes in the modern era who decided marriage was about personal desires and that choosing a mate based on luuurve (usually sexual attraction) was the ideal to strive for. Romantic novels have also given young girls unrealistic expectations - everybody is waiting for their "soul mate" and ignoring people they could perhaps build a happy fulfilling life with. :rolleyes:

    We now have the phenomena in Britain where Asian girls who have been raised in full Western freedom are asking their parents to arrange marriages for them. They still get to choose, but they trust their parents to find them compatible mates. It is enough to find the person reasonably physically attractive, to admire and respect them, but more important have common goals for the future and children. Love grows over the years naturally. (The hellish arranged marriages are often the forced ones).

    We are self-indulgent children who mistake sexual attraction for Love. Yes, that's nice and can often develop into an abiding love. However, it's only become essential in the West comparatively recently, and goes along with the other "me, me, me" indulgences. We break commitments to our spouses because we "couldn't help ourselves". Bullshit. No matter how strong an attraction to someone, if you are commited to someone else a 'grownup' will deny indulging that desire. But we've lost the desire to put others before ourselves. So we'll risk destroying that family unit - and usually do - and we'll damage the kids, and even damage our 'community' ultimately. Look around you, the breakdown of marriages affects society as a whole.

    Still, civilisations rise and fall. No exceptions. Previous centuries we were far more promiscuous than now, and ended up falling back into the repressions of the Victorian era. Civilizations decay from within.

    So those who think the rest of the world will eventuially catch up with the 'enlightened' West are living in cuckoo land. Ain't gonna happen. I personally believe this denigration of marriage is part of a wider agenda. Geneologists of the future are going to have an impossible task. All the lineage links will be 'broken' and a society that has no links back to it's past doesn't know who it is. Fractured families and fractured societies can be more easily molded by the State apparatus. They can then become The Family we give our first loyalty to.

    China and India are going to be the dominant cultures of the future (assuming we are still here ) All have strong family units, particularly India. We have become so dumbed down and infantalized in so many ways it's heartbreaking.

    No reasonable person could have any objection to some state legalised union for gays, but as Kim says, don't call it 'marriage' and don't act as if it is. They had to lie to get it passed over here. They said it was just a legality to help people living together which would include elderly siblings etc. Very soon became clear what a crock that was. Siblings have no more protection than they did before if sharing a home, whereas gay couples are holding 'weddings'.

    That was rather longwinded but I'll support any kind of legalised State union so long as it isn't passed off as a 'marriage' which is both a logical absurdity and damaging to the wider societal structure. IMO of course.
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236171].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Henderson
      @Phnx - That was a great post Phnx and I enjoyed reading it -- but you didn't make your case very well.

      You certainly did a good job of outlining why religions would never support gay marriages and how marriage evolved in the western world. Then you expressed dismay because marriage is important but there are too many break-ups and this has an impact on families and communities. Then you made some predictions for the future. That was a great read.

      But you never linked gay marriage/unions to your previous argument and so at the end, your piece reached a conclusion that had no connection to the body of your argument...
      "I'll support any kind of legalised State union so long as it isn't passed off as a 'marriage' which is both a logical absurdity and damaging to the wider societal structure."

      1) You never mentioned civil unions (are they good or bad?) nor how they differed from marriage.
      2) I thought you argued that marriage strengthened wider societal structure?
      3) How is gay marriage a logical absurdity when the only evidence you presented against gay marriage was provided by religious tradition (and not the result of logical deduction)?

      Please don't think that I'm being mean or critical here, Phnx. I realise that you're tired and hungry, but all the same, yours is the best post in this thread -- and I'd genuinely like to read more...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236220].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Phnx
        Originally Posted by John Henderson View Post


        1) You never mentioned civil unions (are they good or bad?) nor how they differed from marriage.
        I consider that to come under State legislation. But not specific to gays. So any couple whether they are gays, siblings, or just friends sharing a home and resources should have the full backing and protection of the law when things go wrong. They should also be able to have some way to designate the partner to deal with healthcare issues, funerals etc. (A lot of straight unmarried partners do not have such protection at the moment btw.)

        But a 'union' specific to gays? Why? There is no benefit to society (see below) so why must they partake of a ceremony to "tell the world" they are in love and committed to each other? More Western juvenile self-indulgence IMO. Many gays I know when this was first mooted many years ago, laughed with derision. They too thought it an absurdity. However gradually they changed. Wah wah "the breeders" have it, so should we. (I think they forget that the despised 'breeders' are the reason they, or any of us, are here. No breeders, no society).

        I don't care who they, or anyone else, 'loves'. I don't care who anyone else is boning. Nothing to do with me. 'Marriage' WAS to do with the wider community and still is for the rest of the world. Hence the 'Banns' or similar being published to make the commitment to 'God' and the community re the next generation. There is no next generation with a gay union. It's a private union, nothing to do with anyone else, so it cannot logically be 'a marriage'.

