i for one would never wan't to tell anyone who theyshould marry/fuck or what ever not anyone at all not even my two kids what they choose to do when they are old enough will be their choice not mine ....how can people live their lives worrying about what the neighboor does with hi's/hers ...
Neither you nor ninja have answered the question. On what legal ground should same sex marriage be banned?
my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
The thing I never understood about the anti-gay marriage argument is that all of the main arguments used could also be applied to divorce. Divorce is forbidden in the bible, divorce is hard for children to understand and divorce it could be argued cheapens the meaning of marriage. Yet how come no one is calling for a proposition to outlaw divorce?
Because the "bible/religion" reason is just an excuse to be predjudiced. There is no logic involved.
my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
Neither you nor ninja have answered the question. On what legal ground should same sex marriage be banned?
they aren't going to answer the question ... it serves no purpose for them ... they basically don't like gay people and do not believe in equality for them - it's obvious ... so, coming out and saying that just opens them up to being called homophobes and such ...
I had this discussion with my dad. He and my mom divorced when he decided to leave and legitimize his relationship with the other woman. He argued for the sanctity of marriage. OK, whatever.
Then I asked him: "Do you think people choose homosexuality or is it genetic." His answer was that some people were born gay. So then I asked him: "OK, if being gay is something that a person is born with, how can you take away their right to marry? Would you be against left-handed people or black people marrying?" He told me that wasn't the same.
I guess my point is, some people simply don't like the idea of men marrying men or women marrying women. Apparently there are quite a few of those people.
EDIT: Here's kind of a mind-bender: My dad said he was OK with gays having the civil benefits of marriage. Also, he labels himself an agnostic, so religion can't be the sticking point.
EXACTLY!
how anyone can NOT see this for exactly what it IS - an equal rights issue - is beyond me. put in ANY other adjective besides 'gay'....such as black, left-handed people, italians, jews....and it would be an outrage.
and i too believe it's not *just* about religion, it's simply people imposing their own morality...religious or not...on other people. while i am completely pro-choice, i can at least understand the pro-life pov, b/c you ARe involving another entity, and the argument is over if it's human, if life begins at conception, etc, etc. however, gay marriage involves NO ONE...except that you actually have to 'tolerate' the idea that two men or two women are married. :eek: what a hardship! the end of civilization!
man...i had to tolerate the most hygiene-challenged man sitting next to me on the train this morning, and it was a challenge! that has FAR mor eimpact on my individual life than if same-sex couples marry. get over it. there IS no 'right excuse' to disallow it.
my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
let the bashing begin
The Catholic Church also says marriage is until one person dies, so would you support a law to make divorce illegal? From what I also know the Catholic Church won't marry people unless they are both Catholic, so why not make interfaith marriages illegal too?
my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
let the bashing begin
That is not a legal base though, that is religious belief. The Catholic Church has every right to reject gay marriage and to ban same sex couples from getting married in the church, the government does not. As someone stated divorce is also prohibited by God and the Catholic Church so should the government now prohibit divorce because the bible says so. This is simply a case of forcing your morality on others. I respect your religious views and your moral code but as long as I am not inflicting any harm on you or any other being I should be allowed to live by my moral code. So while you state that you are protecting your religion you are in fact infringing on the rights of others solely based on religious dogma.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
let the bashing begin
so says your religion... no one should have other people's religion shoved down their throat.
Separation of government and church in this country is the biggest lie.
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
It an amendment to the California state constitution that denys gays the right to marry, that some religious nuts apparantly voted for.
Ahh right. Thankyou. I'm glad I live in the UK where those it is an issue for are in the minority. Hopefully this will go the same way as votes for women/black people. Common sense will prevail in the end.
my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
let the bashing begin
But how is gay marriage affecting your catholic religion? that's what I don't understand. Does divorce affect your catholic religion? Do people who practice other religions affect your catholic religion?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Ahh right. Thankyou. I'm glad I live in the UK where those it is an issue for are in the minority. Hopefully this will go the same way as votes for women/black people. Common sense will prevail in the end.
can same sex couples legally marry in the UK? merely curious.
