Gay Marriage Ban

pandora

the South digs though I am a born yankee get old and sound extremely bigoted in nature


can we see ourselves in each other? :?

gimmesometruth27

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I would much prefer for homosexuals to have the right to marry than for bigots to have the right to procreate.

+1

that bigotry is passed down and it is generational. and it is TAUGHT. we are not born thinking the way we do. being a bigot is not biological... it is socialized...

norm

Newch91

norm wrote:

Please tell me that's not true.

norm

Newch91 wrote:

norm wrote:

Please tell me that's not true.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/hum ... cousi.aspx

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

People opposed clearly do not want a gay union to be called 'marriage'.
It is not marriage by definition nor history.

check out polaris's post on the bottom of page 9 and read it. it is marriage by definition. it's in black and white.

and history should define how we act in the present only if that is an act of change.

polaris_x

it's so tragic that in a world so full of hate that ignorance continues to make people do hurtful things ... it's a fucking word ... people are hiding their prejudice behind semantics ...

Newch91

norm wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

norm wrote:

Please tell me that's not true.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/hum ... cousi.aspx

:fp: They allow that but don't allow civil unions??

Also, I can't believe states allow cousins to marry each other.

Cliffy6745

pandora wrote:

People opposed clearly do not want a gay union to be called 'marriage'.
It is not marriage by definition nor history.

This based in the tradition of the word marriage and what it has
meant for thousands of years, for billions of participants.

Most protecters of the union of marriage do not oppose rights being equal
or that there is a union
it is obvious there are many unions and gay is here to stay.

Gay people can not marry because of the fact they are the same sex.
By definition and now by law which could expand unfortunately because
of the definition and history of marriage.

But a new word a new amendment can bring equality to the unions to end this.
It will not be called marriage but will be called _ _ _ _ _ _
with the same legal rights and may, in my opinion, more than likely,
out number 'marriages' in the distant future.

Those wanting the traditional marriage union, that was created long ago,
to stay intact, it does
as gay couples move forward with a new life, a new word,
a new union with the same rights as all.

If the haters still hate that is their problem ...so be it....
there are more lovers than haters.

This still does not come close to answering the question of how your or anyone elses marriage is fucked up by two dudes marrying each other.

Slavery was once a tradition...

pandora

it is not just a word obviously :fp:
What is the problem with a new word, a new amendment, granting equal rights to gay unions?
would this not speed everything up ...

this a great approach that even our current administration could enact.
Our President satisfies those who want the traditional definition that has been around
for thousands of years
while moving the gay rights into place and setting an example for equality.
It is a word of the future that will embrace future love and families!
Groovy-cool!

polaris_x

Cliffy6745 wrote:

This still does not come close to answering the question of how your or anyone elses marriage is fucked up by two dudes marrying each other.

Slavery was once a tradition...

god speed ... :corn:

cincybearcat

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, plain and simple.

I don't think so entirely. I think there are some really good people out there that have never been exposed to the issue. When a vote comes up, they don't really understand and they only go off what they know in their own lives.

I think ignorance is a big problem when it comes to many issues.

usamamasan1

"I'm still working on it"

Translation=what will get me the most votes.

Nice leadership


http://gma.yahoo.com/timeline-obamas-ev ... itics.html

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

I think ignorance is a big problem when it comes to many issues.

yup

Cliffy6745

pandora wrote:

it is not just a word obviously :fp:
What is the problem with a new word, a new amendment, granting equal rights to gay unions?
would this not speed everything up ...

this a great approach that even our current administration could enact.
Our President satisfies those who want the traditional definition that has been around
for thousands of years
while moving the gay rights into place and setting an example for equality.
It is a word of the future that will embrace future love and families!
Groovy-cool!

Great idea. Let's call it a second class marriage. That way bigots can be happy that gay people aren't allowed to express their love in the same way they are. You're a genius, I tell you. You figured it out.

pandora

Cliffy6745 wrote:

pandora wrote:

People opposed clearly do not want a gay union to be called 'marriage'.
It is not marriage by definition nor history.

This based in the tradition of the word marriage and what it has
meant for thousands of years, for billions of participants.

Most protecters of the union of marriage do not oppose rights being equal
or that there is a union
it is obvious there are many unions and gay is here to stay.

Gay people can not marry because of the fact they are the same sex.
By definition and now by law which could expand unfortunately because
of the definition and history of marriage.

But a new word a new amendment can bring equality to the unions to end this.
It will not be called marriage but will be called _ _ _ _ _ _
with the same legal rights and may, in my opinion, more than likely,
out number 'marriages' in the distant future.

Those wanting the traditional marriage union, that was created long ago,
to stay intact, it does
as gay couples move forward with a new life, a new word,
a new union with the same rights as all.

If the haters still hate that is their problem ...so be it....
there are more lovers than haters.

This still does not come close to answering the question of how your or anyone elses marriage is fucked up by two dudes marrying each other.

Slavery was once a tradition...

:? Poor analogy unless you think marriage is owning another human being.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman has been since the beginning...
why is was created
it is tradition and history and changing that is obviously a problem for many.

So why not find a solution for all not just some.

What happened yesterday and we may see more,
is the people saying they want to keep marriage traditional out of respect for the union.
They do not want marriage to change.

So create a new union, a new word, grant equality and move on.

Please don't talk about prejudice because your posts have been the best example of just that.

I would like to see resolution not further discourse. I would like to see
my friends united with equal rights in a union all there own.
I would like to see this as an example for the rest of the world in the future....
now.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

:? Poor analogy unless you think marriage is owning another human being.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman has been since the beginning...
why is was created
it is tradition and history and changing that is obviously a problem for many.

So why not find a solution for all not just some.

What happened yesterday and we may see more,
is the people saying they want to keep marriage traditional out of respect for the union.
They do not want marriage to change.

So create a new union, a new word, grant equality and move on.

Please don't talk about prejudice because your posts have been the best example of just that.

I would like to see resolution not further discourse. I would like to see
my friends united with equal rights in a union all there own.
I would like to see this as an example for the rest of the world in the future....
now.

it will only be equal when it is called the same.. gay or straight. by labelling gay marriage simply as a union or whatever stigmatises it as unequal. that somehow because youre gay your union isnt on a par with straight marriage. giving it its own name doesnt change the benign bigotry expressed in the label.

usamamasan1

It isn't equal. That's the point it's different. Clearly.
Treat under law with same rights... I'm for that.

Cliffy6745

pandora wrote:

Please don't talk about prejudice because your posts have been the best example of just that.

I am perfectly fine with being prejudice of intolerant people. If I am intolerant towards intolerance, so fucking be it and it's actually something I am proud of.

I can't be bothered with the rest. All groups of people regardless of sex, race or religion should have the EXACT same rights and freedoms. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if marrying (not some bullshit made up word to satisfy bigots, yes, bigots) is your pursuit of happiness, then gay people have the right to marry just as straight do.

I cannot conceivably understand how this is an argument in 2012.

catefrances

usamamasan1 wrote:

It isn't equal. That's the point it's different. Clearly.

but it should be. thats the point. if i want to marry my lover and they happen to have a vagina then as a ctiizen with equal rights i should be allowed to.