        You won't 'get it' until you get out of the modern Western mindset of thinking marriage is a personal thing about luurve. Why on earth would the State or anyone else care about who anyone else loves? It's that modern self-absorbtion that thinks everyone should care. It makes gays happy to do this so let them? Again "me, me, me," regardless of whether it's the right course of action.

        2) I thought you argued that marriage strengthened wider societal structure?
        It does. See below......

        3) How is gay marriage a logical absurdity when the only evidence you presented against gay marriage was provided by religious tradition (and not the result of logical deduction)?
        Well that is all MARRIAGE is. A union of 2 opposites. The State has only recently started sticking it's beak in there, and it was initially for the reasons gays claimed they wanted it - ie legal and financial protections if a partnership broke up. Many women were getting shafted at divorce so it seemed reasonable for the State to step in - not too different from when business partnerships dissolve. Then they gradually started taking it over.

        Even if you ignore the religious element, and focus on the practical side, from the States point of view 'gay' marriage serves no purpose. It cannot produce the next generation, it is a genetic deadend. That is ALL the State cares about. New little worker bees for the system. Workers produced in the most stable environment. It doesn't care about anything else. Societies always strive to improve each generation, but to get those generations you need to actually produce them. Moreover you need to produce them in the most stable environment you can if you wish to maintain a strong society. That is the FOUNDATION. (There have been a recent slew of research showing what our forefathers were fully aware of - children do better in a stable family unit. "Living together" is not nearly as stable as marriage). If they are remiss in that duty, well you can always replace that population with mass immigration from elsewhere.

        It's really not difficult, unless you insist on thinking of marriage as some personal expression of happiness that must be announced to society.
        Signature
        In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

        Easy Weight Loss
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236311].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author John Henderson
          Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

          I don't care who they, or anyone else, 'loves'. I don't care who anyone else is boning. Nothing to do with me. 'Marriage' WAS to do with the wider community and still is for the rest of the world. Hence the 'Banns' or similar being published to make the commitment to 'God' and the community re the next generation. There is no next generation with a gay union. It's a private union, nothing to do with anyone else, so it cannot logically be 'a marriage'.
          Ah, okay. So you're saying that if you strip it down to its core (i.e. remove the romantic mushiness), a marriage is nothing more than a contract between prospective parents to safeguard the future living conditions of any children that they bear. But this doesn't apply to gay couples because, by definition, a homosexual couple can't reproduce.

          Okay -- I can't disagree with that.

          Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

          The State has only recently started sticking it's beak in there, and it was initially for the reasons gays claimed they wanted it - ie legal and financial protections if a partnership broke up. Many women were getting shafted at divorce so it seemed reasonable for the State to step in - not too different from when business partnerships dissolve.
          Ah, so this is why you don't object to "some form of state legalised union for gays" -- it's a form of protection if the partnership broke up. Fair enough.

          Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

          That is ALL the State cares about. New little worker bees for the system. Workers produced in the most stable environment. It doesn't care about anything else. Societies always strive to improve each generation, but to get those generations you need to actually produce them. Moreover you need to produce them in the most stable environment you can if you wish to maintain a strong society. That is the FOUNDATION. (There have been a recent slew of research showing what our forefathers were fully aware of - children do better in a stable family unit. "Living together" is not nearly as stable as marriage). If they are remiss in that duty, well you can always replace that population with mass immigration from elsewhere.
          Again, this is hard to disagree with, Phnx. In fact, you've presented a really great argument here that has not only been enjoyable to read, but has modified my own views on this subject.

          However I have to point out that the legislation passed by the UK government that allows gay couples to adopt children means that your argument could be used by proponents of gay marriage to support their position...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236432].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Phnx
            Originally Posted by John Henderson View Post

            Again, this is hard to disagree with, Phnx. In fact, you've presented a really great argument here that has not only been enjoyable to read, but has modified my own views on this subject.
            Why thank you, didn't expect that. Just wanted to show that there are many reasons that people can't support this, and it's not always that they are nasty bigots.

            However I have to point out that the legislation passed by the UK government that allows gay couples to adopt children means that your argument could be used by proponents of gay marriage to support their position...
            This is true. Though I would still say it isn't necessary to have a 'marriage' for them in that instance. For gays adopting children (or using artificial means and surrogates to produce them)...no, not a fan of that. The whole 'stability' thing encompasses the role models of each gender. The whole idea of adoption is to replicate for a child a 'natural' family environment, which is why black children are placed in black families wherever possible. (Though interestingly they will always choose to place mixed race with black parents than white.) It's certainly preferable to a State childrens home though. I would only place a child with a gay couple if there were no straight couples - of any race - available.

