Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by ChadOnChisholm:
Even a lot of San Francisco business owners thought this was a bad idea. I'm sure there are better ways to achieve equal rights. The day will eventually come.

"Gay is the new Black"


Hate break it to you, but gays have the same rights as the rest of us. I'm not gay and I still can't marry another man. I think you should be saying "extra rights" instead.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
quote:
Originally posted by ChadOnChisholm:
Nope, gay couples just want the same benefits aw married couples have. Nothing extra about that.


Again, straights can't marry the in the same sex. We are all treated equally. You want extra rights. Allowing this extra right is going to open a pandora's box that nobody in this country needs.


You must've watched Boston Legal this week... Big Grin
quote:
Hate break it to you, but gays have the same rights as the rest of us. I'm not gay and I still can't marry another man. I think you should be saying "extra rights" instead.


I don't think it is an "extra right". They just want to have the same benefit to marry the person they choose to. It really doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. You get breaks on taxes and health care for your spouse, why shouldn't they? I think it would actually help the economy if they could marry. They would buy houses together and put back into the community just like a normal family.
Just because you may not choose to exercise your right to marry the same sex doesn't make it an extra right.
quote:
Originally posted by nwbama:
quote:
Hate break it to you, but gays have the same rights as the rest of us. I'm not gay and I still can't marry another man. I think you should be saying "extra rights" instead.


I don't think it is an "extra right". They just want to have the same benefit to marry the person they choose to. It really doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. You get breaks on taxes and health care for your spouse, why shouldn't they? I think it would actually help the economy if they could marry. They would buy houses together and put back into the community just like a normal family.
Just because you may not choose to exercise your right to marry the same sex doesn't make it an extra right.


Thank you!
You know, this topic is really getting out of hand. I completely understand that we straight people can't marry a same-sex partner. I also unerstand that we, as heterosexuals, have no desire to marry someone of the same sex. But, I furthermore understand that there is no law preventing us from marrying someone of the opposite sex who is of lawful age and in some cases below lawful age with parental permission. So, we do not have any laws restricting us from marrying who we please, except for some freaks who desire children, and that is a whole different can of worms. This is not the case for homosexual couples. Our laws dictate that they cannot marry the partner they have chosen to spend the rest of their life with. I can say, with certainty, that I do not understand what attracts people to the same sex. I do believe that if that is what makes them happy, it is none of my business.

I guess my question is, how would the rest of us feel if laws were put in place to tell us who we could marry? I would be very pissed, and I'm sure all of you would be too.
I agree with you DHS.

I married less than 2 years ago, so I am still in the somewhat "honeymoon" phase Smiler

I would have been devastated if we had been told we could not marry because of our "morals".

We were married in a non-traditional ceremony.
We could have gotten married at a courthouse, which is the equivalent of a civil ceremony. Nothing religious about that.

It angers me that this boils down to a matter of religion.

It's really all about Christian views.

If marriage is so *@#%(* sacred, we should outlaw divorce. Lop off private parts when adultery is committed. And we should apply for approval from the government in advance as to the location we are to marry in, the color of the attire (white vs. "off-white"), and the vows that are to be read.

The government should then decide that couples reproductive rights by requiring the couple to fill out applications before getting pregnant, and court monitored parenting classes.

The list could go on and on.

The problem is that you cannot legislate moral issues. You can use morals as guidance, but even atheists learn values and morals. Everyone has a different set of morals.

Trying to legislate personal beliefs is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Good luck mandating Christian beliefs and ignoring the fact that not everyone is "Christian"....

Even the term "Christian" means so many different things to so many different people, even those who are a part of the faith.

I thought the whole point of conservatism was SMALLER GOVERNMENT?
quote:
Originally posted by nwbama:
quote:
Hate break it to you, but gays have the same rights as the rest of us. I'm not gay and I still can't marry another man. I think you should be saying "extra rights" instead.


I don't think it is an "extra right". They just want to have the same benefit to marry the person they choose to. It really doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. You get breaks on taxes and health care for your spouse, why shouldn't they? I think it would actually help the economy if they could marry. They would buy houses together and put back into the community just like a normal family.
Just because you may not choose to exercise your right to marry the same sex doesn't make it an extra right.


