Gay Marriage Ban

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

ALL "marriage preservers" simply want it because of tradition. Some have ulterior motives, for sure.

I have said most in past posts and of course ones motives can not be known
unless stated honestly.
I think it is clear though if one wants equality for gay unions
and wants an amendment protecting this their motives are pure.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

ALL "marriage preservers" simply want it because of tradition. Some have ulterior motives, for sure.

I have said most in past posts and of course ones motives can not be known
unless stated honestly.
I think it is clear though if one wants equality for gay unions
and wants an amendment protecting this their motives are pure.

you keep calling it gay UNIONS. MARRIAGE equality is what we want here. marriage is a union between 2 people so lets just call gay union what is it... GAY MARRIAGE.

redrock

catefrances wrote:

you keep calling it gay UNIONS. MARRIAGE equality is what we want here. marriage is a union between 2 people so lets just call gay union what is it... GAY MARRIAGE.

Until the time we can call it marriage, plain and simple, without any added adjective!

catefrances

redrock wrote:

catefrances wrote:

you keep calling it gay UNIONS. MARRIAGE equality is what we want here. marriage is a union between 2 people so lets just call gay union what is it... GAY MARRIAGE.

Until the time we can call it marriage, plain and simple, without any added adjective!

yes. lets call it MARRIAGE. its neat its clean its simple. it is what it is... what it should be.

markin ball

pandora wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Oh please. You're not that dense. It has EVERYTHING to do with prejudice. Marriage was not "created and intended" by Christians and they're not preserving anything.

And I am not a "gay rights person," I am a person who wants "marriage equality."

And finally, showing just how ignorant you are on this subject, you end with Saying that we should come up with a new word with all the same rights as marriage and that "There is no opposition
that could oppose that."

News flash, Einstein, the bill passed in North Carolina was very clear that NO other union can have the same rights as a marriage between a man and a woman. None. So what you just said... That there would be no opposition to it shows that you don't understand the bill that just passed.

Stop defending bigots. They are not preserving anything but thier own place at the top of the hill. Because they're assholes.

Posting guidelines state to remain respectful :?

The common law aspect was added for extra protection for the union of marriage.
We will see what this will bring to the law. May actually work in favor of gay marriage.

Well perhaps you'll be waiting for marriage equality then
while I know many who would like equal rights given today.

Again read my posts I am not defending I am trying to find resolution today.
Perservers of marriage will remain united
and may grow as the issue of prejudice is obviously removed now.

Please don't put me down that is less than respectful and shows your true nature.

I can't believe you just said "don't put me down" and then said his "true nature" was less than respectful all in the same sentence. Let's remember the posting guidelines, personal attacks and such. And judging, too. I know that's something you try to avoid.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

...
cate I thought more of you than that ..

pandora wrote:

...
Posting guidelines state to remain respectful


Please don't put me down that is less than respectful and shows your true nature...

:?

catefrances

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

...
cate I thought more of you than that ..

pandora wrote:

...
Posting guidelines state to remain respectful


Please don't put me down that is less than respectful and shows your true nature...

:?

right there with you hugh.

pandora

markin ball wrote:

I can't believe you just said "don't put me down" and then said his "true nature" was less than respectful all in the same sentence. Let's remember the posting guidelines, personal attacks and such. And judging, too. I know that's something you try to avoid.

I did not put him down I said his true nature is showing in his posts, rude and disrespectful
and it was pretty obviously. :nono:
But thanks for letting me know how you feel :fp:

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think it is clear though if one wants equality for gay unions
and wants an amendment protecting this their motives are pure.

you keep calling it gay UNIONS. MARRIAGE equality is what we want here. marriage is a union between 2 people so lets just call gay union what is it... GAY MARRIAGE.

As I mentioned to gimme...
fine then the battle will go on perhaps even decades this while gay unions
do not have legal equality or are unrecognized all together as yesterday's vote.
I would like to see better for my friends who are approaching the age of leaving this world.

Gay marriage must be legal then in Australia good job,
I'm sure you got out there and supported hard to make that happen.
What year was it legalized? Any advice for America I know you have lots of input
for the US

strilo

Pandora: Bring on the fight for marriage. We prefer it to all this sneaking around.

I will say it again. Gay people want what everyone else has the chance to have. Marriage. End of sentence. We won't and we shouldn't settle for anything less. Separate but equal didn't work before, why would it work now? I can honestly say I'd rather have the fight take another ten years if it means marriage and not some other named thing. Marriage. How many times can I say it in this post?

pandora

strilo wrote:

Pandora: Bring on the fight for marriage. We prefer it to all this sneaking around.

I will say it again. Gay people want what everyone else has the chance to have. Marriage. End of sentence. We won't and we shouldn't settle for anything less. Separate but equal didn't work before, why would it work now? I can honestly say I'd rather have the fight take another ten years if it means marriage and not some other named thing. Marriage. How many times can I say it in this post?

I will vote for preserving marriage as it was defined between a man and a woman
only if it will bring resolution faster and equal legal rights to gay unions.
Hopefully in the form of a national amendment granting such legal equal rights.

redrock

I guess when one is out of arguments, one turns to flippancy aimed at other posters.... :roll:

In the UK, like in many other countries, same sex MARRIAGE is not legal. Here we have the civil unions/partnerships that confer all the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage (ie insurance policies, etc.) but falls short of a 'marriage'. I think it's different to the US where currently the rights of a partnership in a civil union are not the same. So a bit better for gay people here. Part of the coalition government here is pushing for same sex MARRIAGE, but the other half won't hear of it.

