Gay Marriage Ban

SPEEDY MCCREADY

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

rollings wrote:

It doesn't matter if I see the United States allowing it to happen or not, that's totally irrelevant

I would like to hear arguing points about why they should be excluded from the entitlements of marriage.

NOT that "the government ain't gonna allow it", or "ha ha look, a gay float",

I mean REAL arguing points. Do you have any? Does anybody?

Have a wonderful Mothers Day

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Don't you love it when people talk about ya when you're not around...
not :nono:
Wow some people are being rather dense
if not they can _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and have a nice Mother's Day

:shock:

lukin2006

Why in 2012 is this even an issue? Why should only heterosexual couples be entitled to certain benefits? And how does Steve and Larry or Laurie and Sue being married impact heterosexual marriages? Maybe no one should be entitled to benefits.

And most importantly gay couples should be entitled to be miserable like heterosexual couples :P :P...I kid :P.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

Don't you love it when people talk about ya when you're not around...
not :nono:
Wow some people are being rather dense
perhaps they love to 'hear' me explain once again...because I have clearly explained every challenge and yet a few just can't get it ...
what's up with that? :fp:
I have explained exactly my stance and why...D

what i would like is for you to explain it just ONCE and do so clearly... but you seem incapable of answering a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no.

pandora wrote:

...
and again I want civil unions for all not just gays

so now its civil unions for all?? what about the institution of marriage? i just do not get how you say you are pro gay marriage, yet say it should be called a civil union or some other fancy anything-but-marriage name and now you think we should discard the term marriage. :think:

riotgrl

This discussion has been most interesting to follow! I came across this map that details the current state by state status of gay marriage and civil unions. Seems to follow a political pattern - typically Republican states allow no or few benefits and typcially Democratic states allowing civil unions. It will be interesting to see how the Supeme Court rules on this decision.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-gm ... .htmlstory

pandora

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

Don't you love it when people talk about ya when you're not around...
not :nono:
Wow some people are being rather dense
perhaps they love to 'hear' me explain once again...because I have clearly explained every challenge and yet a few just can't get it ...
what's up with that? :fp:
I have explained exactly my stance and why...D

what i would like is for you to explain it just ONCE and do so clearly... but you seem incapable of answering a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no.

pandora wrote:

...
and again I want civil unions for all not just gays

so now its civil unions for all?? what about the institution of marriage? i just do not get how you say you are pro gay marriage, yet say it should be called a civil union or some other fancy anything-but-marriage name and now you think we should discard the term marriage. :think:

I've explained repeatedly .... you don't want to get it or something :fp:

why cate? :nono:

every question you have asked I have answered... clearly boldly
spelled it out


The govt does not need to define marriage yes, everyone would be bound
in civil matrimony with the same name, same equal rights.
And everyone would have their own definition of marriage

if this was the case we wouldn't even be having this discussion
this what was spoke of in a different thread....

Brilliant idea
and would bring resolution.

so I think you should be able to understand

what I don't understand is why you would make something
ugly out of my precious lifelong friendships...

why cate ... can you explain that?

chadwick

lukin2006 wrote:

Why in 2012 is this even an issue? Why should only heterosexual couples be entitled to certain benefits? And how does Steve and Larry or Laurie and Sue being married impact heterosexual marriages? Maybe no one should be entitled to benefits.

And most importantly gay couples should be entitled to be miserable like heterosexual couples :P :P...I kid :P.

that aint no shit

chadwick

pandora wrote:

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

Don't you love it when people talk about ya when you're not around...
not :nono:
Wow some people are being rather dense
perhaps they love to 'hear' me explain once again...because I have clearly explained every challenge and yet a few just can't get it ...
what's up with that? :fp:
I have explained exactly my stance and why...D

what i would like is for you to explain it just ONCE and do so clearly... but you seem incapable of answering a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no.

pandora wrote:

...
and again I want civil unions for all not just gays

so now its civil unions for all?? what about the institution of marriage? i just do not get how you say you are pro gay marriage, yet say it should be called a civil union or some other fancy anything-but-marriage name and now you think we should discard the term marriage. :think:

I've explained repeatedly .... you don't want to get it or something :fp:

why cate? :nono:

every question you have asked I have answered... clearly boldly
spelled it out


The govt does not need to define marriage yes, everyone would be bound
in civil matrimony with the same name, same equal rights.
And everyone would have their own definition of marriage

if this was the case we wouldn't even be having this discussion
this what was spoke of in a different thread....

