Ruling: Gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexul couples

cornnifer

qwerty wrote:

I dream of the day when this isnt even an issue.

As do i. There are far more important issues to focus on.

farfromglorified

cornnifer wrote:

Contrary to statements made by some, i contend that protecting the sanctity of marriage is a DAMN GOOD argument.

What specifically are you protecting and what are you protecting it from? What is the "sanctity of marriage"?

Abookamongstthemany

cornnifer wrote:

Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.

Because to some, as revolting as marriage may seem to us, we still don't feel the need to deny others from making that choice for themselves.

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

Looks like a pretty extensive list of all the wrong reasons to get married. A bunch of legal crap. If thats all it is, i have to say you don't desreve marriage rights.
Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.
Contrary to statements made by some, i contend that protecting the sanctity of marriage is a DAMN GOOD argument.

First of all, I don't think anyone is going to rush out and marry the first person they meet on the street just to get these benefits. No one is saying that they alone are the reasons to get married. The fact is that if a hetero couple gets married, they get all these benefits, whether or not that was the reason they married in the first place (which it probably wasn't). A homosexual couple is barred by law from receiving these benefits UNLESS they behave in a way that truly does disrespect the institution of marriage, namely marrying a person that they don't honestly want to be joined to for life. You asked why they wanted to be allowed to marry, and that's why ... they want equal treatment under the law.

I have never said that marriage was "outdated, old fashioned and pretty much meaningless," and I doubt that the people clamoring for the right to marry think that either. On the contrary ... the gay people who are fighting for the right to marry very likely hold it in much higher regard than the hetero couples in the Elvis chapel at the end of a drunken weekend, and no one is talking about shutting those down to protect the sanctity of marriage.

cornnifer

hippiemom wrote:

I have never said that marriage was "outdated, old fashioned and pretty much meaningless," and I doubt that the people clamoring for the right to marry think that either. On the contrary ... the gay people who are fighting for the right to marry very likely hold it in much higher regard than the hetero couples in the Elvis chapel at the end of a drunken weekend, and no one is talking about shutting those down to protect the sanctity of marriage.

YOU may have never made that argument, but many DO. I hear/read it all the time on this board as well as elsewhere. And, as far as shutting down the "Elvis Chapels", i'm all for it. Shut 'em down.

farfromglorified

cornnifer wrote:

And, as far as shutting down the "Elvis Chapels", i'm all for it. Shut 'em down.

What are you so afraid of?

Hope&Anger

cornnifer wrote:

Looks like a pretty extensive list of all the wrong reasons to get married. A bunch of legal crap. If thats all it is, i have to say you don't desreve marriage rights.
Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.
Contrary to statements made by some, i contend that protecting the sanctity of marriage is a DAMN GOOD argument.

Put me on the side of the ledger who thinks the arguments about the sanctity of marriage are pointless and stupid when it comes to deciding whether the state ought to offer married couples benefits. If marriage is sacred, that comes from religion, not from the state. Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Go to a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that observes the rite of marriage in the way you prefer. But "sanctity" should have nothing to do with providing benefits.

Also, put me on the side of eradicating all benefits for marriage. Single People Unite!!! Or if you want to use state benefits to encourage people to form families, then expand the legal meaning of marriage to include lots of relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.

Among heterosexuals, the divorce rate is up; couples "shack up" and have kids; domestic violence never seems to stop; and on and on and on. The only people left who see some "sanctity" in marriage are gays and lesbians. They live in loving, committed relationships; they raise happy healthy families. Yet, you and your "pro-family" friends want to keep them out. You should be applauding them rather than shunning them.

Oh, and by the way, some straight, married people think "marriage is 'outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless.'" But you wouldn't keep them from getting married.

farfromglorified

Hope&Anger wrote:

Put me on the side of the ledger who thinks the arguments about the sanctity of marriage are pointless and stupid when it comes to deciding whether the state ought to offer married couples benefits. If marriage is sacred, that comes from religion, not from the state. Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Go to a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that observes the rite of marriage in the way you prefer. But "sanctity" should have nothing to do with providing benefits.

Also, put me on the side of eradicating all benefits for marriage. Single People Unite!!! Or if you want to use state benefits to encourage people to form families, then expand the legal meaning of marriage to include lots of relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.