            (ETA I think I would choose a gay couple over a single person of whatever orientation for adoption purposes (I know they are being placed with singles at the moment). A single parent is more 'natural' in our society at the moment as there are many single parent families because of divorce and bereavment etc, however I think 2 parents would be more helpful, even if the same gender.)

            I also believe we should stop offering IVF treatment for gays (via female surrogate of course). We've started to treat children as 'commodities'. Gays can't have them naturally, that is the price they pay and they'd always accepted that before. If they wanted them naturally they had to live a lie and essentially use women (or men if they were lesbians), while leading secret lives. That was despicable, though understandable in more repressive times. Those who lived the 'gay' life knew children weren't on the cards and came to terms with it. Now they think it their "right'"to have a child because Science can aid them.

            60 year old women who have been through the menopause (so NATURE has decided though they may be 'youthful' on the outside, their reproductive equipment is no longer up to the job of producing a healthy offspring), well they 'want', so must have it to be 'fulfilled'. Everybody whines about 'rights' but conveniently forget they come with responsibilities. Nobody thinks of the kid here. It's very vexing.

            See what I mean about 'me, me, me'?

            Children need stability and a sense of knowing who they are and where they came from. Adopted children, even those raised in loving homes, often have a yearning to know their 'roots' and try to research their biological line. Aren't scientists getting into messing with embryos at the moment so kids have two 'mothers' or 'fathers'? That's kind of taking gender smashing to ridiculous lengths. We are gonna have very psychologically confused kids in the future I fear.

            Society will do what it will though, no matter what we think.
            Signature
            In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

            Easy Weight Loss
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236501].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    John Hendersons aid:"1) You never mentioned civil unions (are they good or bad?) nor how they differed from marriage."
    Actually he did.At least he mentioned them, I see no reason why he would need to explain how they differ from marriage.

    Phnx said:"No reasonable person could have any objection to some state legalised union for gays, but as Kim says, don't call it 'marriage' and don't act as if it is."
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236320].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      John Hendersons aid:"1) Actually he did.At least he mentioned them, I see no reason why he would need to explain how they differ from marriage.
      PHNX is a she. Seems you two have that in common.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236509].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        PHNX is a she. Seems you two have that in common.
        Not really, Kim's a guy
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236532].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    darn, I'm too slow.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236323].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    LOL Tim, I guess you mean us being assumed the opposite sex than what we are?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236525].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Yeh, I assumed the same with both of you also.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      LOL Tim, I guess you mean us being assumed the opposite sex than what we are?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236527].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    LOL Kim, yeah I'd assumed you were a woman originally. Names are a bugger aren't they?
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236528].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    well,I rarely had people confused about my sex when I went by Majik, but I bought into that whole "you have no crediibility of you don't use your real name" bit,so here I am as Kim.
    Why am I thinking of The Emporors new Clothes?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    Oh I remember that username! That was a cool one.

    My real name is also gender confusing - Lee - so I still get assumed to be a bloke either way.
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236623].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I think this is the crux with me - civil union vs. marriage

    What gays want is legal rights and benefits afforded to 'straight' citizens.

    I am all for that 200% and not to give them that is surely discrimination because they pay the same taxes, have 'birth rights', etc.

    However, they are not satisfied with 'civil union' and they want 'marriage'.

    If they want what they should have by rights, then they should be okay with a 'civil union'.

    But, Noooooo! they have to mess with people and have it called a 'marriage'.

    Here they rumple straight AND religious feathers. So if that is what they want is a fight they will always have one.

    While gays have rights, straights also have a right to object and disagree and even be repulsed by whatever they want to without being judged.

    That doesn't give anyone the right to harm or injure anyone on either side.

    Civil unions would be performed by the court and marriage would be performed by the court and/or church.

    I don't think the twain shall meet anytime soon except where you have apostate churches that believe false doctrine (unBibical or extra-Bibical).

    There has to be limits or we will have pedophiles marrying children, and even people marrying animals. People that would walk the streets naked.

    This is not to say gay people would do either of these things- this statement is about limits.

    It would be nice if we lived in a world where everybody had a brain and a conscience, but that is not the case, so we need laws and limitations.

    My favorite motto that is applicable to so many things and certainly to this issue, is 'Freedom is not license'.

    What this means is because one has freedom that does not give them the right to infringe on or deny someone else's civil rights.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236706].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    An interesting perspective.
    About 15 years ago, The company the woman that was my girlfriend but is now my wife worked for, refused to let her put me and my children on her insurance because we weren't married.
    Yet they allowed same sex couples to put their significant other on their policy due to the fact that they couldn't get married.
    Go figure.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236732].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      An interesting perspective.
      About 15 years ago, The company the woman that was my girlfriend but is now my wife worked for, refused to let her put me and my children on her insurance because we weren't married.
      Yet they allowed same sex couples to put their significant other on their policy due to the fact that they couldn't get married.
      Go figure.
      Oh yes, in many respects gay couples now have rights above straight unmarried couples which is absurd. Particularly if they have children, that family even though not married (and that would be the preference for most societies) are still a very valuable commodity to The State. A gay couple is not and can't be. Yet they choose to give more rights to the gay couple. Makes no sense does it?

