At least Prop 8 passed..

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

That still doesn't change the fact that government has no right involving itself in marriage.

that's your opinion...i disagree.
if they can be in the business of 'civil unions'...why not marriages.....and who gets to designate this and why? to me, marriage has been more of a legal term than religious from the get go...it was based on rights of property, etc...moreso than a spiritual bond. yes, spiritual bonds mya've predated the rights of property or vice vera...i don't know...but i do think the word 'marriage' is VERY much a legal term as it is a religious one, if not moreso. again, semantics...but some of us do find words important and their symbolism of utmost importance.

bottomline, right now....marriage IS a legal term as well as religious...so in this arguement, i fully agree homosexuals have the right to have a legal marriage, and not 'settle' for the watered-down language of a civil union, as if they are not worthy. it speaks far too much to seperate yet equal....basically BS. and THAT imo is more than likely WHY they fight for MARRIAGE rights, not simply civil union rights.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

that's your opinion...i disagree.
if they can be in the business of 'civil unions'...why not marriages.....and who gets to designate this and why? to me, marriage has been more of a legal term than religious from the get go...it was based on rights of property, etc...moreso than a spiritual bond. yes, spiritual bonds mya've predated the rights of property or vice vera...i don't know...but i do think the word 'marriage' is VERY much a legal term as it is a religious one, if not moreso. again, semantics...but some of us do find words important and their symbolism of utmost importance.

bottomline, right now....marriage IS a legal term as well as religious...so in this arguement, i fully agree homosexuals have the right to have a legal marriage, and not 'settle' for the watered-down language of a civil union, as if they are not worthy. it speaks far too much to seperate yet equal....basically BS. and THAT imo is more than likely WHY they fight for MARRIAGE rights, not simply civil union rights.

You are injected emotional attachments to a term into a legal issue. In the eyes of the government a marriage is simply a legal contract, no different than a business contract, for tax purposes only. The government doesn't and shouldn't care about the emotional aspect of the contract. Love, companionship, etc... shouldn't even matter in the eyes of the government, hence it is a civil union. Of course to the public it is not just a contract but a bond between two loving people, but again as far as the government is concerned it is just a contract. Get beyond the emotional attachment to a term. It has nothing to do with religion. I merely used the religious approach as a means of turning their argument on it's head and using it against them. The government shouldn't be issuing out licenses to solidify your loving bond with another person, it is well beyond their constitutional limits. They should only be concerned with legal aspects of that union and you can not bar a person from entering into a contract with another based on their sexuality.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

You are injected emotional attachments to a term into a legal issue. In the eyes of the government a marriage is simply a legal contract, no different than a business contract, for tax purposes only. The government doesn't and shouldn't care about the emotional aspect of the contract. Love, companionship, etc... shouldn't even matter in the eyes of the government, hence it is a civil union. Of course to the public it is not just a contract but a bond between two loving people, but again as far as the government is concerned it is just a contract. Get beyond the emotional attachment to a term. It has nothing to do with religion. I merely used the religious approach as a means of turning their argument on it's head and using it against them. The government shouldn't be issuing out licenses to solidify your loving bond with another person, it is well beyond their constitutional limits. They should only be concerned with legal aspects of that union and you can not bar a person from entering into a contract with another based on their sexuality.

i am NOT issueing emotional attachements at ALL. i AM saying 'marriage' is a legal term. in it;s cold simplicity. the fact that the relgious also use it as a spiritual term is something else entirely in my mind. and i see NO reason why the LEGAL term of marriage should be renamed a civil union ot appease the religious. i add more to it simply to illustrate that the homosexual community has the RIGHT to use the same terminology. right now we have legal marriage. why go thru the hassle of changing it all to appease others? it makes no sense. i agree, the government has no business in my emotional or spiritual life, and they don't...not even in issuing marriage licenses. that's my point. my marriage license is ALL about my legal state of marriage, the rights and esponsibilities of such. IF one wants an emotional bond...well they just decide that. if one feels they want an 'official' spiritual bond, they go get married in a church. i am well aware of all of this...and i STILL stand by my opinion on the topic.



btw - it is NOT simply for tax purposes...it is also for rights of inheritance, financial responsibilities, health decisions, etc.


anyhoo...we see it quite differently.


as i said, right now...we have legal marriages, whether you agree with it or not. so in my mind, right now, homosexuals have the right to legal marriage as well. you keep saying it's *just* a term, marriage...civil unions....well turn it around, if that's ALL it is...why fdo you care or think it's wrong for the governement to use *just* the term, marriage...civil unions...etc. it goes both ways. obviously, the term IS important to some extent.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

i am NOT issueing emotional attachements at ALL. i AM saying 'marriage' is a legal term. in it;s cold simplicity. the fact that the relgious also use it as a spiritual term is something else entirely in my mind. and i see NO reason why the LEGAL term of marriage should be renamed a civil union ot appease the religious. i add more to it simply to illustrate that the homosexual community has the RIGHT to use the same terminology. right now we have legal marriage. why go thru the hassle of changing it all to appease others? it makes no sense. i agree, the government has no business in my emotional or spiritual life, and they don't...not even in issuing marriage licenses. that's my point. my marriage license is ALL about my legal state of marriage, the rights and esponsibilities of such. IF one wants an emotional bond...well they just decide that. if one feels they want an 'official' spiritual bond, they go get married in a church. i am well aware of all of this...and i STILL stand by my opinion on the topic.