That is not a legal base though, that is religious belief. The Catholic Church has every right to reject gay marriage and to ban same sex couples from getting married in the church, the government does not. As someone stated divorce is also prohibited by God and the Catholic Church so should the government now prohibit divorce because the bible says so. This is simply a case of forcing your morality on others. I respect your religious views and your moral code but as long as I am not inflicting any harm on you or any other being I should be allowed to live by my moral code. So while you state that you are protecting your religion you are in fact infringing on the rights of others solely based on religious dogma.
again, exactly! so well stated.
do so many forget that this country was founded on the principle of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? and do they actually realize what that MEANS? ALL are free to practice and live by their OWN religion, and not have OTHER's religious dogma inflicted on their life. this also includeds the right to live without religious beliefs, with no harm or infliction to your rights as a citizen. your religious beliefs are....YOUR.....RELIGIOUS.....BELIEFS. NOT necessarily mine or your neighbors, live YOUR life according to your principles and ALLOW ME the same RESPECT. ugh. this issue so annoys/disgusts me. talk about moving backwards. a country formed for religious freedom has morphed into such an opressive, puritanical country instead.
Not in church, but yes. It's called a civil partnership and is marriage in all but name.
and that is what gay couples are asking for here too, a civil union that is as legal as marriage between a heterosexual couple, that alllows you every benefit and right and responsability as everyone else.
How that can be denied to anyone is beyond me.
But obviously there is tons of people like the nut that started this thread that will do anything in their power to deny other people what they should rightfully be entitled to do as a member of this supposedly "free and fair" society.
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
I find it funny that the people claiming that their religion dictates their beliefs on marriage apparently have no clue about the history of marriage in the world. It's based in property principles. Marriage is a contract that traditionally was between the ESTATES of a man and a woman to basically exchange the dowry of a woman's estate for the right to take a woman as a wife and have her bear his children. The phrase "to have and to hold" has nothing to do with romantic embraces -- it is a contract term going back centuries to refer to the consideration one receives in exchange for a contractual obligation. You see it in any property transactions, including marriage.
The people who believe that their religion views marriage as some sort of romantic endeavor between a man and a woman have no clue. The romantic notion of marriage is extremely recent, and is not by any means rooted in the Catholic or any other church. Most religions have some form of marriage that is above all else a property transaction between estates. That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.
Why does this all matter to me? Not that it should matter, but religious zealots continue to wrongfully claim that they are trying to protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. In history, marriage has very little to do with romance or love, and certainly if teh Catholic church could have gotten rich by taking money from gay marriages, it would have. The ignorance is astounding.
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]
Not in church, but yes. It's called a civil partnership and is marriage in all but name.
well i would call that a 'no' then. if it is not called marriage, than marrige is not legal. i understand that the legal rights may well be the same, but it is not the same in name. i know that is one of a few points where obama and i disagree. i believe homosexuals have the right to legal MARRIAGE, and for it to be called such. he believes, or at least supports, just what you say: civil unions with all the benefits, sans the term marriage. it is STILL discriminatory to NOT be able to call it 'marriage'....you could not get away with that for another group, like blacks, italians, jews, etc...so why gays? to me it's about civil rights for ALL consenting adults. anyhoo...that's definitely a solid first step though, no criticism there. i just would like to see FULL equal rights in this arena, meaning: LEGAL MARRIAGE.
I find it funny that the people claiming that their religion dictates their beliefs on marriage apparently have no clue about the history of marriage in the world. It's based in property principles. Marriage is a contract that traditionally was between the ESTATES of a man and a woman to basically exchange the dowry of a woman's estate for the right to take a woman as a wife and have her bear his children. The phrase "to have and to hold" has nothing to do with romantic embraces -- it is a contract term going back centuries to refer to the consideration one receives in exchange for a contractual obligation. You see it in any property transactions, including marriage.