      When they touted gay marriage here, few were going for it outside of Leftie political circles, so they had to soften it. It was to allow legal protections for people who were in a similar situation you faced, elderly siblings, and anyone else who was living together and needed to be able to do things like put their 'other' on their policies. Instead, we still haven't got that as far as I'm aware, but we have these faux same sex 'weddings'.

      But I'm a conspiracy nutter so I think there is a deliberate agenda to break the family unit and ultimately transfer loyalty to the State. Gay marriage is just another tool to do it.
      Signature
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

      Easy Weight Loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236748].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

        But I'm a conspiracy nutter so I think there is a deliberate agenda to break the family unit and ultimately transfer loyalty to the State.
        I used to frequent a forum and someone I knew had a conspiracy sub forum on it. It was quite interesting at times.
        Sadly the forum owner shut it down,I offered the person a sub forum on my gaming forum, but he has lost interest or something and it has never been the same.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    Phnx you should start a conspiracy website with articles, videos, and a forum. I still would like it if a firing squad got a hold of all those illuminatis and elitist bankers.

    And you should change your name to Kerry Katona so no one would mistake you for a male.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[236859].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by annoyedgirl View Post

      Phnx you should start a conspiracy website with articles, videos, and a forum. I still would like it if a firing squad got a hold of all those illuminatis and elitist bankers.
      Annoyedgirl, you aren't starting to believe that stuff also are you? :-0
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237266].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author clint48
        We do live in a so called free country, but there are rules we have to follow to survive. The law is there so we will continue to have people on the earth. A man and woman can make more people. Anything other than that will not keep people on the earth so we have a law that supports Men and women marriages. There are always going to be people that don't like the law, but they wouldn't be happy if there were no people on earth either.

        Clint
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
    Let's say you allow gay couples to marry because it makes them happy, etc.... Where does this stop? What if someone wants to marry his sister or mother? What if someone wants to be married to five different people at the same time?

    If the criteria for marriage is that being with that person(s) makes you happy, then anyone should be able to marry anyone they please.

    It kind of makes "marriage" meaningless, doesn't it?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237017].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ShayB
      How does the quote go? "A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet..." I probably butchered that quote, but oh well....

      In Star Trek (yes, that is where all true wisdom lies...:rolleyes, the officers are addressed as "sir" - no matter whether they are male or female (unless they specifically choose otherwise, like Janeway, but that is another story....). But calling a female "Sir" does not make her a man - it simply gives the appearance of equal treatment.

      When women started calling themselves "Ms." instead of "Mrs." or "Miss," there was no change in treatment (as far as I could see, anyway) from society. It was just a label.

      From what I have seen, "civil unions" provide the same benefits as "marriage." I don't understand what the big deal is. I truly don't.

      If a civil union is defined as a union between 2 people of the same sex, and marriage is defined as a union between a man and moman, why is it such a big deal to change what a union is called? They are not the same thing. Why try to make it that way? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
      Signature
      "Fate protects fools, little children, and ships called Enterprise." ~Commander Riker
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237139].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Barry, you should be happy it's still human or an animal. You're behind the times dude? My favorites are the woman who married the Berlin wall, the guy who married a pineapple and the guy who married himself. Don't you all feel silly now? :-0

      Woman 'married' to Berlin Wall for 29 years - Telegraph

      Woman marries dolphin - World - theage.com.au

      'I married the Eiffel Tower' - Living, The New Review - The Independent

      India: Woman marries snake, another marries dog

      Sudan man marries a goat - Gadling | travel blog | news, stories, deals, and tips. Go there.

      German pop star marries a pineapple | Metro.co.uk

      Ananova - Man marries himself

      Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

      Let's say you allow gay couples to marry because it makes them happy, etc.... Where does this stop? What if someone wants to marry his sister or mother? What if someone wants to be married to five different people at the same time?

      If the criteria for marriage is that being with that person(s) makes you happy, then anyone should be able to marry anyone they please.

      It kind of makes "marriage" meaningless, doesn't it?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237276].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
      Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

      Let's say you allow gay couples to marry because it makes them happy, etc.... Where does this stop? What if someone wants to marry his sister or mother? What if someone wants to be married to five different people at the same time?

      If the criteria for marriage is that being with that person(s) makes you happy, then anyone should be able to marry anyone they please.

      It kind of makes "marriage" meaningless, doesn't it?
      My wife poses the same argument that you do on this. So I get where you are coming from.

      But doesn't divorce make marriage just as meaningless?

      And regardless of whether or not it is allowed by the state to let two men, two women, mother and sister, father and son get married. If they decide that they want to live that lifestyle, what can we really do to stop it anyway?

