Same-gender marriage questions

Mr. Snakey

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Posts
21,752
Media
0
Likes
123
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
But the point is, a civil union does nothing at all in terms of federal status, whereas a marriage does. If a state grants marriage status to a heterosexual couple, they automatically get federal rights and protections. Not the same for civil unions.
You are right. They are going about it in the right way now to change the laws. Civil Rights! It make take some time but this will all change. This is why people must Vote. Gay and Straight. People are lazy. People have the power. If they would just use it:cool:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Some people just don't agree with homosexuality as a whole, it's just a belief, just like any religion, like any political leaning, even as simple as why some people prefer vanilla and hate chocolate.
I agree that some people just don't agree, frizzle, and I have no problem with them not agreeing. But they should only be able to make those decisions for themselves, don't you agree with that? No one should have any more veto power over which consenting adult I marry, than I should have veto power over whom they choose to marry.
 

Mr. Snakey

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Posts
21,752
Media
0
Likes
123
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
I agree that some people just don't agree, frizzle, and I have no problem with them not agreeing. But they should only be able to make those decisions for themselves, don't you agree with that? No one should have any more veto power over which consenting adult I marry, than I should have veto power over whom they choose to marry.
Well said!:cool:
 

B_All4show

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
692
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree. I could care less what churches choose to do. No gay person wants to go into a church that preaches bigotry against them. There are many churches who openly support gay marriage.

I think many churches preach that Homosexuality is a sin. All of their parishners are sinners. I have been to church many times and I have never hear a sermon or anyone discuss homosexuality.
 

B_All4show

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
692
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
First, I agree that the word gender is much more appropriate word. It not only doesn't push buttons, but is a more specific definition which I always prefer when possible.

I have no problem using the term marriage to designate a union between a male and female and the term civil union to designate a union between two people of the same gender as long as the responsibilities and liabilities are exactly the same only a different word.

OR:

Redefine all unions as civil unions and not use the word marriage at all from a legal standpoint. Reason listed below.

Reasons:

1. First and more important that all the rest, it has a chance of being sold here in the United States. At this point in time the word marriage and gay and lesbian will not mix politically. This is not value judgement on my part, but a political realization.

2. Just like we use Mr. for male and Ms. for female, it does help distinguish for readers just who is being joined in a union. Billie Snodgress and Johnnie Smith are joining their hands in a union. Is this two women, two men or one man and one woman. We don't know for sure unless we have a picture. So this can be given as a rationale.

3. From a religious standpoint the word marriage is used in the Bible to refer to a covenant between God, man and woman. these could be given as another reason for using the term civil union for same gender unions as it isn't religiously offensive term to the religious right.

The term marriage could be used to refer to the ceremony that is done by a religious person. It doesn't have to have any legal bearing whatsoever. I'm in favor of all unions be just a point of getting the license at the courthouse for same gender unions and opposite gender unions and the couple is then married.

The couple is then free to go and celebrate this union however they wish. They could have a religious ceremony that would in the eyes of the church have them married. They could have a party of some kind. Or they could do nothing. The moment they walked out of the courthouse with license in hand they would be joined in a civil union.


In a few words:

Civil Union

Both same gender and opposite genders unions and this would have legal status.

Marriage

A religious term that has no legal status. Is something that the church or other religious authority can bestow. Most churches would in course require a civil union first. If the church didn't, the church marriage would have no legal standing.


Problem

This would take 50 states and the federal government to agree to. Fat chance in hell of happening. But to me this is the logical solution.

Freddie,

I have made this point a few times and it seems logical but not acceptable to the gays. They get all the benifits, just not word.

I am curious, if there is gay marriage or civil unions, what are the rules? No polygamy, can't marry a second cousin etc. Do these rules still apply?
 

YourAvgGuy

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Posts
494
Media
10
Likes
57
Points
273
Location
North Carolina
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The US system has always produced double-standards and have always imposed those among groups/populations whom it deems to be inferior. Until more regulatory protections are in place, the same typical behavior will continiously be sanctioned by congress. Allies with POWER, I think, will be on the only voice hopeful for debating this disparity - which is what it is in the grand scheme of things.

Personally, I am Christian, but I believe people fall in love and NOTHING or ANYONE can change those feelings. Those are personal feelings that need to be taken into consideration and then accepted by others. Hell, what business is it of anyone else anyway? I would be pissed if someone tried to dictate to me whom I should date or what types of relationships I should have had. Moreover, I would be hell-fired and bent if someone would have intruded on my "RIGHT" to marry my wife. That was my decision. I feel ALL should be granted that same freedom without governmental intrusion or condemnation by some of the churches, etc. We proclaim freedom in the highest regards, but truly, are we free?