From Wiki (I know...) but this explains it a bit better than I can.

"Aside from the manner in which couples register and the non-use of the word "marriage", civil partnerships and civil marriages give exactly the same legal rights and operate under the same constrictions and it is not legal to be in both a civil partnership and a marriage at the same time. Nevertheless, some of those in favour of legal same-sex marriage object that civil partnerships fall short of granting equality. They see legal marriage and civil partnerships as artificially segregated institutions, and draw parallels with the racial segregation of the United States' past. Civil partnership ceremonies are prohibited by law from including religious readings, symbols or music, even if the church involved supports such use.[37]

Both same-sex marriages and civil unions of other nations will be automatically considered civil partnerships under UK law providing they came within Section 20 of the Act. This means, in some cases, non-Britons from nations with civil unions will have greater rights in the UK than in their native countries. For example, a Vermont civil union would have legal standing in the UK, however in cases where one partner was American and the other British, the Vermont civil union would not provide the Briton with right of abode in Vermont (or any other US state or territory), whereas it would provide the American with right of abode in the UK."

catefrances

pandora wrote:

markin ball wrote:

I can't believe you just said "don't put me down" and then said his "true nature" was less than respectful all in the same sentence. Let's remember the posting guidelines, personal attacks and such. And judging, too. I know that's something you try to avoid.

I did not put him down I said his true nature is showing in his posts, rude and disrespectful
and it was pretty obviously. :nono:
But thanks for letting me know how you feel :fp:

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think it is clear though if one wants equality for gay unions
and wants an amendment protecting this their motives are pure.

you keep calling it gay UNIONS. MARRIAGE equality is what we want here. marriage is a union between 2 people so lets just call gay union what is it... GAY MARRIAGE.

As I mentioned to gimme...
fine then the battle will go on perhaps even decades this while gay unions
do not have legal equality or are unrecognized all together as yesterday's vote.
I would like to see better for my friends who are approaching the age of leaving this world.

Gay marriage must be legal then in Australia good job,
I'm sure you got out there and supported hard to make that happen.
What year was it legalized? Any advice for America I know you have lots of input
for the US

then so be it. why should gays settle?

and no there is no marriage equality in australia.. why make that assumption?

gimmesometruth27

this is not going to come to a national vote. this is going to take an act of congress and the signature of a president, just as every other landmark granting of rights to perticular groups...the same rights that ALL of us are BORN with.

it is shameful in 2012 that people have to qualify "unions" or "gay marriage" as anything other than "marriage".

gay MARRIAGE now!

i am just interested for the sake of discussion, what are the ages of the people on this forum who are debating against gay marriage?

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this is not going to come to a national vote. this is going to take an act of congress and the signature of a president, just as every other landmark granting of rights to perticular groups...the same rights that ALL of us are BORN with.

it is shameful in 2012 that people have to qualify "unions" or "gay marriage" as anything other than "marriage".

gay MARRIAGE now!

i am just interested for the sake of discussion, what are the ages of the people on this forum who are debating against gay marriage?

dont forget gimme not everyone is against gay marriage per se.. some are just against calling it marriage when gays are involved.

norm

not surprised but am still kinda speechless as to where this thread (once again) has devolved...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss8LDBNcsWc

redrock

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am just interested for the sake of discussion, what are the ages of the people on this forum who are debating against gay marriage?

I'm not against (as one may have gathered) but I may be in the age group that might be seen as more 'traditional'. Let's just say when I was little I lived in Georgia for a bit (Columbus and Atlanta) and I remember a bus driver refusing to start the bus until my sister, my dad and I moved from the back seat of the bus (because that's were kids like to be) to the front because we didn't 'belong' there - it was for 'other' people (and at that time it was perfectly legal to discriminate). So you have an idea of my age!

gimmesometruth27

redrock wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am just interested for the sake of discussion, what are the ages of the people on this forum who are debating against gay marriage?

I'm not against (as one may have gathered) but I may be in the age group that might be seen as more 'traditional'. Let's just say when I was little I lived in Georgia for a bit (Columbus and Atlanta) and I remember a bus driver refusing to start the bus until my sister, my dad and I moved from the back seat of the bus (because that's were kids like to be) to the front because we didn't 'belong' there - it was for 'other' people (and at that time it was perfectly legal to discriminate). So you have an idea of my age!

i know you were not arguing against it. if people answered i was going to draw the conclusion that the young will be the ones that get this passed. traditional ways of thinking are going away with each new generation.

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

redrock wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am just interested for the sake of discussion, what are the ages of the people on this forum who are debating against gay marriage?

I'm not against (as one may have gathered) but I may be in the age group that might be seen as more 'traditional'. Let's just say when I was little I lived in Georgia for a bit (Columbus and Atlanta) and I remember a bus driver refusing to start the bus until my sister, my dad and I moved from the back seat of the bus (because that's were kids like to be) to the front because we didn't 'belong' there - it was for 'other' people (and at that time it was perfectly legal to discriminate). So you have an idea of my age!

i know you were not arguing against it. if people answered i was going to draw the conclusion that the young will be the ones that get this passed. traditional ways of thinking are going away with each new generation.

whats the cut off point agewise?

Jason P

:corn:

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

whats the cut off point agewise?

dunno, those born after 1985 maybe. old enough to have been exposed to mores that were not as rigid as people born before then. i was born in '75 and many people my age are still stuck in that way of thinking. the young seem to be more open minded and a ton less judgemental.