Take away YOUR rights? What the fuck?

Vedderlution_Baby

So I just saw a clip from the virginia con talking about gay marriage. The dude says he will not allow them to take away OUR rights or values.

I can get the value part, that's the cards the cons have been playing all along. Get married in a drive thru by vegas, get divorced a week later, but letting a queer get married is going to ruin EVERYTHING.


But the rights part? What rights is this dude talking about? The right to oppress? Seriously, what fucking right does he have that allowing gay marriage would take away?

cincybearcat

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So I just saw a clip from the virginia con talking about gay marriage. The dude says he will not allow them to take away OUR rights or values.

I can get the value part, that's the cards the cons have been playing all along. Get married in a drive thru by vegas, get divorced a week later, but letting a queer get married is going to ruin EVERYTHING.


But the rights part? What rights is this dude talking about? The right to oppress? Seriously, what fucking right does he have that allowing gay marriage would take away?

The right to say 'I'm married' and have everyone know that you aren't gay then???????

I have no idea. I'm not sure why this is an issue.

rearviewmiror

It's actually hilarious. They way they worded it will end up screwing over hetero couples too.

chopitdown

who knows with the VA senate race...it's just crap from both sides...i'm just glad i don't have to watch anymore allen / webb campaign ads after today.

humanlight

I don't undestand this either. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get married to someone that is the same sex as you. Simple as that. I think it is in VA that this law can really screw up some single people too, b/c it does not allow a single female to leave properity to another female in a case of death. This is regardless if they are gay or straight. STUPID!!!

Vedderlution_Baby

humanlight wrote:

I don't undestand this either. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get married to someone that is the same sex as you. Simple as that. I think it is in VA that this law can really screw up some single people too, b/c it does not allow a single female to leave properity to another female in a case of death. This is regardless if they are gay or straight. STUPID!!!

Really?! Just how in the hell can they dictate who someone gives their possessions to IF THEY FUCKING D I E?!?!?! Hitler, you live on.

humanlight

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Really?! Just how in the hell can they dictate who someone gives their possessions to IF THEY FUCKING D I E?!?!?! Hitler, you live on.

I am not sure, but I was speaking to a family member of mine who straight, but single, and she said that if this bill passes, she would not be allowed to leave her belongs to a friend of hers. I guess it keeps gay couples from sharing possessions, God for Bid!!!

Jeanwah

I honestly believe that those who are deeply homophobic are closetly gay themselves. Or just suppressing their true sexual leanings. Haggard is a good example of that.

Is the reason behind the sheer hatred of gay marriage because those who oppose it will eventually be exposed? Not trying to cause trouble here, I just don't see how what two people do in their bedrooms affect anyone else. If they love each other and want to join together in union, they should.

Uncle Leo

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So I just saw a clip from the virginia con talking about gay marriage. The dude says he will not allow them to take away OUR rights or values.

But the rights part? What rights is this dude talking about? The right to oppress? Seriously, what fucking right does he have that allowing gay marriage would take away?

Everytime a gay couple marries, a straight person loses the freedom to paint his/her house any color outside of purple. AND I DON'T WANT A PURPLE HOUSE! No to gay marriage.

RockinInCanada

Just appealing to the homophobes in the state....just a tactic to lure those that hold religious values....

chopitdown

Jeanwah wrote:

I honestly believe that those who are deeply homophobic are closetly gay themselves. Or just suppressing their true sexual leanings. Haggard is a good example of that.

Is the reason behind the sheer hatred of gay marriage because those who oppose it will eventually be exposed? Not trying to cause trouble here, I just don't see how what two people do in their bedrooms affect anyone else. If they love each other and want to join together in union, they should.

the problem becomes that people feel marriage is a religious institution first and a social institution second. If we made it 2 separate things people would have less problem with it. Everyone should get a civil union license to allow for insurance, purchases, wills etc... Marriage should be a religious institution... compromise. It's semantics but then again, that's why people are pissy. That and people think it's a right to be married...i view it as a privalege

Uncle Leo

Jeanwah wrote:

I honestly believe that those who are deeply homophobic are closetly gay themselves. Or just suppressing their true sexual leanings. Haggard is a good example of that.

I don't think most are gay or even have "leanings." I think that deep down a lot of people realize that being gay is not a choice. And therefore many have some level of fear that "perhaps I'll wake up gay one day." If they could all magically realize "I am only attracted to the opposite sex. There is no way in hell I can be gay", the fear part would disappear and they would probably put less effort into hating gays.

This literally happened to me. I had a period of time where I was so freaked out that I may be gay that I was litereally feeling ill for a week. I told my parents about it and they asked:

"do you like men or women?" "Women."

"what guys do you want to fuck?" None."

"case closed"

Not long after that time (summer after my freshman year of college), I was done with the homophobic language, etc. When I used it before it was insecurity, plain and simple.

