Gay Marriage

[Pappy]

My personal opinion is live and let live. Gay and Lesbian people have the right to marry. I know what the Bible says and there is a lot in the Bible that ALL people don't follow. Denying marriage to Gay and Lesbian folks is discrimination no matter how you slice it.

I just wondered what everyone's feelings were on this subject.

 

[13788]

rockabilly_guy: Amen...but don't get me started!

 

[Pappy]

Dude, I hear ya!!!!!!!

 

[13788]

warmsunshine: Go back a page.  There is a poll in this string dealing with this topic.  I certainly think that gays and lesbians should be able to get married and have the same rights as others.  The right wing "Christians" of course don't think so...but my tender eyes have only run into one on the board thus far.  

 

[jonb]

Well, to anyone who's against gay marriage, just remember that if your daughter gets raped, she has to marry the rapist and he pays you $11.09 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) I got the price by converting 50 Israeli New Sheqels to USD.

 

[HungArnold]

Gays and lesbians have the right to marry - they pay the same taxes as heteros. Therefore, they should have ALL of the same rights under the law.

The "Christian Right" should all be neutered!

There - I have spoken!

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=jonb link=board=meetgreet;num=1081488210;start=0#4 date=04/09/04 at 15:50:37]Well, to anyone who's against gay marriage, just remember that if your daughter gets raped, she has to marry the rapist and he pays you $11.09 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) I got the price by converting 50 Israeli New Sheqels to USD.[/quote]

Did you correct it for inflation? :

 

[13788]

christopherrose: HungArnold, actually in some cases gay couples pay higher taxes than our hetro married friends. At least in Australia we are taxed as two single people even though I have been with my partner for 12 years. A married couple put in a joint return where income can be split.

So I'll join you and lets go and neuter the Christian Right.

 

[13788]

kracken: Growing up, I was always led to believe that marriage was a religous institution where two people come together in the house of the Lord to make vows to each other in God's presence.

To me, with America having a seperation of Church and State, it seems inconsistent that a city, state or federal official can marry anyone. It should be left up to the Preists, Rabbi's and other leaders of the religous community.

The Government shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone. Period.

Now, what the government can do is perform the vows but leave out the religous parts of it. Hence, any ceremony that the city, state or federal official would perform would NOT be a marriage but some type of civil union that both heterosexuals and homosexuals can have equality in. This way everyone gets the legal protections, just not the heavenly ones.

I've always thought that the gay community has been lobbying the wrong group. They should start lobbying the Churches, not the government for the changes.

But Marriage (capitol M) should only be performed be religous personnel, not a city, state or federal employee.


As for the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), if people are really so concerned about the sanctity of Marriage, this is what needs to happen:

1) Do away with Annulments.

2) Only allow people to be married one time. Now a days, it seems that the first Marriage is the trial Marriage. The second Marriage should work out but I'll get it right by the third Marriage.

3) Start to prosecute everyone who is having affairs. That'll kick the infidelity rate in the balls (Yes, I know that women cheat too, just work with the analogy here people).

4) Get the religous leaders to start cracking down on pre-marital sex. Something's got to be saved for the honeymoon (Yes, I have a friend who has been engaged for 9 months without having sex with his girlfriend). He has 4 more months to go before the marriage. Needless to say, he has lots of pent up energy.

5) This goes back to number 3 & 4 but deserves it's own category. Make swinging illegal. GASP! I'm an adult and can choose to have sex with other willing couples if I want to. Remember DoMA? You marry one person, not that person and your social circle. You're only allowed to insert your male part into your wifes female part. Not any part that offers it up to you. Women, feel free to insert strange male part into your female part to work with the analogy. Trying not to be sexist here. Heaven Forbid!

I think you guys get the message. It seems assinine to defend Marriage from the homosexuals, if the heterosexuals are trashing it already (Britney Spears, I'm talking about you!).

The biggest threat to Marriage is from heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

Personally, I think that homosexuals would treat Marriage with more respect than heterosexuals just for the very fact that it has been denied to them all this time.

However, I still believe that Marriage is a religous institution, not a city, state or federal one.

And, in case I have anyone frothing at the mouth by this time, let me tell a little bit about myself.

1) Jewish

2) Republican

3) Conservative (I know it goes with Republican)

4) Gay

5) Deal with it.

Have a great day, people! ;D

 

[13788]

rockabilly_guy: Marriage is a religous invention, not a political one. Yet government has no problem taking fees for marriage licences. As I see it any 2 folks should be allowed to marry.
Religion is making a big mistake in takinf a few biblical passages and making a big deal out of same sex relationships. The church and temples would probably have a bigger audience if they would stop the ignorance (esp since church and temple attendance is so down) and allow people to actively participate in the religion as heterosexuals do. I guess they're too busy moving around pedophile priests and going to court to realize that if folks were allowed to be themselves then maybe even their own might not have to seek out children. Maybe they'd actually be able to have adult relations like alot of the other Christian branches where the preachers are allowed to marry.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

[quote author=kracken link=board=meetgreet;num=1081488210;start=0#8 date=04/09/04 at 23:42:24]Only allow people to be married one time.[/quote]

So if a person is widowed, he/she shouldn't be allowed to remarry? Harsh and unfair to ask someone who lost his spouse to death to spend the rest of his life alone because he can only marry once.

