|
|
Post by crossride on Feb 5, 2009 0:00:14 GMT -5
Personally, I don't care who or what you sleep with. My view is that marriage is primarily a religious institution/rite and the State has no business in it at all. If a couple, or more, can find a sect that will perform a marriage ceremony for them, go for it. On the other hand, as a traditionalist, I see it as something between one man and one woman. If it is other than that, it gets called something else. I can do you one better, Joe. When I got married, it was to a female, and it was a civil ceremony. Neither of us had any religious affiliation. We still got a "Marriage License", of course. My feelings now are along your lines. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony. The "legal" union is a civil one. Its okay for the government to recognize religious unions, aka marriages, as civil unions, and along those lines the government can choose to recognize other ways of joining two people together as legally recognized civil unions, just as they did mine those many years ago. If two Gay folks can have a government entity approve their civil union, so be it. If two gay folks can find a church willing to join them in some form of marriage, then you'll have to take up the issue with the church, not the state. I don't think you want the state to get involved in what churches should be able to do. And one more point about the kids of divorce. As is the case with children in every aspect, its up to the parents to guide them through what life brings. I got mine through it just fine and I watched many, many hetero couples damaging their kids through the way they went about divorcing. The bottom line, as is always the case, its not the whole, its the parts. You can't condemn gay marriage because of what their potential divorce might do to the kids. Each "couple" will be judged by their actions. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 5, 2009 12:15:21 GMT -5
I don't think ANYONE advocated that "gays" will have more stable marriages, ever. Marriage is marriage no matter what gender you are (it ain't easy). The issue was/is gays felt discriminated against and want to live as freely as the majority of heterosexuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Feb 5, 2009 13:24:12 GMT -5
I didn't say "more stable" JMO. But, as I'm sure you will remember, we were treated to barrages of interviews and comments like "My partner and I have been together for 30 years and we suddenly feel discriminated against, how many straights have been together this long." And the implication was that for some reason same sex relationships were stronger and longer lasting than straights.
I notice that you wrote "felt discriminated against." I think you hit the nail on the head without meaning too. It is about "feeling" rather than what actually is.
|
|
|
|
Post by digger on Feb 5, 2009 15:53:41 GMT -5
The LGBT folks want to be 'equal but separate'. They want matrimonial rights, but they don't want you living next to them when they retire in Santa Rosa. www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090204/NEWS/902040419A funny quote from the article, "Just because we have our little piece of heaven doesn't entitle us to prevent others from getting theirs," said John Gladstein, a partner in the project. "In our country we just don't get to choose who moves in next door and who can't." Well, evidently the LGBT group DOES get to choose who moves into the unit next door to them and if you're straight, you're not moving in. How does this not smell of discrimination? |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 7, 2009 11:43:54 GMT -5
subdjoe, same sex relationships are discriminated against, it isn't just a feeling. I can see how it would be hurtful to live life feeling completely normal and then others restrict your rights because they think you aren't. I do not have a problem with "gays" getting married, and I understand they are human and will divorce just like the "normal" couple. All of the judgments against same sex marriage seems moot to me since I view them as people that were born differently, yet no less than the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Feb 7, 2009 13:45:20 GMT -5
Other than tax laws, and insurance, where is there discrimination? Just about everything else can be taken care of with a few simple legal documents.
As I have said before, marriage is a relgious based institution and the government should have no say in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 7, 2009 14:44:31 GMT -5
Other than tax laws, and insurance, where is there discrimination? Just about everything else can be taken care of with a few simple legal documents.
As I have said before, marriage is a religious based institution and the government should have no say in it. And, so goes the agrument... How many people put up Christmas trees, or celebrate Easter and aren't celebrating because of religion, but rather tradition? Better yet, how many "normal" people marry and aren't traditionally religious? Maybe it's the sentimentality and tradition that draws people into marriage?! What if the "gays" are Christian in every other respect? Marriage shouldn't be for exclusive members only in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 7, 2009 20:06:03 GMT -5
tell us JMO, in your opinion of course, what things SHOULD be exclusive?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 8, 2009 2:35:37 GMT -5
tell us JMO, in your opinion of course, what things SHOULD be exclusive? Costco membership! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 8, 2009 12:16:42 GMT -5
i know you're trying to make this humurous because you really don't have a serious answer to the question but i'll attempt to evoke one anyway.
why should costco memberships be exclusive? why can't anyone go in there?
and while we're at it, why should womens restrooms be off limits to men?
why should the boy scouts be off limits to girls?
why should the NBA, MLB, and the NFL not have female players?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 9, 2009 15:43:21 GMT -5
TNG, I could respond to your questions, but they're not relevant and I don't want to take the bait thank you! Nice try though.
I will say, regarding marriage it is my BELIEF that if a couple truly is in love with other, and wants to have children, and a "normal" life, so be it! Who are we to judge?
I am entitled to my unpopular opinion, just as you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 9, 2009 17:53:27 GMT -5
TNG, I could respond to your questions, but they're not relevant and I don't want to take the bait thank you! Nice try though. : i realize i have put my foot in my mouth regarding this topic especially since i mentioned that it's okay to be exclusive (costco). i also realize that i am about to be made a fool of so now i will just say something like "i could answer your question but..." no need to say anymore, JMO. i think we all get the picture.  |
|
