But it's not nearly as black and white as that statement would seem. As it stands, they DO have the same rights. If they want to get married, they can - just not to someone of the same sex. I'll say it again, marriage is not a right. Furthermore, the ability to say you are married does not solve the issue.
according to whom?
who determines this...and why and how?
and the ability to say you are legally married indeed DOES solve this issue...the issue of having the rights and responsibilities of legal marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. that IS the issue.
and sure, we do all realize they CAN get married to someone of the opposite sex, but since that's not who they'd want to be married to, seems a silly point to make. :rolleyes: this is not a question of a religious issue, merely a legal one...and the law very much can and should endorse legal marriage for homosexuals b/c it is an equal rights issue. marriage is a legal contract, and two consenting adults, regardless of gender.....should be able to do so. our laws should not be defined on narrow, religious pov.
the issue of having the rights and responsibilities of legal marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. that IS the issue.
So one more time - why can't the government just allow adults to grant those rights and responsibilities to another adult without calling it marriage???? Wouldn't that solve the problem? And I'm talking about both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It seems like the perfect solution to me - especially if the voters are going to get hung up on the word marriage and continually vote it down.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So one more time - why can't the government just allow adults to grant those rights and responsibilities to another adult without calling it marriage???? Wouldn't that solve the problem? And I'm talking about both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It seems like the perfect solution to me - especially if the voters are going to get hung up on the word marriage and continually vote it down.
I suspect that most of the people who voted for prop 8 would have a problem with the government taking away the label of "marriage." They would say that that is an erosion of their right to be legally married.
The only way that makes sense or would work is to let gays marry.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
So one more time - why can't the government just allow adults to grant those rights and responsibilities to another adult without calling it marriage???? Wouldn't that solve the problem? And I'm talking about both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It seems like the perfect solution to me - especially if the voters are going to get hung up on the word marriage and continually vote it down.
you answered none of my questions, but sure, i'll answer yours.
absolutely!
if they truly want to do away with the word 'marriage' as a legal term...so be it. i personlly think it is a slippery slope to go down, basically allowing religion to dictate what vocabulary we may use of a legal nature....but fine, whatever. as long as NO one has 'legal marriage'.....ALL have civil unions or whatever you want to call em, with ALL the SAME rights afforded....cool. i would happily give up the word to have the actual intent, accross the board, for all.
however, i think that's about as difficult to occur as getting gay marriage recognized. far too many people are already legally 'married'...and may not like what they might consider a demotion in language, or perhaps not...might be easy, idk. so for right NOW...as long as legal marriage exists, i 100% agree gay marriage should exist as well. maybe it'll happen, maybe we'll finally do away with legal marriages, who knows? all i do know is as it stands today, it most definitely is wrong that gays cannot legally marry, at least not everywhere. the fact that there ARE 2 states with legal marriage for homosexuals, other states with civil unions....does show it CAN happen. it'll just take time.
you answered none of my questions, but sure, i'll answer yours.
absolutely!
if they truly want to do away with the word 'marriage' as a legal term...so be it. i personlly think it is a slippery slope to go down, basically allowing religion to dictate what vocabulary we may use of a legal nature....but fine, whatever. as long as NO one has 'legal marriage'.....ALL have civil unions or whatever you want to call em, with ALL the SAME rights afforded....cool. i would happily give up the word to have the actual intent, accross the board, for all.
however, i think that's about as difficult to occur as getting gay marriage recognized. far too many people are already legally 'married'...and may not like what they might consider a demotion in language, or perhaps not...might be easy, idk. so for right NOW...as long as legal marriage exists, i 100% agree gay marriage should exist as well. maybe it'll happen, maybe we'll finally do away with legal marriages, who knows? all i do know is as it stands today, it most definitely is wrong that gays cannot legally marry, at least not everywhere. the fact that there ARE 2 states with legal marriage for homosexuals, other states with civil unions....does show it CAN happen. it'll just take time.
yeah, what she said lol
seriously, i don't understand how anybody can be ambivalent about this issue. if you are for prop 8 you don't think gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, and if you're against it, then you think they do deserve it.
seriously, i don't understand how anybody can be ambivalent about this issue. if you are for prop 8 you don't think gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, and if you're against it, then you think they do deserve it.
They already have the same rights technically speaking. (Again - I'm not for prop 8, but I'm just saying).