Uncle Leo

chopitdown wrote:

the problem becomes that people feel marriage is a religious institution first and a social institution second. If we made it 2 separate things people would have less problem with it. Everyone should get a civil union license to allow for insurance, purchases, wills etc... Marriage should be a religious institution... compromise. It's semantics but then again, that's why people are pissy. That and people think it's a right to be married...i view it as a privalege

The Wisconsin gay marriage ammendment that will pass today will not only outlaw marriage, but anything that allows any benefits of marriage. So it's not just the marriage there, but the civil unions that will get outlawed in the constitution.

I disagree. I think it should be a right.

Jeanwah

chopitdown wrote:

the problem becomes that people feel marriage is a religious institution first and a social institution second. If we made it 2 separate things people would have less problem with it. Everyone should get a civil union license to allow for insurance, purchases, wills etc... Marriage should be a religious institution... compromise. It's semantics but then again, that's why people are pissy. That and people think it's a right to be married...i view it as a privalege

But marriage isn't a religious institution. Matrimony is. Marriage can be done by any official that has the authority to grant it. I have no problems with unions as long as they grant everything a marriage does. And I don't view marriage as a priviledge. If celebrities have no problem abusing the state of marriage the way they get married and divorced in the space of a month or so, it's definately not thought of as a priviledge. It's a right.

cincybearcat

Jeanwah wrote:

I honestly believe that those who are deeply homophobic are closetly gay themselves. Or just suppressing their true sexual leanings. Haggard is a good example of that.

I don't think that is true. Sure, there are some cases of it, but as a whole, I really think it comes down to a lack of understanding. If you are straight and you never have to deal with homosexuality in your life (friends, family, etc.) it is easy to say 'It's gross' and then vote against it. You are just voicing your opinion...you think. But what you are really doing is taking away someone's freedom to do what they want when it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Also, while religion is great for many reasons...this is not one of them.

Scratchin a Letter

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So I just saw a clip from the virginia con talking about gay marriage. The dude says he will not allow them to take away OUR rights or values.

I can get the value part, that's the cards the cons have been playing all along. Get married in a drive thru by vegas, get divorced a week later, but letting a queer get married is going to ruin EVERYTHING.


But the rights part? What rights is this dude talking about? The right to oppress? Seriously, what fucking right does he have that allowing gay marriage would take away?

in order to be considered a "free country" these religious idiots oughta learn that "freedom" is not a one dimensional flag waving activity for straight, white middle classers... and whose rights are being taken away? ah yes, those who are homophobic.

and i like the comment about vegas.

Vedderlution_Baby

Uncle Leo wrote:

I don't think most are gay or even have "leanings." I think that deep down a lot of people realize that being gay is not a choice.

It's like with me, I'm attracted to crazy ,fucked up chicks. I can't control it.

RockinInCanada

cincybearcat wrote:

I don't think that is true. Sure, there are some cases of it, but as a whole, I really think it comes down to a lack of understanding. If you are straight and you never have to deal with homosexuality in your life (friends, family, etc.) it is easy to say 'It's gross' and then vote against it. You are just voicing your opinion...you think. But what you are really doing is taking away someone's freedom to do what they want when it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Also, while religion is great for many reasons...this is not one of them.

100% agree with all of the above.....it does come from intolerance....for some it is vert difficult to accept something that is different from their own personal world.....but alas if you don't affect yourself personally why worry about it that is my feeling....if your one to believe that gay marriage is the work of the devil than who cares if two guys/gals want to hitch up they will be going to hell and not yourself....

VictoryGin

chopitdown wrote:

the problem becomes that people feel marriage is a religious institution first and a social institution second. If we made it 2 separate things people would have less problem with it. Everyone should get a civil union license to allow for insurance, purchases, wills etc... Marriage should be a religious institution... compromise. It's semantics but then again, that's why people are pissy. That and people think it's a right to be married...i view it as a privalege

what about the people who don't get married in a religious setting (like at the courthouse)? i'm asking that in response to the comment about marriage being a religious institution first.

i mean, i understand and i think i agree with the rest of what you're saying, but i don't get the part about the current situation being religious. i agree that, sure, marriage should be a strictly religious tradition, and that civil unions could exist for the nonreligious folk but have all the same benefits. though would that complicate things if the state endorses such a religious tradition as marriage in that scenario?

although ultimately i think it's weird that the government celebrates relationships and personal commitments to begin with. i think it's indicitive of our societal values (monogamy, procreation, heterosexuality) and i just wish it wasn't the case. i personally don't think the government should be in that business and that people should be able to establish rights (wills, insurance, etc) in other legal ways.

VictoryGin

Jeanwah wrote:

it's definately not thought of as a priviledge. It's a right.

i think of it as a punishment.

*oh, and matrimony was what i was looking for in that other post. thanks.

dangerboy

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Just appealing to the homophobes in the state....just a tactic to lure those that hold religious values....

not everyone who holds religious values is a homophobe....

Uncle Leo

dangerboy wrote:

not everyone who holds religious values is a homophobe....

To steal from JS Mill:

While it is true that not all religios people are homophobes, it is true that most homophobes are religious.