(Don't get bent out of shape... I am not being anti-American, just asking people to see the paradigm here.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_DEEP

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Freddie,

I have made this point a few times and it seems logical but not acceptable to the gays. They get all the benifits, just not word.

I am curious, if there is gay marriage or civil unions, what are the rules? No polygamy, can't marry a second cousin etc. Do these rules still apply?
All4, I would be OK with civil unions if they did indeed grant exactly the same legal privileges, protections, and benefits that marriage carries with it. The problem that many gays have with civil union is that, like so many other attempts at "separate but equal" institutions, it most likely would not be equal.

As for polygamy (or even cousins, for that matter), as long as every party involved is a consenting adult, I think it's their business... not mine. Whether or not I would do it may be another question, but I'm not sure why anyone wants to make those decisions for anyone else of mens sana in corpore sano.
 

B_All4show

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
692
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't recall right offhand, but I seem to remember researching the subject at one time, and finding over 1400 laws which confer benefits and protections on a spouse, but not on a "partner."

Why can't you use the word spouse for a civil union? I always thought gays used the term partner, because they we embarrassed to call them their husband or they wanted to use some discretion.

The 14th Amendment requires that all citizens be afforded equal protection under the law, but apparently, many lawmakers feel that the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals.

Then why do I have ot pay more taxes than the next guy?

Or why did only males get drafted? Only males have to sign up for selective services etc.

It just doesn't fit. They can exercise the same rights I have to marry anyone of the opposite sex.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Why can't you use the word spouse for a civil union? I always though gays used the term partner, because they we embarrassed to call them their husband or they wanted to use some discretion.
Please educate yourself before making posts like this. The government defines spouse as one of two people in a legal marriage.
Then why do I have ot pay more taxes than the next guy?

Or why did only males get drafted? Only males have to sign up for selective services etc.

It just doesn't fit. They can exercise the same rights I have to marry anyone of the opposite sex.
I don't have any of your W-2 forms, so I can't really say why or how much tax you pay.

I have long opposed the draft, I have long opposed the male-only restriction for selective service. Those do violate 14th Amendment.

And when you put "they can exercise the same rights I have to marry anyone of the opposite sex" I hate to put it this way, but that's ignorant. That's the "power of veto" I spoke of earlier. Why do you want to be able to put any qualifiers at all on which consenting adult I choose to marry? What gives any other person the right to mandate what gender of person I want to spend the rest of my life with? I don't desire to tell you whether to marry a tall person or a short person. Why in the world would you want to tell me whether to marry a male person or a female person?

And even at that, let's get back to the 14th Amendment. If you say, "I choose to marry this consenting adult," what laws are preventing you from having full say in who that consenting adult is? If I say, "I've been with my partner for 8 years now, I think it's time we get married," why should any laws or any persons say, "You may marry, but not the person you have chosen."???
 

B_All4show

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
692
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
All4, I would be OK with civil unions if they did indeed grant exactly the same legal privileges, protections, and benefits that marriage carries with it. The problem that many gays have with civil union is that, like so many other attempts at "separate but equal" institutions, it most likely would not be equal.

As for polygamy (or even cousins, for that matter), as long as every party involved is a consenting adult, I think it's their business... not mine. Whether or not I would do it may be another question, but I'm not sure why anyone wants to make those decisions for anyone else of mens sana in corpore sano.

DC, so polygamy is OK and if there were gay marriage you would want one law to cover everyone, correct? Is there a limit to the number of "spouses"? So consenting adults include brother and sister? I know I am taking this to the n' level but what would be the rule? Would we protect the gene pool or not? Obviously if you are gay it doesn't matter, but for hetro's it does.

If a law like this passes, within 5 years there will be a internet stunt to marry 1,000 gay guys over the internet at one time. Marriage will be made a farce in a very short time.

I believe this to be one of the goals.
 

B_All4show

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
692
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Please educate yourself before making posts like this. The government defines spouse as one of two people in a legal marriage.I don't have any of your W-2 forms, so I can't really say why or how much tax you pay.

DC, is it necessary to say "please educate yourself"? Why don't you please masturbate your own ego?


I don't have any of your W-2 forms, so I can't really say why or how much tax you pay.

A W-2 will just show what your employer took out for you and is not a true picture of what you pay in taxes. Also being a business owner, I get paid distributions over and above w-2 income, which are only subject to state and federal tax, not FICA. You really should educate yourself before you speak on such subjects.

BTW, the tax I pay would be a nice living for most people.


And when you put "they can exercise the same rights I have to marry anyone of the opposite sex" I hate to put it this way, but that's ignorant. .

Ignorant? No it is an argument dispelling your point about the 14th amendment.

Why do you want to be able to put any qualifiers at all on which consenting adult I choose to marry? What gives any other person the right to mandate what gender of person I want to spend the rest of my life with? I don't desire to tell you whether to marry a tall person or a short person. Why in the world would you want to tell me whether to marry a male person or a female person?