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They already have the same rights technically speaking. (Again - I'm not for prop 8, but I'm just saying).
from what i understand (someone please correct me if i'm wrong!), is that they are not afforded the same rights in terms of health and life insurance, and hospital visitation. so while civil unions are still allowed, the full extent of marriage rights are not.
from what i understand (someone please correct me if i'm wrong!), is that they are not afforded the same rights in terms of health and life insurance, and hospital visitation. so while civil unions are still allowed, the full extent of marriage rights are not.
No - I'm saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. They have that right.
(I don't really think that way, just pointing out there is more gray area here than some people admit).
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They already have the same rights technically speaking. (Again - I'm not for prop 8, but I'm just saying).
this is akin to having a discussion on the merits of 24 hr grocery stores and saying that technically they don't open on christmas day so they aren't 24 hrs ... :rolleyes:
this point has absolutely no relevance in the discussion ...
No - I'm saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. They have that right.
(I don't really think that way, just pointing out there is more gray area here than some people admit).
why would a gay person want to marry someone of the opposite sex? i'm straight and if my only option for marriage was to marry a woman, i wouldn't find that much of a right lol
why would a gay person want to marry someone of the opposite sex? i'm straight and if my only option for marriage was to marry a woman, i wouldn't find that much of a right lol
All I'm saying is they already have the same rights. What they're really asking for are additional rights for everyone.
(and the only reason I'm even arguing this side is not because I oppose gay marriage but rather because I don't agree with either side and the only people in this thread seem to be on the pro-gay-marriage side)
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
All I'm saying is they already have the same rights. What they're really asking for are additional rights for everyone.
(and the only reason I'm even arguing this side is not because I oppose gay marriage but rather because I don't agree with either side and the only people in this thread seem to be on the pro-gay-marriage side)
how is that the same right if they can't marry who they want? it's only additional in the sense that they want to be treated like everybody else.
i'm pro-american, meaning i think everybody should be treated equally. the whole thing involved with the word "marriage", its legal/religious definition, that's a whole other story. it boils down to legal discrimination. so either you're for or against it, really. i guess i'm still not seeing how it's confusing
All I'm saying is they already have the same rights. What they're really asking for are additional rights for everyone.
(and the only reason I'm even arguing this side is not because I oppose gay marriage but rather because I don't agree with either side and the only people in this thread seem to be on the pro-gay-marriage side)
so what DO yiu agree with?
simply the abolition of marriage as a legal entity and have civil unions for all?
than great....but right now, that's not where we are at.
btw - YOU may consider it granting 'additional' rights, but many of us see it for what it is: allowing gays the same rights as us all - to marry the consenting adult whom we love and choose. gender should not even be an issue/consideration....just like it should not be an issue in any legal rights, along with color of skin, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
I agree with the government allowing adults to designate one other person the same rights and responsibilities as generally happens in marriages and otherwise not recognize things called "marriages".
After that, people can call themselves married, hitched, unionized, etc. to whomever or whatever they want based upon any ceremony, pledge, etc. they want.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Races are all mixed. People are all mixed. Everyone of us is of mixed race.
My point is prior to the 1960's states where using their ability to issue marriage licenses as a means of banning interracial couples. That practice was ending because it was discriminatory. No one was preventing these people from getting married. They could still obtain a marriage license from their state just as long as their spouse was of the same race. So the logic that no one is discriminating against same sex couples simply because they have the ability to get married to someone of the opposite sex is flawed.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I agree with the government allowing adults to designate one other person the same rights and responsibilities as generally happens in marriages and otherwise not recognize things called "marriages".
After that, people can call themselves married, hitched, unionized, etc. to whomever or whatever they want based upon any ceremony, pledge, etc. they want.
well that clarifies your pov, although you've said as much earlier. however, appreciate you being specific.
thing is though, such a system does NOT exist at the present moment, so when you say you are for neither 'side'...it just seems like, well then....what's the point? sure, if someone wants to start a movement to abolish legal marriage and just create some sort of legal recognition of a union with all the rights and responsibilities by another name....great! however, NO one is doing that right now....doesn't seem many care to atm.....so for right NOW, we do have these 'two sides' of the issue...and it is clear:
- against same-sex legal marriage
- allow same-sex legal marriage.
that's IT. the only choices on the table right now.
we can 'argue' the issue is it based on discrimination, not allowing homosexuals to marry based on their sexual orientation, thus an equal rights issue.....people using their personal religious views to dictate to others what they can/can't do based on their own, private criteria....or whatever arguement one may come up with in favor of being against same sex marriage that i cannot come up with. point is, there are 2 choices: allow it, or don't....and what rationale for either pov.