Brilliant idea
and would bring resolution.

so I think you should be able to understand

what I don't understand is why you would make something
ugly out of my precious lifelong friendships...

why cate ... can you explain that?

pandora, i haven't the foggiest idea what you are saying. it's been like this for a long while. it's not just catefrance who is confusioned

pandora

chadwick wrote:

[
pandora, i haven't the foggiest idea what you are saying. it's been like this for a long while. it's not just catefrance who is confusioned

spell it out what you are saying ...
what don't you get chadwick?

chadwick

pandora wrote:

chadwick wrote:

[
pandora, i haven't the foggiest idea what you are saying. it's been like this for a long while. it's not just catefrance who is confusioned

spell it out what you are saying ...
what don't you get chadwick?

yes/no questions.

do you, chadwick like roller coasters, yes/no?

well it started back in 1982 at adventurelad in des moines, iowa. it was fun and sickening dizzy. we camped, our 5 member family did, it was fun/unfun for 3 whole days. our gay friends came and joined in. we ate stupid shit at the amusement park and we had lots of picnics and we swam. i got 13 stitches in my groin from some crazy tall upside down ride. we left kinda smiling and kinda not

pandora

chadwick wrote:

pandora wrote:

chadwick wrote:

[
pandora, i haven't the foggiest idea what you are saying. it's been like this for a long while. it's not just catefrance who is confusioned

spell it out what you are saying ...
what don't you get chadwick?

yes/no questions.

do you, chadwick like roller coasters, yes/no?

well it started back in 1982 at adventurelad in des moines, iowa. it was fun and sickening dizzy. we camped, our 5 member family did, it was fun/unfun for 3 whole days. our gay friends came and joined in. we ate stupid shit at the amusement park and we had lots of picnics and we swam. i got 13 stitches in my groin from some crazy tall upside down ride. we left kinda smiling and kinda not

TMI

I have answered all the questions if you need clarification just ask?

MayDay10

Pandora, I think people keep coming at you, because all of your posts are pushing an agenda that isnt necessarily pro-gay rights per se, but you claim to be pro gay marriage. This was also your first post in the thread, followed by many similar ones:

pandora wrote:

This for thousands of years ... it is marriage.

definition

marriage...
"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

A proponent of the law yesterday stated perhaps the gay community could leave marriage as is
and establish a new amendment, giving a new name for the union of same sex couples
with the same legal rights.

Since then you have clarified that you are pro gay marriage, and have also revealed that you have friends who are gay. In the interest of expidited "rights" under the government, you would support throwing "marriage" out and calling it "Civil Unions".
People are getting confused because you seem to feel very so overly strong about pushing this through under "Civil Unions". So much though as it feeds the misconception that this is what you actually support. People are misunderstanding you.
"Civil Unions" and/or alternate names for things isn't what most gay people or supporters of gay rights want. Furthermore, this isnt what most anti-gay people want either. We havent seen any evidence this is a formidable movement at all and people have provided evidence that this is a hinderance. The only "evidence" you have provided are your gay friends and an "interview you saw".
You say the president should flippantly "pass an amendment" to make everything a civil union. The problem with that is, in our system of checks and balances, it would have to pass through a Republican Congress.... and there would be a lot of asses on the line (and out of office) if any R's voted in favor of gay rights. It would also have to pass through the Supreme Court. It is likely going to remain a State-to-State issue for some time.
Also, the churches have Zero ownership of the term "marriage". It is a cultural and societal term.

The fight for gay marriage is gaining ground rapidly. You can see by the map posted above the amount of progress in just 10 years since it was a far-fetched social issue.


The main issue surrounding everything about gay rights is equality and understanding. Opponents believe that attraction to the same sex is a choice and a lifestyle. Validation/acceptance/legitimizing this lifestyle choice will breed more gay people in the community. Teachers in schools will recruit our children into this lifestyle and everyone will get AIDS. we will have crazy gay parades every month and drag queens will line the streets. Not only that, God will get angry and throw another Katrina our way if we grant gay rights.
The sooner and longer everything is equal, that line of belief will be broken down and eroded.

Then you have gay people who cannot be themselves and are forced to live a lie and cannot love. In fear of losing their families, job, and "friends"... or maybe in fear of getting bullied or assaulted. These people live miserably for years of their lives and too often kill themselves as opposed to the choice of living a lie, or coming out and losing everything. Some "choice" of a lifestyle, huh?
Making it so gay people can be out with it and lead normal, unobstructed lives is the ultimate goal... not just "marriage". Making compromises and concessions undermines the movement.

I do believe that Speedy provided some good points that you dont think about on the residual laws that would need to be adjusted for same sex marriages. I dont think it would be too unreasonable to add some language into those laws to include same-sex couples and maybe gear them to some kind of equitable split. There has got to be something in place now in states that allow SS Marriage, right? I think these laws need to be revisited/adjusted in most states (even without SS marriage) though as people seem to really get overly screwed.
Also, would this open the door for some kind of scams people can run, along the lines of "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry"?

pandora

MayDay10 wrote:

Pandora, I think people keep coming at you, because all of your posts are pushing an agenda that isnt necessarily pro-gay rights per se, but you claim to be pro gay marriage. This was also your first post in the thread, followed by many similar ones:

pandora wrote:

This for thousands of years ... it is marriage.

definition

marriage...
"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

A proponent of the law yesterday stated perhaps the gay community could leave marriage as is
and establish a new amendment, giving a new name for the union of same sex couples
with the same legal rights.