The people who believe that their religion views marriage as some sort of romantic endeavor between a man and a woman have no clue. The romantic notion of marriage is extremely recent, and is not by any means rooted in the Catholic or any other church. Most religions have some form of marriage that is above all else a property transaction between estates. That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.
Why does this all matter to me? Not that it should matter, but religious zealots continue to wrongfully claim that they are trying to protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. In history, marriage has very little to do with romance or love, and certainly if teh Catholic church could have gotten rich by taking money from gay marriages, it would have. The ignorance is astounding.
thank you.
we collectively have such short memories.....
mrs. vedder....homosexuals are asking for the rights of MARRIAGE, not just civil unions. they want the SAME EXACT rights as heterosexuals, and rightly so. it's almost like yet another 'seperate but equal' issue. why have to use a different term? for what purpose but to appease others and still show some degree of 'different'....and i for 1 think that's wrong. homosexuals want MARRIAGE.
and that is what gay couples are asking for here too, a civil union that is as legal as marriage between a heterosexual couple, that alllows you every benefit and right and responsability as everyone else.
How that can be denied to anyone is beyond me.
But obviously there is tons of people like the nut that started this thread that will do anything in their power to deny other people what they should rightfully be entitled to do as a member of this supposedly "free and fair" society.
Well, like I said, I hope for everyone that common sense will prevail. It's good to know that for once the UK is leading the way on this
ReleaseMe and Ninja I can only take your lack of legal base for this decision as you not having one. Your support, as with most supporters of this initiative, is simply based on religious belief which has no place concerning this issue. The state of California, or any state for that matter, is not forcing religious institutions to allow same sex marriage to take place in their halls, churches, chapels, etc… Your religion and it's principles will stay intact so fear not the gay couple down the street will not be the down fall of a 2000 year old institution like the Catholic Church. I would think that strong supporters of family values and marriage would be more concerned about the high divorce rate, child and spousal abuse, negligent parents and dead beat parents who truly erode the core principles of family values than on two people who want to dedicate themselves to each other but just happen to be gay. If anything these people should be embraced for wanted to create a union. Some even want to raise a family and adopt some of the many unwanted children sitting in our nations foster homes and orphanages. Instead their commitment to family is disrespected and they are treated as second class citizens simply because of who they love.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
well i would call that a 'no' then. if it is not called marriage, than marrige is not legal. i understand that the legal rights may well be the same, but it is not the same in name. i know that is one of a few points where obama and i disagree. i believe homosexuals have the right to legal MARRIAGE, and for it to be called such. he believes, or at least supports, just what you say: civil unions with all the benefits, sans the term marriage. it is STILL discriminatory to NOT be able to call it 'marriage'....you could not get away with that for another group, like blacks, italians, jews, etc...so why gays? to me it's about civil rights for ALL consenting adults. anyhoo...that's definitely a solid first step though, no criticism there. i just would like to see FULL equal rights in this arena, meaning: LEGAL MARRIAGE.
Well I'm no expert, but colloquially it's referred to as a marriage. As far as legal terms go, I have no idea.
I think the main thing is that people are not being prevented from doing what they want to do, although I agree with your stance on the issue.
well i would call that a 'no' then. if it is not called marriage, than marrige is not legal. i understand that the legal rights may well be the same, but it is not the same in name. i know that is one of a few points where obama and i disagree. i believe homosexuals have the right to legal MARRIAGE, and for it to be called such. he believes, or at least supports, just what you say: civil unions with all the benefits, sans the term marriage. it is STILL discriminatory to NOT be able to call it 'marriage'....you could not get away with that for another group, like blacks, italians, jews, etc...so why gays? to me it's about civil rights for ALL consenting adults. anyhoo...that's definitely a solid first step though, no criticism there. i just would like to see FULL equal rights in this arena, meaning: LEGAL MARRIAGE.
getting at least civil unions that give a gay couple the same exact right on everything as a heterosexual couple including adopting children will be great progress, i would probably worry about what they want to call it later...