btw - it is NOT simply for tax purposes...it is also for rights of inheritance, financial responsibilities, health decisions, etc.


anyhoo...we see it quite differently.


as i said, right now...we have legal marriages, whether you agree with it or not. so in my mind, right now, homosexuals have the right to legal marriage as well. you keep saying it's *just* a term, marriage...civil unions....well turn it around, if that's ALL it is...why fdo you care or think it's wrong for the governement to use *just* the term, marriage...civil unions...etc. it goes both ways. obviously, the term IS important to some extent.

Marriage is a legal term because we allowed our government to make it a legal term, that doesn't mean that it's right. You can't say in one sentence that it OK for government to be involved in my personal life by issuing marriage certificate but then in the next tell them to get out of our personal lives because they refuse to offer them to homosexuals. If you want them out then you get them out of every aspect and that includes issuing marriage certificates.

i shit and i stink

What's wrong with gay marriage? I don't get it.

Two people live together all their lives, have sex, love and financially support one another, etc... then one dies and the other can't inherit his estate if some long lost brother contests the will.

Madness! Can't believe anyone is against gay marriage, it is simply dumbfounding.

jeffbr

mammasan wrote:

Marriage is a legal term because we allowed our government to make it a legal term, that doesn't mean that it's right. You can't say in one sentence that it OK for government to be involved in my personal life by issuing marriage certificate but then in the next tell them to get out of our personal lives because they refuse to offer them to homosexuals. If you want them out then you get them out of every aspect and that includes issuing marriage certificates.

Exactly. And the government has no business recognizing religious documents. Religious documents should have no legal standing in government. A couple (hetero or homo) should go to their county clerk or city hall, fill out the forms, and recieve their civil union document. If they then want to go visit their church and have a marriage ceremony performed, that is up to them but should be a completely separate issue.

AmentsChick

timmyshee wrote:

What's wrong with gay marriage? I don't get it.

Two people live together all their lives, have sex, love and financially support one another, etc... then one dies and the other can't inherit his estate if some long lost brother contests the will.

Madness! Can't believe anyone is against gay marriage, it is simply dumbfounding.

Well said. As it was mentioned before it comes down to intolerance and ignorance...my two biggest pet peeves.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

Marriage is a legal term because we allowed our government to make it a legal term, that doesn't mean that it's right. You can't say in one sentence that it OK for government to be involved in my personal life by issuing marriage certificate but then in the next tell them to get out of our personal lives because they refuse to offer them to homosexuals. If you want them out then you get them out of every aspect and that includes issuing marriage certificates.

i am not telling them to get out of my personal life. as YOU said, it's a contract between 2 people. the fact that it's a contract based within one's personal life dos not make them involved in my personal life...just my legal contract of marriage. i am not telling them to get out of personal lives b/c they refuse to offer them to homosexuals. my argument is a civil rights issue, NOT a personal life issue.


and absolutely right it's a legal term b/c we agred to make it so...as should all things within our government. that's the POINT. we as a country designated marriage as legal term. homosexuals, as full and equal citizens, deserve that same right...the right to have a legal marriage.


some believe the government has no business in healthcare...other people believe they do and should be involved. it's an opinion. your opinion on this topic is not more 'right' than mine is.

however, if we look at the issue right now, AS IS...our current state. our government, and thus our citizens, recognize marriage as a LEGAL state. if ALL our citizens are equal, equal rights to all...then to deny homosexuals the right to a legal marriage based soley on their sexual orientation is WRONG.

if you want to argue about your belief the government has no place in marriage, fine. however, that is NOT wht the thread is about. it';s about gays looking for the same legal choices as heterosexuals, our current law in the rights of marriage. it is what it is, right now. you want to fight against legal marriage and that it should be civil unions, go for it....but imo for the purpose of this discussion, it's a completely sperate issue.

jeffbr wrote:

Exactly. And the government has no business recognizing religious documents. Religious documents should have no legal standing in government. A couple (hetero or homo) should go to their county clerk or city hall, fill out the forms, and recieve their civil union document. If they then want to go visit their church and have a marriage ceremony performed, that is up to them but should be a completely separate issue.

*sigh*

the goverment does NOT recognize religious documents. if someone were to get married in the church they would NOT be legally married unless they got a marriage license first. and couples do EXACTLY what you say right now......and they receive their MARRIAGE LICENSE. and if they want a religious ceremony, they go and have one. they ARE completely SEPERATE.


my father was married, legally, before he married my mother. he and his first wife got divorced. my father and mother than got married legally AND religiously, in the catholic church. divorce is not allowed in the catholic church - w/o anullment in any case, whole other discussion. however, my father did not need ANY documentation of his divorce for the church, b/c the church did NOT recognize his first marriage - even tho they even had a daughter! - b/c since the marriage occured outside the church, only a legal marriage...in the eyes of the church, it does not exist. same thing if one gets married in a church but does not get the legal marriage certificte, the governement does NOT view they marriage as a legal one. they ARE SEPERATE.