Start to prosecute everyone who is having affairs

.

Assuming you could find everyone who is having affairs. And what about the person whose spouse was having the affair? Is he doomed to go through life alone because his spouse was cheating on him? That was no fault of his, yet according to your 'rules', he can't marry someone else and start picking up the pieces because he's already been married once. Besides that, you have already expressed your view that marriage is a religious matter; now you're suggesting that civil law steps in to enforce religion?

 Get the religous leaders to start cracking down on pre-marital sex.

Cracking down how? Preaching from the pulpit? Threatening congregations with excommunication if they fornicate? You'd be fighting a losing battle.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

[quote author=kracken link=board=meetgreet;num=1081488210;start=0#8 date=04/09/04 at 23:42:24]Growing up, I was always led to believe that marriage was a religous institution where two people come together in the house of the Lord to make vows to each other in God's presence.
[/quote]

So atheists and other non-deists can't get married? I see: liberty and justice for some, not all.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=meetgreet;num=1081488210;start=0#6 date=04/09/04 at 18:10:51]Did you correct it for inflation?  :[/quote]
What about recession?

 

[jonb]

He was talking about the real threats to the sanctity of marriage; by contrast, the typical lesbian couple looks like the Clevers.

I would've mentioned FOX's asinine marriage series, personally. A prime-time marriage isn't exactly all that sacred.

 

[13788]

kracken: Sorry, I've been gone for a while and am back now. As to some of your points, Doublemeatwhopper:

Once is once. For those widow's and widower's, as harsh as it seems only one marriage per person. Nothing says they can't get a civil union via the government, however.

As for prosecuting people for having affairs, if Texas can spend money on anti-sodemy laws, then the states can find the money to crack down on those who commit affaiars. Notice I never said that those who are prosecuted have to get a divorce. That's between the married couple. All I am talking about is the crime of adultry, because that's on the books in a lot of states.

As for getting the preists and other religous leaders to start cracking down on pre-marital sex, that's part of their job description. If they can't do it, they shouldn't be in the pulpit.

It would be hypocritical for an atheist to want to get married (as I have defined under my rules). Remember, a marriage is where two people come together in the House of the Lord to proclaim their vows in God's presence. By simple definition, an atheist doesn't believe in God, hence can't get married in God's house. However, the atheist could have a civil union performed by the government.

Thanks for responding! You have some great points, DMW.

 

[13788]

Cruise: I think there's an another agenda afoot here in the allowing of these 'sanctioned' unions worth mentioning. Sure, live and let live, but sometimes, the ramifications of 'living as you like' or living as you feel you are 'due' may not be in one's best interests in the long run.

In short we would say to you that the liberalization you think is progressive is a way to link, control and gather information on members of society that did not have access due to a characteristic of that group. In this example we would say to you that what you call 'gay marriages' and 'gay unions' is, in fact, a means to centralize information of a segment of the population that is thought of as carrying disease, and in effect, through this process of centralized information, build an information base on
same-sex couples, their name, locations, and jobs and
in so doing separate them by economic status and health status. This information then becomes what you call public record and can be used in many ways.

Not to make a big deal out of this, it's just that we're fed a lot of bull which is formatted to appear progressive and therefore becomes more easily acceptable by the masses when the real, unspoken agenda is to gain more control of the poulation.

 

[13788]

Cruise: Not to make a big deal out of this, but I think there's an another agenda afoot here in the allowing of these 'sanctioned' unions worth mentioning. Sure, live and let live, but sometimes, the ramifications of 'living as you like' or living as you feel you are 'due' may not be in one's best interests in the long run.

In short we would say to you that the liberalization you think is progressive is a way to link, control and gather information on members of society that did not have access due to a characteristic of that group. In this example we would say to you that what you call 'gay marriages' and 'gay unions' is, in fact, a means to centralize information of a segment of the population that is thought of as carrying disease, and in effect, through this process of centralized information, build an information base on
same-sex couples, their name, locations, and jobs and in so doing separate them by economic status and health status. This information then becomes what you call 'public record' and can be used in many ways.

We're fed a lot of bull which is formatted specifically to gain public acceptance - which would otherwise not be accepted - by the powers that be. But the real, unspoken agenda is to gain more control of the poulation.

 

[13788]

drrionelli: I find it interesting that those who oppose homosexual marriage often do so on the grounds that, somehow, the construct of marriage, itself, will, in some way, be lessened, diluted, watered-down, or whatever one may wish to call it.

In reality, as I have offered to more than one straight friend, the allowance of gay marriage would broaden, not restrict, the rights of anybody who wishes to be married. If a straight male or female wants to be married to another of his/her gender, then he/she would (and should) have the option to do so if same-sex marriage were lawful. Likewise, if a gay person should wish an other-gendered marriage, then that person, too would be afforded such pursuit.

Indeed, by NOT allowing gay marriage, the law is, in effect, dictating whom one can AND

 

[13788]

drrionelli: OOPS!! Sorry, I cut myself off!

As I was saying, the word of the law would dictate whom one can as well as CANNOT be married to.