      The only thing that voting against gay marriage does is prove that other people (mainly non-gay) disagree with it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240179].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
        Originally Posted by marcanthony View Post

        The only thing that voting against gay marriage does is prove that other people (mainly non-gay) disagree with it.
        It does more than that. It preserves the sanctity of marriage. Why do the gay (?) people feel they have a right to redefine what marriage has been understood to be for 1,000s of years?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240368].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

          It does more than that. It preserves the sanctity of marriage. Why do the gay (?) people feel they have a right to redefine what marriage has been understood to be for 1,000s of years?
          Barry,

          Do you make this up as you go, or do you consider REAL history?

          Let me set you "straight" (pun intended) with some facts...

          Arranged marriages, doweries, etc have been a part of many of our pasts.

          More recently, slaves in the US were not allowed to marry. We redifined this definition.

          And, in the early 1920's, a great aunt of mine married a phillipino man in Kansas. The next day she was arrested for "marrying outside her race" and spent her "honeymoon" in jail.

          Now that you have been informed of the facts, please don't act as if the definition of marriage has been written in stone for "thousands of years". The truth is, as Americans, we've modified it at least a couple of times due to discrimination. And it's time to modify the definition of marriage again, due to discrimination.

          As anyone can plainly see, the definition of marriage can be, and has been, changed more than once.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[247088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    I want to marry my blanket! I can sleep without my wife but I cannot sleep without my security blanket!

    Derek
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237221].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Tim - a wall? Come on. lol.

    Now I have heard 'talking to my husband is like talking to a brick wall', but who knew???

    Not much better than being alone.

    Peace Out from Sodom and Gamorah.

    Don't Look Back Lest Ye Turn To Salt.

    Man Marries Salt.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237305].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Tim - a wall? Come on. lol.

      Now I have heard 'talking to my husband is like talking to a brick wall', but who knew???

      Not much better than being alone.
      Who knows? Maybe the relationship with the wall is as solid as a rock. Again, a plus is no unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps this could become the new base for the Republicans.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237355].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    I have a charming personality, I'd like to marry myself. Actually I want polygamy with 3 co-wives. I want 2 of them to be neat freaks with ocd always cleaning so I can live in a spic n span home w/o having to clean at all and 1 totally fun like me so it will be like a slumber party every night Pat, you can join too.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237315].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    no thanks i only do one woman men.

    i am a one man woman

    me jane he tarzan

    i will come to silly annoyed girl's party though if tarzan lets me out. save me a seat.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[237345].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author colmodwyer
    The law is there so we will continue to have people on the earth.
    Because without said law the entire world's population will all, simultaneously, turn gay and end procreation as we know it?

    Well bugger me!

    Colm
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239038].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
      Originally Posted by colmodwyer View Post

      Because without said law the entire world's population will all, simultaneously, turn gay and end procreation as we know it?

      Well bugger me!

      Colm
      LOL Colm, be careful what you wish for
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239702].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author clint48
      Originally Posted by colmodwyer View Post

      Because without said law the entire world's population will all, simultaneously, turn gay and end procreation as we know it?

      Well bugger me!

      Colm
      I doubt everyone would turn gay, just like if it was legal to kill people, I don't think every one would kill other people, but enough would that you would not want to live in that kind of world.

      I was raised in Durham, but I never heard any one use the word bugger, so can you tell me what that means?

      Clint
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240966].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    "People that would walk the streets naked."

    Why not? I was naked when I got here.

    Then my mother dressed me funny.
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239590].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    with sperm banks there really is no more need for men :p

    you never have to worry about not repopulating.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239716].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    You ppl talk like gay ppl don't have kids. Gay ppl have kids all the time. Rosie Odonell and her partner have 4 I think, Jodie Foster has 2, Clay Aiken just had a baby. That gay governor of NJ had 2 kids I think. And you know with sperm banks straight ppl aren't even needed

    I really don't care if prop 8 passed or not but I'm sick of hearing about it on the news for years. For years theres been back and forth with legalizing gay marriage. It's legal, it's not legal, it's legal its not legal. This court said yes, then this court said no, then this court said yes. Its been on the news for years and I'm sick of hearing about it, it's beyond tiring to hear about, I just wish there would be a final decision and get it done with for good.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I am not involved with any organized religion and I will always fight against it.
    As I said, they can have civil unions, but not marriage.
    What benefits can they hvae by being married that they can't have in a civil union?
    "I sincerely hope that Gay rights groups band together and finance this fight all the way to the U.S Supeme Court. Let them make the decision that can't be overturned and it should be over and done with."

    Yeah, let's continue to waste our taxpayers money on this.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239945].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240391].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
        Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

        Who should be able to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry? There has to be a law banning it? I think government should get out of our lives and let us live them. Gays have every right to the benefits of marriage but the law continues to deny them what is rightfully theirs.