ReleaseMe...

AmentsChick wrote:

Well said. As it was mentioned before it comes down to intolerance and ignorance...my two biggest pet peeves.

as it was metioned before, it comes down to not enough of these 'enlightened' people getting there ass out on the street to convince people to vote otherwise. i guess its just easier to whine and complain about the society they are living in than actually doing something to change it

and thats why the vote lost

pound the pavement and get enough people to support it, we wouldnt be having this conversation now, would we?

jeffbr

decides2dream wrote:

they ARE SEPERATE.

Then wouldn't it be easier to talk about these separate things if we called them something different. If I say marriage, it should mean church. If I say civil union or domestic partnership, it should mean govt/employment/etc..

Having one word to describe two completely separate functions and documents doesn't seem to make sense.

polaris

ReleaseMe... wrote:

as it was metioned before, it comes down to not enough of these 'enlightened' people getting there ass out on the street to convince people to vote otherwise. i guess its just easier to whine and complain about the society they are living in than actually doing something to change it

and thats why the vote lost

pound the pavement and get enough people to support it, we wouldnt be having this conversation now, would we?

well ... part of the conversation is trying to convince people such as yourself to vote the other way ...

decides2dream

jeffbr wrote:

Then wouldn't it be easier to talk about these separate things if we called them something different. If I say marriage, it should mean church. If I say civil union or domestic partnership, it should mean govt/employment/etc..

Having one word to describe two completely separate functions and documents doesn't seem to make sense.

and i say...WHY does the church get the term? that's my point. i don't think it *should* mean church at all. i don't think we as a country should buckle under pressure from other groups for that designation.


however, i as i said for the purpose of this discussion, it's a moot point. you want to fight and change the terminology - great! go for it! however, right NOW...our legal term IS marriage...and gays should have EVERY right to utilize that term as anyone else. THAT is the issue. if EVERYone with a legal marriage was called a civil union, today, than that is what they would fight for. they simply want access to what we all have.



and beyond that.....if we take marriage out of the legal union, what next? if i don't get married in the church i can't call my husband, my husband? or a wife a wife? WHY should a religious institiution get to dictate what terminology we as a country supposedly for religious freedom bend our will to theirs? marriage...wife...husband....have been LEGAL terms just as long as churches, religious instituions used them as well.

jeffbr

polaris wrote:

well ... part of the conversation is trying to convince people such as yourself to vote the other way ...

And part of the conversation is trying to point out that just because a majority votes to deny civil rights to a class of people doesn't make it right.

AmentsChick

jeffbr wrote:

And part of the conversation is trying to point out that just because a majority votes to deny civil rights to a class of people doesn't make it right.

This is my argument.

ReleaseMe...

jeffbr wrote:

Then wouldn't it be easier to talk about these separate things if we called them something different. If I say marriage, it should mean church. If I say civil union or domestic partnership, it should mean govt/employment/etc..

Having one word to describe two completely separate functions and documents doesn't seem to make sense.

to me, thats problem solved

norm

polaris wrote:

well ... part of the conversation is trying to convince people such as yourself to vote the other way ...

you can't convince someone who can't think for themselves of anything

decides2dream

ReleaseMe... wrote:

to me, thats problem solved

so even heterosexual couples not married in a church should have only civil unions.


i'm sorry, i don't buy it. i think the deep-down reasons there are many who fight against it is simply bigotry, pure and simple. they don't want homosexuals to have what they have. homosexuals have NEVEr fought to get religious recognition, they merely want it legal...same terminology for all. so we have to do away with it all to appease the religious. hmpf. and i STILL think they'd fight against civil unions for gays, b/c they don't want legal recognition and the rights it affords, to be given to the gay community.


whatever.


i'll leave the argueing about civil unions and marriages to you all.
to ME...this is a discussion about fairness and equality to all, right NOW, which means equal use and access to the legal term of marriage.


where is misterederer, i think?, to clarify the history of the term marriage, etc. some mistakenly seem to believe i'ts all about religion, whereas in reality, more than likely..it was used as a legal term firstly.

polaris

cutback wrote:

you can't convince someone who can't think for themselves of anything

ignorance is what ultimately separates us all

norm

polaris wrote:

ignorance is what ultimately separates us all

true

HermanBloom

ReleaseMe... wrote:

get ready to be called ignorant, stupid, and clueless for our beliefs.....maybe the people who cant accept that people think differently should be labled those things

Agreed; unfortunately, most of those on here are the close-minded ones. Just because we may have different views, doesn't mean that we are ignorant, crazy, or wrong. Unfortunately, the insane 9th Judicial Court will over turn this even though the people have now spoken twice. Judges legislating from the bench is coming again soon to California.