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
I find it funny that the people claiming that their religion dictates their beliefs on marriage apparently have no clue about the history of marriage in the world. It's based in property principles. Marriage is a contract that traditionally was between the ESTATES of a man and a woman to basically exchange the dowry of a woman's estate for the right to take a woman as a wife and have her bear his children. The phrase "to have and to hold" has nothing to do with romantic embraces -- it is a contract term going back centuries to refer to the consideration one receives in exchange for a contractual obligation. You see it in any property transactions, including marriage.
The people who believe that their religion views marriage as some sort of romantic endeavor between a man and a woman have no clue. The romantic notion of marriage is extremely recent, and is not by any means rooted in the Catholic or any other church. Most religions have some form of marriage that is above all else a property transaction between estates. That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.
Why does this all matter to me? Not that it should matter, but religious zealots continue to wrongfully claim that they are trying to protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. In history, marriage has very little to do with romance or love, and certainly if teh Catholic church could have gotten rich by taking money from gay marriages, it would have. The ignorance is astounding.
ReleaseMe and Ninja I can only take your lack of legal base for this decision as you not having one. Your support, as with most supporters of this initiative, is simply based on religious belief which has no place concerning this issue. The state of California, or any state for that matter, is not forcing religious institutions to allow same sex marriage to take place in their halls, churches, chapels, etc… Your religion and it's principles will stay intact so fear not the gay couple down the street will not be the down fall of a 2000 year old institution like the Catholic Church. I would think that strong supporters of family values and marriage would be more concerned about the high divorce rate, child and spousal abuse, negligent parents and dead beat parents who truly erode the core principles of family values than on two people who want to dedicate themselves to each other but just happen to be gay. If anything these people should be embraced for wanted to create a union. Some even want to raise a family and adopt some of the many unwanted children sitting in our nations foster homes and orphanages. Instead their commitment to family is disrespected and they are treated as second class citizens simply because of who they love.
Very well said, though I doubt it will mean anything to the numbskull who started this thread.
Well I'm no expert, but colloquially it's referred to as a marriage. As far as legal terms go, I have no idea.
I think the main thing is that people are not being prevented from doing what they want to do, although I agree with your stance on the issue.
i completely understand.
but colloquialisms are not legal terms. seriously, i get it...and i think it's a solid first step, but i DO 100% support homosexuals quest to have legal marriage, the full benefits, and the actual term. symbolically, i think it's important. so i say if they are going to fight for this right in this country...might as well go for the full impact and fight for legal marriage, not just civil unions.
getting at least civil unions that give a gay couple the same exact right on everything as a heterosexual couple including adopting children will be great progress, i would probably worry about what they want to call it later...
again, i agree...to a point. however, again...why should gays have to settle? so if they are going to battle for full equal rights, battle for FULL equal rights, which includes the rights of MARRIAGE. if you ask most gays passionate about this issue, they DO want marriage, not just civil unions, b/c it too much symbolizes a seperate but equal stance to accept the watered-down terminology.
my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
let the bashing begin
That is fucking criminal. To use the courts and the force of government to preserve the purity of your particular brand of mythology. You should be ashamed.
I know you (and I) would jump up and down in opposition to sharia law becoming the law of the land, but apparently your double-standard allows your set of beliefs to be forced down our throats.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.
I have also read that a reason the Catholic Church is so rich is because way back (perhaps in the middle ages) they really got behind the idea that only married couples should have children and pushed anything else as a sin was because it minimized the amount of kids people could have. Which was good for the church because if you died without having kids you were expected to leave them all of your money and property. And remember too that the life expectancy was a lot shorter back then so you had a lot less time to find a wife and have kids.