however.....sorry for turning this thread into another discussion of same-sex marriage, when really it was focused on the demographics of WHO voted for prop 8 and the apparent misinformation of such that has been provided.
well that clarifies your pov, although you've said as much earlier. however, appreciate you being specific.
thing is though, such a system does NOT exist at the present moment, so when you say you are for neither 'side'...it just seems like, well then....what's the point? sure, if someone wants to start a movement to abolish legal marriage and just create some sort of legal recognition of a union with all the rights and responsibilities by another name....great! however, NO one is doing that right now....doesn't seem many care to atm.....so for right NOW, we do have these 'two sides' of the issue...and it is clear:
- against same-sex legal marriage
- allow same-sex legal marriage.
that's IT. the only choices on the table right now.
So why aren't the people who are interested in this issue putting that proposal on the table? It seems pretty obvious that pushing for government sponsored gay marriage just isn't going to happen based on the popular votes that keep turning it down or blocking it proactively.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It's just a matter of time. Prop 8 passed by, what, 4 or 5%? Twenty years ago, it would've passed by at least 10 to 15%. Forty years ago, by a helluva lot more than that. 80 years ago, I bet it would have been approved by nearly 100%. The tides are shifting and the trend is clear. Not that that's a reason to quit fighting, obviously... I'm just saying, the progressives may not have won this time, but the fact that it was even close means that, in all likelihood, in the next decade the religious right will have lost their majority on the issue. Let them continue trying to swim upstream against the current of progression... on this, evolution, stem cell research, etc. In a few decades the gay marriage debate will be as moot as the interracial marriage one is today.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
I think part of government involvement in marriage is so that brother and sister dont get married.... because last time i checked that usually doesnt turn out well (children)....property rights and rights over children. So no gov involvement might not be the best solution. But as others have said im sure it will happen, in time. Gays and lesbians have been getting hitched up here in Canada for a long while, with no problems...its a non issue now.
I think part of government involvement in marriage is so that brother and sister dont get married.... because last time i checked that usually doesnt turn out well (children)....property rights and rights over children. So no gov involvement might not be the best solution. But as others have said im sure it will happen, in time. Gays and lesbians have been getting hitched up here in Canada for a long while, with no problems...its a non issue now.
Brother and sister could still hook up if they want to regardless of whether the government says they can't get married.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Why would anyone make this list public? SO if you are against what people think they can harass you at your work/home. That will not help your cause or any cause in the future.
I am not sure where I stand on gay marriage. I see the point people should be able to marry whoever they want to. This might sound silly but I also can see people using this as a scam. Hey bro lets get married for a tax break and better health care then when we do find our wife we can divorce. But then again I guess it can happen now with a man and woman too.
Whatever let them be misserable like the rest of us and get married
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Comments
according to whom?
who determines this...and why and how?
and the ability to say you are legally married indeed DOES solve this issue...the issue of having the rights and responsibilities of legal marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. that IS the issue.
and sure, we do all realize they CAN get married to someone of the opposite sex, but since that's not who they'd want to be married to, seems a silly point to make. :rolleyes: this is not a question of a religious issue, merely a legal one...and the law very much can and should endorse legal marriage for homosexuals b/c it is an equal rights issue. marriage is a legal contract, and two consenting adults, regardless of gender.....should be able to do so. our laws should not be defined on narrow, religious pov.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
So one more time - why can't the government just allow adults to grant those rights and responsibilities to another adult without calling it marriage???? Wouldn't that solve the problem? And I'm talking about both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It seems like the perfect solution to me - especially if the voters are going to get hung up on the word marriage and continually vote it down.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I suspect that most of the people who voted for prop 8 would have a problem with the government taking away the label of "marriage." They would say that that is an erosion of their right to be legally married.
The only way that makes sense or would work is to let gays marry.
you answered none of my questions, but sure, i'll answer yours.
absolutely!
if they truly want to do away with the word 'marriage' as a legal term...so be it. i personlly think it is a slippery slope to go down, basically allowing religion to dictate what vocabulary we may use of a legal nature....but fine, whatever. as long as NO one has 'legal marriage'.....ALL have civil unions or whatever you want to call em, with ALL the SAME rights afforded....cool. i would happily give up the word to have the actual intent, accross the board, for all.
however, i think that's about as difficult to occur as getting gay marriage recognized. far too many people are already legally 'married'...and may not like what they might consider a demotion in language, or perhaps not...might be easy, idk. so for right NOW...as long as legal marriage exists, i 100% agree gay marriage should exist as well. maybe it'll happen, maybe we'll finally do away with legal marriages, who knows? all i do know is as it stands today, it most definitely is wrong that gays cannot legally marry, at least not everywhere. the fact that there ARE 2 states with legal marriage for homosexuals, other states with civil unions....does show it CAN happen. it'll just take time.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
seriously, i don't understand how anybody can be ambivalent about this issue. if you are for prop 8 you don't think gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, and if you're against it, then you think they do deserve it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No - I'm saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. They have that right.