        I'd be pretty pissed off about it, too.
        As I asked above -- where does this stop? Should a person be able to marry a close relative? Should they be able to marry multiple partners at the same time?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240404].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240457].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Good gawd, get real, Barry. Birth defects are good reasons to make marrying your first cousin illegal. There are also minimum age limits, too.

      Polygamy? Who here understands exactly what polygamy is, what it's all about, and how it came into being in the United States in the first place?

      I know. Do you?

      Polygamy served its purpose when it was introduced but today polygamy places an unnecessary burden upon the Social Services departments, since most men are unable to financially take care of all of their wives and children.
      I agree that there are good reasons not to allow marriage in these cases, just like there are good reasons not to allow gays to marry. Men marrying men is certainly no better than a man marrying his sister.

      Marriage is defined as a man and a woman marrying. What right do gays (?) or anyone else have to change that definition? And if we allow them to change it, why shouldn't everyone be allowed to marry whoever he/she wants to?

      These libertarian views sound great, until you actually apply them universally.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240467].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Good gawd, get real, Barry. Birth defects are good reasons to make marrying your first cousin illegal.
      Actually that's perfectly legal over here, and I think most of Europe.
      Signature
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

      Easy Weight Loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240498].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240484].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Wait a minute. A man marrying another man is a LOT different from a man marrying his sister. Sisters get pregnant and spit out kids with two heads.
      And homosexuals spread AIDS. Which one is worse?

      You ask what right do gays have to change the definition of marriage. I would ask you what right you think you have to prevent someone from marrying and benefiting from the legal ramifications of it?
      Because it is not marriage. Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. Now, can you answer my question?

      Yes, these Libertarian views do sound great, even when you apply them universally because people are not going to rush out and marry a goat or their sister just because gay people gain the right to be married to each other.
      But why shouldn't they have that right? If we are going to redefine marriage for gays, why shouldn't we redefine it for every abhorrent behavior?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240513].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240558].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Abhorrent to WHO? Homosexuality is obviously abhorrent to you and you have every right to feel that way but you do NOT have the right to impress your views upon the personal lives of others.
      You yourself say marriage should not be allowed between those who are related to each other, or who want to marry more than one person at a time. I'll just throw your question back at you -- why do you have the right to impress your views upon the personal lives of others?

      And the truth is that when AIDS first came on the scene here in the USA, it was largely a homosexual disease. I had a homosexual co-worker who was going to a funeral of a friend every other week. Please don't tell me that it was equally spread among heteros. Regardless, it is an extremely sad condition for anyone to be in. The only reason I used that example is because of your example of the two-headed kid
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240591].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240620].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
          Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

          No, I do not have the right to impress my views upon the personal lives of others and I am not trying to. Who someone loves is their choice, not mine. I disagree with the fact that gays are banned by laws from marriage. That is clearly discriminatory.
          I'm having trouble understanding your viewpoint. Are you saying that anyone should be able to marry anyone he/she pleases? Or do you put limits on it?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240623].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
            Banned
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240642].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
              Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

              What are we gonna do here, Barry, play games with each other? It's obvious we disagree, which is okay.

              Since you felt you had to ask, let me spell it out for you:

              Marriage should be allowed between two consenting adults who are not so closely related by blood that their children would be born with birth defects.

              Now please notice, I did not say gay or straight. I did not say a man could have as many wives he wants. I did not say it was okay for Jerry Lee Lewis to marry his 13-year-old cousin. I did not say beastiality is all right.

              Does that pretty much explain it to ya? :rolleyes:
              Yes, it explains it to me. It says that, just like me, you want to limit who can and cannot marry. I just happen to draw the line before you do.

              Now that you have admitted this, please don't ask me what right I have to say who can and cannot get married, as you've done the exact same thing.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240646].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Are you kidding me? Haven't you read any of what I have posted here? Civil unions don't give them the benefit of LAW!"


    Civil union IS law. It makes it legal.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240560].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
    espacecadet,
    Is there some reason you always try to bring my religion into these discussions? I've never even asked you what yours is, if you have one. It comes across as you trying to take some kind of cheap shot -- TBN, etc...c'mon.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240575].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    well, it is what it is. I think they need to be satisfied with what they get because religious or not, in my opinion , they will always be fighting an uphill battle for the next generation or so, unless America really gets its values back, then it will never happen.
    From your own post:
    "given that the very definition of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman? "
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240601].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      I believe you've mentioned in the past you are/were a preacher.

      That would tend to indicate your feelings about this subject, would it not?
      Not necessarily. There are plenty of liberal preachers who are pro-gay.