I think the unborn baby has the right to be born to a loving mother and father.
So, any parents that are mean should have their babies aborted.
Or, single women shouldn't be allowed to have children because there isn't a loving father.
Single men shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there is no loving mother.
Your logic is twisted.
What's to say that two men won't be more loving than a man and a woman? What about two woman? Why is it assumed that all straight couples will be more loving?
A good parent is a good parent regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless as to whether or not they are married to someone of the same or opposite sex.
You should go see a shrink about your homophobia.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
The thing I never understood about the anti-gay marriage argument is that all of the main arguments used could also be applied to divorce. Divorce is forbidden in the bible, divorce is hard for children to understand and divorce it could be argued cheapens the meaning of marriage. Yet how come no one is calling for a proposition to outlaw divorce?
In the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, divorce is definitely NOT forbidden.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Comments
i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.
same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female
let the bashing begin
routine was the theme..
there aint gonna be any middle any more
Because the "bible/religion" reason is just an excuse to be predjudiced. There is no logic involved.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
choice that is a freedom for evrybody ....
they aren't going to answer the question ... it serves no purpose for them ... they basically don't like gay people and do not believe in equality for them - it's obvious ... so, coming out and saying that just opens them up to being called homophobes and such ...
you actually won, you just haven't realized it yet.
give it time...
EXACTLY!
how anyone can NOT see this for exactly what it IS - an equal rights issue - is beyond me. put in ANY other adjective besides 'gay'....such as black, left-handed people, italians, jews....and it would be an outrage.
and i too believe it's not *just* about religion, it's simply people imposing their own morality...religious or not...on other people. while i am completely pro-choice, i can at least understand the pro-life pov, b/c you ARe involving another entity, and the argument is over if it's human, if life begins at conception, etc, etc. however, gay marriage involves NO ONE...except that you actually have to 'tolerate' the idea that two men or two women are married. :eek: what a hardship! the end of civilization!
man...i had to tolerate the most hygiene-challenged man sitting next to me on the train this morning, and it was a challenge! that has FAR mor eimpact on my individual life than if same-sex couples marry. get over it. there IS no 'right excuse' to disallow it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It an amendment to the California state constitution that denys gays the right to marry, that some religious nuts apparantly voted for.
The Catholic Church also says marriage is until one person dies, so would you support a law to make divorce illegal? From what I also know the Catholic Church won't marry people unless they are both Catholic, so why not make interfaith marriages illegal too?
That is not a legal base though, that is religious belief. The Catholic Church has every right to reject gay marriage and to ban same sex couples from getting married in the church, the government does not. As someone stated divorce is also prohibited by God and the Catholic Church so should the government now prohibit divorce because the bible says so. This is simply a case of forcing your morality on others. I respect your religious views and your moral code but as long as I am not inflicting any harm on you or any other being I should be allowed to live by my moral code. So while you state that you are protecting your religion you are in fact infringing on the rights of others solely based on religious dogma.
so says your religion... no one should have other people's religion shoved down their throat.
Separation of government and church in this country is the biggest lie.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
But how is gay marriage affecting your catholic religion? that's what I don't understand. Does divorce affect your catholic religion? Do people who practice other religions affect your catholic religion?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
This is absolutely true.
can same sex couples legally marry in the UK? merely curious.
again, exactly! so well stated.
do so many forget that this country was founded on the principle of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? and do they actually realize what that MEANS? ALL are free to practice and live by their OWN religion, and not have OTHER's religious dogma inflicted on their life. this also includeds the right to live without religious beliefs, with no harm or infliction to your rights as a citizen. your religious beliefs are....YOUR.....RELIGIOUS.....BELIEFS. NOT necessarily mine or your neighbors, live YOUR life according to your principles and ALLOW ME the same RESPECT. ugh. this issue so annoys/disgusts me. talk about moving backwards. a country formed for religious freedom has morphed into such an opressive, puritanical country instead.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
and that is what gay couples are asking for here too, a civil union that is as legal as marriage between a heterosexual couple, that alllows you every benefit and right and responsability as everyone else.