And they would raise the divorce statistics even higher...but it would give more opportunities for families to adopt, but then there would be more custody battles for the courts to sort out...and then they would qualify for more food stamps and other government projects...and on and on and on...

I agree that we should be able to be with who we love, but my beliefs has nothing to do with my religion...I believe what I believe -- not because the Bible tells me so or what the preacher says on Sunday -- it is still my belief...

I do see a lot of DHS's point though...
quote:
Originally posted by nwbama:
quote:
Hate break it to you, but gays have the same rights as the rest of us. I'm not gay and I still can't marry another man. I think you should be saying "extra rights" instead.


I don't think it is an "extra right". They just want to have the same benefit to marry the person they choose to. It really doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. You get breaks on taxes and health care for your spouse, why shouldn't they? I think it would actually help the economy if they could marry. They would buy houses together and put back into the community just like a normal family.
Just because you may not choose to exercise your right to marry the same sex doesn't make it an extra right.


So it's all about the money and not about the sanctity of marriage and family, huh. No wonder most people disagree with you.

And I stand by my original assement, it is an extra right and thank goodness most people agree with me.
Well... here's how I see it.

We're beyond those silly things called marriage.

I mean, why bother?! What's the point?

Who cares!

Those old fuddy-duddy puritanical laws are for the puritans. We're not a religious society or a Christian society. We're an amoralist society.

The values we set are independent of any religious philosophy.

In fact, we should remove any laws associated with the Ten Commandments, and start over.

So, killing'd be okay - Uh oh! Gotta' run! Some freak with a knife and a gun is comin' after me!

The point is, that marriage is a word used to describe a covenant. It is a sacrament of the church.

Civil ceremonies are not.

Homosexuals and lesbians have the same rights to have access to each others' medical records as if anyone were to appoint an executor to an estate. It's called "Power of Attorney."

By law, marriage or civil ceremony automatically endows such authority.

And seriously, if a person is atheist, why would they want to have any semblance of religiosity in their lives? It would be hypocritical.

The consequential and logical flow of such line of thinking as same-sex "marriage," is the elimination of moral laws that have a basis in Christian principle.

The tenets of Christianity state that there are ARE moral absolutes. There ARE standards above us to which we should adhere.

After all, if it's just my subjective opinion against your subjective opinion, neither of us is right, and since in debate or logical arguments, there cannot be two rights, there can however be two wrongs. If both parties are not adherent to, and in agreement upon a standard, then no such standard exists.

And if no such standard exists, why not abolish child sex laws? After all, if little Johnny or Suzy want to have sex with their Papa or Mama, why not let them? That's what would happen if there were no moral absolutes.

We'd get rid of sex with animals laws. Prostitution would be no crime. Adultery? What's the point of "marriage"? Public nudity? They'd say, "bring it on!" Sex with corpses? That'd be okay too! (Would you want the body of your deceased loved one so desecrated?)

Moral absolutes emerge from an Almighty and loving Heavenly Father who sacrificed His son Jesus upon a tool of torture, a crucifixion. Jesus was a murder victim. He was lied about in an open tribunal. And his mother, family and friends watched in absolute horror while He died.

Yet, He had done nothing wrong. Interestingly, He was accused of violating religious laws. But, He had not.

He was God's only son, the first born of Mary's womb.

He was resurrected for our justification.

God is not mad at the world, God loves the world.

Hear the words of Christ Jesus: "God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:17
Also in some states, adoption rights.

I would imagine a child would be better off loved by one or more adults, than growing up as a ward of the state and often never feeling loved or embraced by another human being....

THAT is a **** shame!

Life may be valuable, but shouldn't we also be concerned about said child's QUALITY of life?

I'd much rather a child go to a loving home that wanted them, than no home....
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
quote:
Originally posted by nwbama:
quote:
Hate break it to you, but gays have the same rights as the rest of us. I'm not gay and I still can't marry another man. I think you should be saying "extra rights" instead.