(I put is religious for conservatives and homophobes for stupid)

chopitdown

VictoryGin wrote:

what about the people who don't get married in a religious setting (like at the courthouse)? i'm asking that in response to the comment about marriage being a religious institution first.

They would get a civil union certificate (which would grant all the benefits legally that marriage gives now). They would say we were "wed" at the courthouse and that's how they got our union certificate / license.

VictoryGin wrote:

i mean, i understand and i think i agree with the rest of what you're saying, but i don't get the part about the current situation being religious. i agree that, sure, marriage should be a strictly religious tradition, and that civil unions could exist for the nonreligious folk but have all the same benefits. though would that complicate things if the state endorses such a religious tradition as marriage in that scenario?

I don't think the state would be endorsing a religious tradition, in that proposed scenario. The process for licensing for unions would consist of a legal process; it wouldn't matter who you are. The marriage ceremony would be more of a show and religious practice in addition to the legal process. So in essence it would be above and beyond what the law required. But we could define marriage between a man and a women based on the religious view point BUT we could extend the societal benefits of unions to all.

VictoryGin wrote:

although ultimately i think it's weird that the government celebrates relationships and personal commitments to begin with. i think it's indicitive of our societal values (monogamy, procreation, heterosexuality) and i just wish it wasn't the case. i personally don't think the government should be in that business and that people should be able to establish rights (wills, insurance, etc) in other legal ways.

I agree.

hippiemom

chopitdown wrote:

the problem becomes that people feel marriage is a religious institution first and a social institution second. If we made it 2 separate things people would have less problem with it. Everyone should get a civil union license to allow for insurance, purchases, wills etc... Marriage should be a religious institution... compromise. It's semantics but then again, that's why people are pissy. That and people think it's a right to be married...i view it as a privalege

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that nothing done by the government with regards to marriage is going to force their church to do anything. They will always be perfectly free to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. All that legalized gay marriage does is say that the government will not prevent a same-sex couple from marrying. Government officials would be required to marry them, but religious officials would not. Allowing others to live their lives will not affect you or your family or your values or your religion even one teeny-tiny little bit.

I wouldn't care if people who are all hung up on semantics wanted to make up different words for different types of unions. It seems like a big waste of time to me, but if it would get everyone to quit whining about it, it might be worth the effort for that reason alone. Churches that don't approve of gay marriages don't have to perform them, and no one is suggesting that they be forced to.

jlew24asu

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

It's like with me, I'm attracted to crazy ,fucked up chicks. I can't control it.

hey we finally have something in common. but I dont know if im attracted to them or if they are just all like that

norm

hippiemom wrote:

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that nothing done by the government with regards to marriage is going to force their church to do anything. They will always be perfectly free to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. All that legalized gay marriage does is say that the government will not prevent a same-sex couple from marrying. Government officials would be required to marry them, but religious officials would not. Allowing others to live their lives will not affect you or your family or your values or your religion even one teeny-tiny little bit.

I wouldn't care if people who are all hung up on semantics wanted to make up different words for different types of unions. It seems like a big waste of time to me, but if it would get everyone to quit whining about it, it might be worth the effort for that reason alone. Churches that don't approve of gay marriages don't have to perform them, and no one is suggesting that they be forced to.

You know better than to inject logic into this conversation.

RockinInCanada

dangerboy wrote:

not everyone who holds religious values is a homophobe....

Its not what I meant....addresses to homphobes and those that hold traditional (should have put in original post) religous values that practise IMHO intolerance (which is mighty bunch in the world.....where I interpret holy text as saying to love everyone regardless of who they are.....however there are many open-minded relgious folk that open their arms to everyone and I repsect that....

keeponrockin

I STILL think this shouldn't even be an issue. And gay marriage isn't taking rights away from hetero couples.

mammasan

The government has no right being in the business of marriage.

chopitdown

hippiemom wrote:

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that nothing done by the government with regards to marriage is going to force their church to do anything. They will always be perfectly free to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. All that legalized gay marriage does is say that the government will not prevent a same-sex couple from marrying. Government officials would be required to marry them, but religious officials would not. Allowing others to live their lives will not affect you or your family or your values or your religion even one teeny-tiny little bit.

I wouldn't care if people who are all hung up on semantics wanted to make up different words for different types of unions. It seems like a big waste of time to me, but if it would get everyone to quit whining about it, it might be worth the effort for that reason alone. Churches that don't approve of gay marriages don't have to perform them, and no one is suggesting that they be forced to.

no one is suggesting that the gov't will force the church to do anything, unless you're reading things into what i'm saying. I feel that marriage is a religious institution and that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual people, i'm not apologizing for that. I also feel that it's a shame that homosexuals can't form a legal contract to get the benefits. which is why i proposed an alternative instead of pissing and moaning about how supposed rights are being violated...sorry i'm fired up with work

darkcrow

damn homos. stealing our rights. stealing our women/men.... dressing and dancing better than us. time to put them in their place....

on a serious note... this argument is rather purile.