Gay Marriage Ban

pandora

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

...
Can you not see into the future cate I thought more of you than that ..

i dont care what you think of me pandora. more or less i couldnt give a fuck.

sorry cate didn't mean to upset you :?

I am into seeing the future and really wanting it now!

I would love my bestest friend to have the equal rights JB and I share now in our lifetime
as she and I are both nearing 60.
While there is a strong, rightfully so, movement to preserve marriage as it was created,
the new term, amendment, and all equal rights granted
would be cause for the buzz twins to celebrate like school girls again!
Party!

Godfather.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

:fp: here we go again,same ol' debate same ol' out-come we all know where each other stand and we know we can't change each others minds so there is no reason to call each other names...am I right ?
"give me an AHMEN ! brothers and sisters" and lets go back to trashing politicans and such insted of each other....come on now ..let's play nice.

Godfather.

And sooner or later, it won't matter because everyone will have the same rights and will be allowed to marry. Even the republicans in NC said yesterdays amendment would be repealed within 20 years.

Here's to sooner rather than later.

On that note, I'm out. I'll sit on the sidelines while the good guys win this one.

so from this point on you will join me in exercising my right to use the 5th ?
and you forgot to give me an AHMEN ! brother.

Godfather.

Cliffy6745

Well done, Mr. President. Mayor Bloomberg put it best

"No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people - and I have no doubt that this will be no exception," Mr. Bloomberg said.

He continued: "The march of freedom that has sustained our country since the Revolution of 1776 continues, and no matter what setbacks may occur in a given state, freedom will triumph over fear and equality will prevail over exclusion. Today's announcement is a testament to the President's convictions, and it builds on the courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching all the way back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village."

the wolf

Thank you Mr. President.

cincybearcat

I'm disappointed but not surprised that a Democrat president was the first to support gay marriage. I had really hoped (futile hope with the turn towards the religious section of the party it seems) that a Republican president would have come out in support of this, marking a shift in the party for the better.

Oh well, it's a big win for Obama and the Dems. Oh, and a big win for gay people that wish to marry. So good for them and good for Obama for finally saying it. I gotta admit, I'm pretty surprised that the last election the Dem candidates didn't jump all over this topic.

I know people stay away because of the fear of losing voters, but it's what good leaders would do. But we don't have any of those left it seems.

JonnyPistachio

When I got married, I NEVER ONCE thought to myself that the requirements aside from being in love, was that it must be a woman. Thats just the way it happened. I naturally chose that person that I married and it happened to be a woman. I myself, nor anyone I know, ever consulted the dictionary for the requirements.

Im pretty sure most people who get married do not think that their first requirement is that it must be a man or a woman. It just happens -- usually without thought as to gender preference. Their first requirement is usually love (outside of vegas )...so to say that marriage should stay as union of a man and a woman because of the tradition of the definition and how it was intended is somewhat of contradiction... and furthermore, if a person is satisfied with their own rights, why in Gods name would someone simply want to prevent others from having the same right?...partners are chosen out of love, not chosen out of tradition (in many places that this argument is taking place).

Either way, as Cliffy said, I am confident that one day gay marriage will be universal in most US states, if not all.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

...
Can you not see into the future cate I thought more of you than that ..

i dont care what you think of me pandora. more or less i couldnt give a fuck.

sorry cate didn't mean to upset you :?
...

youve never seen me upset pandora. dont presume to know me.. you dont.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

you people do understand that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, right? and you also understand that their fellow animals don't prevent them from being together, right?

ComeToTX

Yes, we must respect the tradition of marriage so men and women are the only ones who can habitually marry and divorce.

How else can Britney Spears marry her friend as a joke but two gay men who have been in love for 30 years not marry?

Godfather.

dead horse...dead horse, anybody up for a beer

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

Godfather. wrote:

dead horse...dead horse, anybody up for a beer

Godfather.

Actually, its pretty far from a dead horse considering what happened in NC and what Obama has just said. In fact this issue is on the brink of a pivotal time, which will see much debate. But yeah, i'll take a beeer.

norm

ComeToTX wrote:

Yes, we must respect the tradition of marriage so men and women are the only ones who can habitually marry and divorce.

How else can Britney Spears marry her friend as a joke but two gay men who have been in love for 30 years not marry?

or how about north carolina's own john edwards...now there's a torchbearer for the sanctity of marriage

Hugh Freaking Dillon

but who "intended" this definition in the first place? who created the idea marriage? was it the church? was it god? as any historian will tell you, NO ONE KNOWS. so to claim there was some intention of its definition and purpose is false from the beginning.

it means different things to different cultures, and has evolved over time. why do we wish to stop this evolution?

and I completely disagree with the assertion that the "preservers of marriage do not hate..everyone wants a resolution". I can guarantee you MOST of the "preservers of marriage" don't believe that homosexuality is an orientation, but a choice. if they did, what would be the issue? if they believed god created homosexuality, why would god not want these people to have equal rights?

pandora wrote:

exactly ... who's hating here!

Most of the preservers of marriage do not hate, everyone wants a resolution.

I totally get why the law went through, not to keep gay people from their rights nor
from their unions, but to preserve the tradition, the history, the defintion of why the word
marriage was created a union of a man and a woman.

Change can come now even with this President, well if he hurries just kidding
we need a new word, a new definition and equal rights for all unions!
No that was based clearly on race not gender
so it didn't apply
the term marriage was created thousands of years ago for the union of a man and woman
no matter the race.

The preservers of marriage want to preserve the definition,
tradition and history as to why is was created as it was intended.

pandora

catefrances wrote:

and if it ever is you want it called something else because why again...?

You presume I want this ...
I am speaking of the preservers of marriage those who voted loud and clear yesterday,
I understand their position and see the hinderance that is happening
continuing down this path.

My stance is I would like to see gays have equal rights today and by all means not less rights
for people as the vote brought yesterday.

By making a new gay union term to take into all the future years to come
leaving marriage as it was created and intended, a union of a man and woman,
equal rights will not be lost but gained and perhaps even very soon....
not decades.

That would be good for all unions and the country.

your move now

no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies

Hugh Freaking Dillon

do your gay and lesbian friends agree that a new term would be better and giving gays rights to the term marriage would mean less rights for straight people?

I don't even like the word straight. It makes it sound like anything other than heterosexuality is crooked.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

having a different word for marriage for gays and calling it beautiful is the same as "letting" black people sit at the back of the bus and calling it "more comfortable".

ComeToTX

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

having a different word for marriage for gays and calling it beautiful is the same as "letting" black people sit at the back of the bus and calling it "more comfortable".

Well said. Equal but different is not equality people.

pandora

your move now wrote:

no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies

It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.

Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.

ComeToTX

pandora wrote:

your move now wrote:

no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies

It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.

Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.

But why? Why are you so attached to a word? People and definitions evolve. We didn't change the word "vote" for women or black people when they got that right.