      No, it wasn't a cheap shot. People who watch shows like TBN (and I'm not just banging on Catholics here) tend to believe what they continually listen to and forget all about having a mind of their own.
      But I don't watch TBN at all. Most of the programming makes me sick to my stomach. You are assuming a whole lot of stuff about me that just isn't correct.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240606].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    " Who someone loves is their choice, not mine."
    Correct.
    And no where have I seen most of us here who are against gay marriages say that gays do not have the right to love whoever they want.
    I believe you yourself already said it was about legal rights ( I'm not going back through the posts to see if I understood it correctly).
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240704].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Am I communicating with an idiot or are you just trying to be a smartass?
      Neither. We both put limits on who we believe should be married. You honestly can't see that?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240712].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240737].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      No, because there are logical reasons for limits and rules. If there were no speed limits would everyone be safe on the streets? Of course not, just as there should be reasons why first cousins shouldn't have children.
      Exactly. And there are logical reasons why gays shouldn't marry too. They've been stated numerous times from many in this thread.

      But the fact remains, you are limiting others personal freedoms just as much as anyone else does. You just happen to offer personal freedom for the group you choose, while denying it for others. I guess you're not as open-minded as you pretend to be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240753].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240805].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Who am I denying it to?!
      *Those who would like to be married to more than one person at a time.
      *Those who would like to be married to a relative.

      (I'm not sure about others, because those are the only options mentioned so far other than gays.)

      According to you, if a person is an adult they should be able to marry the person whom they love. Yet you deny that right to some adults. That is absolutely no different than my desire to limit gays from getting married. Again, I just draw the line before you do. In principle, we are both doing the exact same thing. I find it incredulous that you can't just admit that.

      In fact, my guess is that most gays would also draw the line on who should or should not be married.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240819].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tommyp
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Do you honestly think children should be allowed to marry adults?
      Depends on how you want to define children and adults. Within a certain context teenagers are considered adults, while in others they are considered children. Also, at least in this country afaik 18 is a legal adult, but the word still has "teen" in it and so does 19.

      A child is a prepubescent, about 13 and under in general.

      I don't know how you define child, but in a lot of people's minds (not mine) a 16 year old for example is a child. Taking that view, it is legal for an adult to marry a "child" in most states, since the general idea that only 18 and up is legal is false in most states, probably spread by word of mouth, movies, etc. It's 18 in about a dozen states but the rest are about 16 on average with or without certain conditions depending on the state. I've looked into this about a year or so ago, and unless things have changed dramatically across the board, it is still true.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[241003].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240871].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      I've had enough of your bullshit argument. Bye.
      I like a man who can admit when he's outgunned. Thanks for conceding.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240877].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
    Yada yada yada................................
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240960].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240969].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      What's this? Nothing more to say?

      C'mon, Holier Than Thou! What are those numerous logical reasons why gays shouldn't marry that you say were posted in this thread?

      I'd like to see them. You're not running away, are ya?
      You're right. I have nothing more to say. It is really hard to discuss with someone who won't even admit what he has stated in his own posts.

      Final word from me -- we both want to limit what adults can be married and which ones cannot. I'm just willing to admit it.

      Unfortunately, you will probably win out over the long haul as our society gets more and more liberal. Just remember, it is the homosexual community that has brought down more than one culture. We might be next.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240984].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    It will be overturned.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[246099].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mbealmear
    I am against gays getting married..but that is just my opinion!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[248788].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    Espace man I didn't know till now you were such a gay marriage activist.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[248805].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rick McCombs
    This video says what I think about the subject.

    Signature

    \"Person who say something cannot be done, should not interrupt person doing it.\"

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[248812].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[248999].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Y'all are most welcome to believe and think what you want about anything, including gay marriage.

      But I think it's very unfair of people to force others to live according to how they think everyone else should live.

      I am straight, but I can't tell you why I am. Can you explain why you are attracted to the opposite sex and not to the same sex? I bet you can't (don't give me that tired song that's the way God made me. Nobody on this Earth can even say for sure there even is a God. And playing with dolls doesn't make a boy grow up to be gay. I played with my sister's dolls all the time. Used to dip them in gasoline and light them on fire. )

      Gays can't explain why they are attracted to people of the same sex, but they are. It's just the way it is.

      But why should they be denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples to get married and have the law see it as equal to every one else?

      This is the problem I have with religion. It's 'you live the way we tell you to live or else you'll burn in hell'.

      That's crap.

      Live the way you want to live. You have a right to be happy, to have freedom to live the way you choose. You have a right to equal protection under the law.

      And that should also apply to gay people. They are exactly the same as you and I, they just happen to feel about people of the same sex the way we feel about people of the opposite sex.

      That is the only difference, so they should be told how to live their lives and denied the same protections of law as the rest of us?

      I don't think so. It would be a different story if straights were denied the right to marry when gays could, wouldn't it? Discrimination is wrong, no matter what kind of discrimination it is.

      Besides, what have gay people ever done to you?