Among heterosexuals, the divorce rate is up; couples "shack up" and have kids; domestic violence never seems to stop; and on and on and on. The only people left who see some "sanctity" in marriage are gays and lesbians. They live in loving, committed relationships; they raise happy healthy families. Yet, you and your "pro-family" friends want to keep them out. You should be applauding them rather than shunning them.

Oh, and by the way, some straight, married people think "marriage is 'outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless.'" But you wouldn't keep them from getting married.

This was a great post until you started making crazy generalizations about heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

cornnifer

farfromglorified wrote:

What are you so afraid of?

i'm, personally, not afraid of anything. This isn't even an issue i'm all that concerned with. i'm obviously opposed to gay marriage, but it's not something i'm out picketing, soliciting petition signatures, or even voting about. i'm just offering my thoughts to the discussion. As i've said, there is much more important stuff to concentrate my worries and energies on.

cornnifer

Hope&Anger wrote:

Oh, and by the way, some straight, married people think "marriage is 'outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless.'" But you wouldn't keep them from getting married.

Actually, i would.

Androgynous Mind

brainofPJ wrote:

gays disgust me

not a fan either.

farfromglorified

cornnifer wrote:

i'm, personally, not afraid of anything. This isn't even an issue i'm all that concerned with. i'm obviously opposed to gay marriage, but it's not something i'm out picketing, soliciting petition signatures, or even voting about. i'm just offering my thoughts to the discussion. As i've said, there is much more important stuff to concentrate my worries and energies on.

See, here's the thing.......you're obviously afraid of something here because you're using the word protect. And you're threatening Elvis chapels in the process.

Abookamongstthemany

cornnifer wrote:

Actually, i would.

why?

rebornFixer

farfromglorified wrote:

This was a great post until you started making crazy generalizations about heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Indeed ... In fact, I was browsing though a catalogue of work-related books the other day and there was an entire edited volume on spousal abuse in homosexual couples. It happens, to all kinds of people, everywhere.

Hope&Anger

farfromglorified wrote:

This was a great post until you started making crazy generalizations about heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Yeah, I know how you hate that crazy stuff that comes from actual research done by social scientists about how the world actually works. It flies in the face of how you wish the world would work.

Why don't we just enjoy the brief, shining moment where we agreed with each other? I know I will hold it close to my heart . . .

Hope&Anger

cornnifer wrote:

Actually, i would.

And how would you propose to do it? Would you make everyone sign a statement at the clerk's office saying "I swear I take marriage really seriously?"

Or maybe we ought to get a priest or a rabbit or an imam to sign off on their sincerity -- and turn ourselves into an authentic theocracy.

farfromglorified

Hope&Anger wrote:

Yeah, I know how you hate that crazy stuff that comes from actual research done by social scientists about how the world actually works. It flies in the face of how you wish the world would work.

Hehe....I'm now convinced that prominent "social scientists" would all agree that heterosexual couples are unmarried and abusive while all homosexuals are pious and law abiding.

Why don't we just enjoy the brief, shining moment where we agreed with each other? I know I will hold it close to my heart . . .

Try not to get too excited.

rebornFixer

Hope&Anger wrote:

Yeah, I know how you hate that crazy stuff that comes from actual research done by social scientists about how the world actually works. It flies in the face of how you wish the world would work.

Why don't we just enjoy the brief, shining moment where we agreed with each other? I know I will hold it close to my heart . . .

Well, since you brought up social scientists ...
Partner abuse in gay relationships is in fact becoming a hot topic of study.

cornnifer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

why?

Its quite simple. When i say marriage is sacred, i mean it. Those who don't take it seriously, who do not think it is significant, should not be getting married. Certainly not someone who thinks its "outdated, old fashioned and insignificant".

Hope&Anger

reborncareerist wrote:

Well, since you brought up social scientists ...
Partner abuse in gay relationships is in fact becoming a hot topic of study.

If, as in hot topic of study, you mean a couple of articles in a couple of magazines written for social workers . . . yes, it is.

And it's true that there is violence in LGBT relationships, but society never cared about it because we've made such relationships shameful. We'll learn more about same-sex violence, and hopefully come up with resources to prevent it.