(I don't really think that way, just pointing out there is more gray area here than some people admit).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
this is akin to having a discussion on the merits of 24 hr grocery stores and saying that technically they don't open on christmas day so they aren't 24 hrs ... :rolleyes:
this point has absolutely no relevance in the discussion ...
All I'm saying is they already have the same rights. What they're really asking for are additional rights for everyone.
(and the only reason I'm even arguing this side is not because I oppose gay marriage but rather because I don't agree with either side and the only people in this thread seem to be on the pro-gay-marriage side)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i'm pro-american, meaning i think everybody should be treated equally. the whole thing involved with the word "marriage", its legal/religious definition, that's a whole other story. it boils down to legal discrimination. so either you're for or against it, really. i guess i'm still not seeing how it's confusing
so what DO yiu agree with?
simply the abolition of marriage as a legal entity and have civil unions for all?
than great....but right now, that's not where we are at.
btw - YOU may consider it granting 'additional' rights, but many of us see it for what it is: allowing gays the same rights as us all - to marry the consenting adult whom we love and choose. gender should not even be an issue/consideration....just like it should not be an issue in any legal rights, along with color of skin, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Hell if that is the case then why not go back to banning interracial marriages. I'm they can still get married to someone of the same race.
Races are all mixed. People are all mixed. Everyone of us is of mixed race.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i'm curious about the answer to this too.
After that, people can call themselves married, hitched, unionized, etc. to whomever or whatever they want based upon any ceremony, pledge, etc. they want.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My point is prior to the 1960's states where using their ability to issue marriage licenses as a means of banning interracial couples. That practice was ending because it was discriminatory. No one was preventing these people from getting married. They could still obtain a marriage license from their state just as long as their spouse was of the same race. So the logic that no one is discriminating against same sex couples simply because they have the ability to get married to someone of the opposite sex is flawed.
From my buddy DF, a reader/blogger at Josh Marshall's TPM.
I'm glad it's getting out ...
Seeing folks like Bill O'Reilly proclaim, many times, that blacks are the ones that did this disgusts me.
just when I was starting to think he was, ok ... he pulls a douche move like this.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
well that clarifies your pov, although you've said as much earlier. however, appreciate you being specific.
thing is though, such a system does NOT exist at the present moment, so when you say you are for neither 'side'...it just seems like, well then....what's the point? sure, if someone wants to start a movement to abolish legal marriage and just create some sort of legal recognition of a union with all the rights and responsibilities by another name....great! however, NO one is doing that right now....doesn't seem many care to atm.....so for right NOW, we do have these 'two sides' of the issue...and it is clear:
- against same-sex legal marriage
- allow same-sex legal marriage.
that's IT. the only choices on the table right now.
we can 'argue' the issue is it based on discrimination, not allowing homosexuals to marry based on their sexual orientation, thus an equal rights issue.....people using their personal religious views to dictate to others what they can/can't do based on their own, private criteria....or whatever arguement one may come up with in favor of being against same sex marriage that i cannot come up with. point is, there are 2 choices: allow it, or don't....and what rationale for either pov.
however.....sorry for turning this thread into another discussion of same-sex marriage, when really it was focused on the demographics of WHO voted for prop 8 and the apparent misinformation of such that has been provided.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
So why aren't the people who are interested in this issue putting that proposal on the table? It seems pretty obvious that pushing for government sponsored gay marriage just isn't going to happen based on the popular votes that keep turning it down or blocking it proactively.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Brother and sister could still hook up if they want to regardless of whether the government says they can't get married.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Why would anyone make this list public? SO if you are against what people think they can harass you at your work/home. That will not help your cause or any cause in the future.
I am not sure where I stand on gay marriage. I see the point people should be able to marry whoever they want to. This might sound silly but I also can see people using this as a scam. Hey bro lets get married for a tax break and better health care then when we do find our wife we can divorce. But then again I guess it can happen now with a man and woman too.
Whatever let them be misserable like the rest of us and get married
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II