I don't think it is an "extra right". They just want to have the same benefit to marry the person they choose to. It really doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. You get breaks on taxes and health care for your spouse, why shouldn't they? I think it would actually help the economy if they could marry. They would buy houses together and put back into the community just like a normal family.
Just because you may not choose to exercise your right to marry the same sex doesn't make it an extra right.


So it's all about the money and not about the sanctity of marriage and family, huh. No wonder most people disagree with you.

And I stand by my original assement, it is an extra right and thank goodness most people agree with me.

It's not all about money. I was just using those as examples. There is no sanctity in marriage anymore. It just gives some people "extra rights" that other people don't get. (unmarried straight and gays)
Last edited by nwbama
quote:
Originally posted by nwbama:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
quote:
Originally posted by nwbama:
quote:
Hate break it to you, but gays have the same rights as the rest of us. I'm not gay and I still can't marry another man. I think you should be saying "extra rights" instead.


I don't think it is an "extra right". They just want to have the same benefit to marry the person they choose to. It really doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. You get breaks on taxes and health care for your spouse, why shouldn't they? I think it would actually help the economy if they could marry. They would buy houses together and put back into the community just like a normal family.
Just because you may not choose to exercise your right to marry the same sex doesn't make it an extra right.


So it's all about the money and not about the sanctity of marriage and family, huh. No wonder most people disagree with you.

And I stand by my original assement, it is an extra right and thank goodness most people agree with me.

It's not all about money. I was just using those as examples. There is no sanctity in marriage anymore. It just gives some people "extra rights" that other people don't get. (unmarried straight and gays)


Then why are the main arguing points made by homosexuals regarding money?

Your attitude toward marriage is not representative of the majority of America (thank God).

At least we agree on who should not be in the White House.
quote:
Originally posted by ChadOnChisholm:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
quote:
Originally posted by Rock and Roll Means Well:
What happens if one of them dies?

Who gets the house?

Wouldn't a family member get all of the partner's possessions?


Ever heard of a will?


Which could easily be contested by a family member and more than likely throw out in this state!


No it wouldn't. If you want to go further, then put the property in a trust and name whoever you want as the benificiary.

This kinda reminds me of the commercials where they try to sell you something by making a task look a lot harder than it really is to validate why you need their product. It's real easy to hire a lawyer to produce an air tight will. No need to change the definition of marriage. I'm not buying it.
quote:
Originally posted by ChadOnChisholm:
That is just one of the things that gays are discriminated against because they are not legally recognized as a couple. Other issues include the sharing of insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights in cases of emergencies, tax benefits, the list goes on and on.


Again, mostly about the money. Please show me where two straight men who love each other as best friends can share the benefits you speak of. Only difference is they are not having sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Eye-gor:
Speak for yourself NY. I'm not gay but I do recognize that others deserve the same civil rights as I. If this is what gays need to do to make a statemtent and be recognized, then more power to them! I think I'll call in tomorrow just for the helluvit.


There's no way you can support gay rights and not be gay! I mean it's an abomination before the eyes of our Lord! Marriage is sacred I tell you! Sacred!

Never you mind that it can be done at a drive through in Vegas and that a marriage license is actually a state sanctioned contract and has nothing to do with the sacredness of a holy matrimony!
quote:
Originally posted by GuyFawkes:
There's no way you can support gay rights and not be gay! I mean it's an abomination before the eyes of our Lord! Marriage is sacred I tell you! Sacred!


I support the NRA.....does that make me a gun? I support the local animal shelter....does that make me a dog or cat? I think not! Marriage is not what it use to be.
"Then why are the main arguing points made by homosexuals regarding money?"

a. Because there are a number of laws regarding intimate behavior that have been allowed to stand, but those which unfairly penalize an individual or group financially are more likely to be addressed.

b. Because the advantages of CIVIL marriage are almost exclusively financial ones.

c. Because money is important to gay people too.

d. Because my presenting this issue as a clear cut civil rights issue(as opposed to a debate on the Bible, anal sex, and some kind of sissy guy you met on the bus once)is the right thing to do.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×