      Annoyed, I don't think I am so much a gay rights activist as I am an equal rights activist. Every member of the club (the U.S.) should have the same rights as any other member. Period.
      I could but I'm pretty sure I'd be breaking some obscenity law
      I'm with ya on the equal rights more or less.
      I just don't care if two gays want to get married or not.
      If they do fine, if not that's fine too.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[249126].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    Who said everyone has a right to freedom and equal rights? The constitution of the US? Well that's not the way it works. Not in the real world, only in the la la land of the idealist.

    Millionaires or celebs who have good insurance and the ability to self pay regardless who have a skinned knee or headache are coddled over while poor people with no insurance who are dying are treated like sh*t and literally die when they could easily be saved, while everyone around ignores them and steps over them. There was videos in the news recently showing poor ppl literally collapsing and dying on the floor of a hospital waiting room. Is that equal rights? Since when are gay people better than poor people? If gay people have equal rights, why can't poor people?

    People are treated bad in places because of the color of their skin, the country they are from, their name, their religion, their race. People with mental illness are not given equal rights. People who have a name like Osama or Hussein are discriminated against simply because of their name which they had no control over. Is is their fault their parents named them Osama or Hussein? Are gay people better than them?

    There are apartments that won't rent to black ppl. If a black person inquires about an apartment, none are available. If a white person inquires, sure, move in. Are gay people better than blacks? The law says discrimination is illegal, but you might as well make a law against being stupid. That's not going to happen, stupid people prevail.

    I'm all for equal rights for EVERY BODY but that's not going to happen even in America. If I'm going to be an activist, I'm an activist for starving children living in poverty in 3rd world countries which is why I sponsor children in Uganda. At least gays in America while in most states can not legally marry have a right to food and food stamps and shelter and all the sex they want, while billions in the world don't even have enough food to have more than a cup of rice a day. And don't even get me started on other countries such as China where you go to jail for trying to inquire about Tianamen square massacre.

    You can cry, yell, scream, and pout all you want but there will always be people who discriminate, law or not and discrimination will never end. You can't control other peoples feelings and opinions and trying to do so will just put you in the grave early while nobody else will even notice or care you're gone.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[249270].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      While I agree with 99% of what you say, it doesn't have to be a choice of one or the other. People can fight for equal rights for gays and also work to help the poor and disadvantaged of the world.

      Yeh, there will always be those who discriminate, however it is possible to make sure the government doesn't discriminate. By fighting for equal rights in the 60s laws were changed.

      The US and the constitution are works in progress. It should always be the goal of America to improve itself.

      Originally Posted by annoyedgirl View Post

      Who said everyone has a right to freedom and equal rights? The constitution of the US? Well that's not the way it works. Not in the real world, only in the la la land of the idealist.

      Millionaires or celebs who have good insurance and the ability to self pay regardless who have a skinned knee or headache are coddled over while poor people with no insurance who are dying are treated like sh*t and literally die when they could easily be saved, while everyone around ignores them and steps over them. There was videos in the news recently showing poor ppl literally collapsing and dying on the floor of a hospital waiting room. Is that equal rights? Since when are gay people better than poor people? If gay people have equal rights, why can't poor people?

      People are treated bad in places because of the color of their skin, the country they are from, their name, their religion, their race. People with mental illness are not given equal rights. People who have a name like Osama or Hussein are discriminated against simply because of their name which they had no control over. Is is their fault their parents named them Osama or Hussein? Are gay people better than them?

      There are apartments that won't rent to black ppl. If a black person inquires about an apartment, none are available. If a white person inquires, sure, move in. Are gay people better than blacks? The law says discrimination is illegal, but you might as well make a law against being stupid. That's not going to happen, stupid people prevail.

      I'm all for equal rights for EVERY BODY but that's not going to happen even in America. If I'm going to be an activist, I'm an activist for starving children living in poverty in 3rd world countries which is why I sponsor children in Uganda. At least gays in America while in most states can not legally marry have a right to food and food stamps and shelter and all the sex they want, while billions in the world don't even have enough food to have more than a cup of rice a day. And don't even get me started on other countries such as China where you go to jail for trying to inquire about Tianamen square massacre.

      You can cry, yell, scream, and pout all you want but there will always be people who discriminate, law or not and discrimination will never end. You can't control other peoples feelings and opinions and trying to do so will just put you in the grave early while nobody else will even notice or care you're gone.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[249348].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Congrats Allen (espacecadet) for being the happiest gay couple!

    Happiest Gay Couple
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[250480].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JakeRhodes
    My opinion on the whole gay marriage issue is simple. If marriage is seen from a purely religious standpoint then - no, the rights of the Church shouldn't be taken away to appease anyone else. However since marriage is also a State issue then you can't discriminate against a couple that wish to be married.

    What really needs to happen is a total seperation of Church and State.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[250525].message }}

Trending Topics