Since then you have clarified that you are pro gay marriage, and have also revealed that you have friends who are gay. In the interest of expidited "rights" under the government, you would support throwing "marriage" out and calling it "Civil Unions".
People are getting confused because you seem to feel very so overly strong about pushing this through under "Civil Unions". So much though as it feeds the misconception that this is what you actually support. People are misunderstanding you.
"Civil Unions" and/or alternate names for things isn't what most gay people or supporters of gay rights want. Furthermore, this isnt what most anti-gay people want either. We havent seen any evidence this is a formidable movement at all and people have provided evidence that this is a hinderance. The only "evidence" you have provided are your gay friends and an "interview you saw".
You say the president should flippantly "pass an amendment" to make everything a civil union. The problem with that is, in our system of checks and balances, it would have to pass through a Republican Congress.... and there would be a lot of asses on the line (and out of office) if any R's voted in favor of gay rights. It would also have to pass through the Supreme Court. It is likely going to remain a State-to-State issue for some time.
Also, the churches have Zero ownership of the term "marriage". It is a cultural and societal term.

The fight for gay marriage is gaining ground rapidly. You can see by the map posted above the amount of progress in just 10 years since it was a far-fetched social issue.


The main issue surrounding everything about gay rights is equality and understanding. Opponents believe that attraction to the same sex is a choice and a lifestyle. Validation/acceptance/legitimizing this lifestyle choice will breed more gay people in the community. Teachers in schools will recruit our children into this lifestyle and everyone will get AIDS. we will have crazy gay parades every month and drag queens will line the streets. Not only that, God will get angry and throw another Katrina our way if we grant gay rights.
The sooner and longer everything is equal, that line of belief will be broken down and eroded.

Then you have gay people who cannot be themselves and are forced to live a lie and cannot love. In fear of losing their families, job, and "friends"... or maybe in fear of getting bullied or assaulted. These people live miserably for years of their lives and too often kill themselves as opposed to the choice of living a lie, or coming out and losing everything. Some "choice" of a lifestyle, huh?
Making it so gay people can be out with it and lead normal, unobstructed lives is the ultimate goal... not just "marriage". Making compromises and concessions undermines the movement.

I do believe that Speedy provided some good points that you dont think about on the residual laws that would need to be adjusted for same sex marriages. I dont think it would be too unreasonable to add some language into those laws to include same-sex couples and maybe gear them to some kind of equitable split. There has got to be something in place now in states that allow SS Marriage, right? I think these laws need to be revisited/adjusted in most states (even without SS marriage) though as people seem to really get overly screwed.
Also, would this open the door for some kind of scams people can run, along the lines of "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry"?

I am pro gay all the way!

and really like the idea of the other poster from the other thread , I have expanded on,
it is great!

In that quote I didn't say I was a supporter I said it is what I heard a proponent say.
That is the definition of marriage and we'll leave that in the church where it belongs
not in the law for civil matrimony, being defined as a union of two consenting adults.

And once again I speak from and for my experience, my love for my gay friends
and what they want in their lives now.
I have repeated that at length and even been insulted and had cate make something ugly
out of my relationships and why I speak of them here.

Godfather.

there are some very rude and self centered people on this forum they kiss each others ass and attack others no mater what those people have to say,the world would be better without their selfrightous bullshit,
chadwick you are a follower of the latest trend I doubt you have had an original thought of your own lately it's too bad your post on the train are not as heart felt as your poetry and even that has suffered in my opinion sense you started on this animal and gay rights rant, your hate and sarcasim is either showing the true chadwick or you've dove into rage and deprission because you're not happy with your own life and drugs and booze will not make things better....something to think about.

Godfather.

ComeToTX

Godfather. wrote:

there are some very rude and self centered people on this forum they kiss each others ass and attack others no mater what those people have to say,the world would be better without their selfrightous bullshit,
chadwick you are a follower of the latest trend I doubt you have had an original thought of your own lately it's too bad your post on the train are not as heart felt as your poetry and even that has suffered in my opinion sense you started on this animal and gay rights rant, your hate and sarcasim is either showing the true chadwick or you've dove into rage and deprission because you're not happy with your own life and drugs and booze will not make things better....something to think about.

Godfather.

this is supposed to be ironic and hilarious right?

ComeToTX

People against gay marriage,

These are the people you're lining up with.

"Rand Paul 'not sure' if Obama's stance on marriage 'could get any gayer'"

http://thehill.com/video/senate/227143- ... -any-gayer

JonnyPistachio

Godfather. wrote:

there are some very rude and self centered people on this forum they kiss each others ass and attack others no mater what those people have to say,the world would be better without their selfrightous bullshit,
chadwick you are a follower of the latest trend I doubt you have had an original thought of your own lately it's too bad your post on the train are not as heart felt as your poetry and even that has suffered in my opinion sense you started on this animal and gay rights rant, your hate and sarcasim is either showing the true chadwick or you've dove into rage and deprission because you're not happy with your own life and drugs and booze will not make things better....something to think about.

Godfather.

:fp:

pakalolo

don't ban any marriages, just ban all divorces.

redrock

pakalolo wrote:

don't ban any marriages, just ban all divorces.

That would certainly 'preserve' marriage!

Jason P

pakalolo wrote:

don't ban any marriages, just ban all divorces.

They are being denied the privileges that are associated with marriage ... but are also protected from the downsides of marriage as well.