How that can be denied to anyone is beyond me.
But obviously there is tons of people like the nut that started this thread that will do anything in their power to deny other people what they should rightfully be entitled to do as a member of this supposedly "free and fair" society.
The people who believe that their religion views marriage as some sort of romantic endeavor between a man and a woman have no clue. The romantic notion of marriage is extremely recent, and is not by any means rooted in the Catholic or any other church. Most religions have some form of marriage that is above all else a property transaction between estates. That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.
Why does this all matter to me? Not that it should matter, but religious zealots continue to wrongfully claim that they are trying to protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. In history, marriage has very little to do with romance or love, and certainly if teh Catholic church could have gotten rich by taking money from gay marriages, it would have. The ignorance is astounding.
well i would call that a 'no' then. if it is not called marriage, than marrige is not legal. i understand that the legal rights may well be the same, but it is not the same in name. i know that is one of a few points where obama and i disagree. i believe homosexuals have the right to legal MARRIAGE, and for it to be called such. he believes, or at least supports, just what you say: civil unions with all the benefits, sans the term marriage. it is STILL discriminatory to NOT be able to call it 'marriage'....you could not get away with that for another group, like blacks, italians, jews, etc...so why gays? to me it's about civil rights for ALL consenting adults. anyhoo...that's definitely a solid first step though, no criticism there. i just would like to see FULL equal rights in this arena, meaning: LEGAL MARRIAGE.
thank you.
we collectively have such short memories.....
mrs. vedder....homosexuals are asking for the rights of MARRIAGE, not just civil unions. they want the SAME EXACT rights as heterosexuals, and rightly so. it's almost like yet another 'seperate but equal' issue. why have to use a different term? for what purpose but to appease others and still show some degree of 'different'....and i for 1 think that's wrong. homosexuals want MARRIAGE.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
I think the main thing is that people are not being prevented from doing what they want to do, although I agree with your stance on the issue.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
getting at least civil unions that give a gay couple the same exact right on everything as a heterosexual couple including adopting children will be great progress, i would probably worry about what they want to call it later...
Very well said, though I doubt it will mean anything to the numbskull who started this thread.
i completely understand.
but colloquialisms are not legal terms.
again, i agree...to a point. however, again...why should gays have to settle? so if they are going to battle for full equal rights, battle for FULL equal rights, which includes the rights of MARRIAGE. if you ask most gays passionate about this issue, they DO want marriage, not just civil unions, b/c it too much symbolizes a seperate but equal stance to accept the watered-down terminology.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
That is fucking criminal. To use the courts and the force of government to preserve the purity of your particular brand of mythology. You should be ashamed.
I know you (and I) would jump up and down in opposition to sharia law becoming the law of the land, but apparently your double-standard allows your set of beliefs to be forced down our throats.
I have also read that a reason the Catholic Church is so rich is because way back (perhaps in the middle ages) they really got behind the idea that only married couples should have children and pushed anything else as a sin was because it minimized the amount of kids people could have. Which was good for the church because if you died without having kids you were expected to leave them all of your money and property. And remember too that the life expectancy was a lot shorter back then so you had a lot less time to find a wife and have kids.
So, any parents that are mean should have their babies aborted.
Or, single women shouldn't be allowed to have children because there isn't a loving father.
Single men shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there is no loving mother.
Your logic is twisted.
What's to say that two men won't be more loving than a man and a woman? What about two woman? Why is it assumed that all straight couples will be more loving?
A good parent is a good parent regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless as to whether or not they are married to someone of the same or opposite sex.
You should go see a shrink about your homophobia.
In the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, divorce is definitely NOT forbidden.