I guess then you feel that there is no need to protect society?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
DC, is it necessary to say "please educate yourself"? Why don't you please masturbate your own ego?
Don't be a bitch, don't criticize me in one paragraph, then do exactly the same thing in the next paragraph.
A W-2 will just show what your employer took out for you and is not a true picture of what you pay in taxes. Also being a business owner, I get paid distributions over and above w-2 income, which are only subject to state and federal tax, not FICA. You really should educate yourself before you speak on such subjects.

BTW, the tax I pay would be a nice living for most people.
I don't necessarily like all the taxes I pay, either. What's your point? How is that denying you any rights? If I owned an equivalent business, I would most likely pay the same taxes, wouldn't I? The law does not require you to pay more taxes based solely upon your sexual orientation, does it?
Ignorant? No it is an argument dispelling your point about the 14th amendment.
It is ignorant (and keep in mind, ignorant is not an insult, it simply means you don't have, or are ignoring, all the information). My point is, you are free to choose a spouse without qualification. I am not. You don't see how that's not equal under the law?
I guess then you feel that there is no need to protect society?
What, specifically, are you claiming to protect society from?
 

B_All4show

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
692
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Don't be a bitch, don't criticize me in one paragraph, then do exactly the same thing in the next paragraph.

I have found it is more effective to demostrate my point, not just call some one a bitch. Also I love irony. You post a little snotty comment and then you make a similar "mistake" the very next line. What goes around comes around.



I don't necessarily like all the taxes I pay, either. What's your point? How is that denying you any rights? If I owned an equivalent business, I would most likely pay the same taxes, wouldn't I? The law does not require you to pay more taxes based solely upon your sexual orientation, does it?

You would not only have to own a business, but you would have to make money to pay taxes. I speak of equal protection under the law, because why is it that I pay more taxes than the next guy? It seems unfair?


The law does not require you to pay more taxes based solely upon your sexual orientation, does it?

I was talking about how the 14th Amendment is not always applied and taxes was one of my examples.


It is ignorant (and keep in mind, ignorant is not an insult, it simply means you don't have, or are ignoring, all the information).

You use the word constantly and it lends nothing to the conversation.


My point is, you are free to choose a spouse without qualification. I am not. You don't see how that's not equal under the law?What, specifically, are you claiming to protect society from?

This is where you are wrong. I have no more or less qualifications than you do.

What, specifically, are you claiming to protect society from?

Degradation?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I have found it is more effective to demostrate my point, not just call some one a bitch. Also I love irony. You post a little snotty comment and then you make a similar "mistake" the very next line. What goes around comes around.
Get back on topic, please.
You would not only have to own a business, but you would have to make money to pay taxes. I speak of equal protection under the law, because why is it that I pay more taxes than the next guy? It seems unfair?
The topic is not business tax law. It is marriage law. Please get back on topic.
This is where you are wrong. I have no more or less qualifications than you do.
<sigh> I won't use "that word" again. But in context, I was not talking about whether or not you have the qualifications necessary to marry. I was talking about your right to marry the consenting adult of your choice, without anyone putting any qualifying (read: field-narrowing) strictures on it. You seem to want to be able to tell someone else, "You are free to marry, as long as the person you marry fits my criteria." Of course, your criteria being that one be male, and the other be female. I'm trying to understand why you want to have any say at all in whom I choose.
Degradation?
Degradation of what?
 

B_All4show

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
692
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Get back on topic, please.

I will take that to mean you concede my point. :smile:


You seem to want to be able to tell someone else, "You are free to marry, as long as the person you marry fits my criteria." Of course, your criteria being that one be male, and the other be female. I'm trying to understand why you want to have any say at all in whom I choose.Degradation of what?

This is current law. It is nothing I am saying. As I said before civil unions are fine with me, but they rules have to be similar to rules of marrige. If you think you are going get polygamy and everything else in there you are crazy.


Degradation of what?

Society. It does not really matter who you choose, but if the end result is less marriage and less families, it will doom our society. I know this is off track but much of Europe will most likely be Muslim in the near future just due to the higher birth rates of the recent Muslim immigrants. I am sorry, but I think their society will be denigrated.
 

B_Think_Kink

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
10,419
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Gender
Female
Thanks, TK, I was hoping someone would bring this one up. (I understand that this is not your POV, but I'll answer it anyway!)

Unnatural? Lots of things are unnatural, including clothing. Should clothing be illegal?

And should male/female couples who are unable or unwilling to have children be forbidden to marry?
Of course.. wearing underwear or condoms is unnatural.

I've tried to tell him other wise but 47 years of catholic preaching shoved down his throat and he just repeats everything. For this reason alone I refuse to stand under the heading of a catholic member. I've totally no regard for the religion until they accept homosexuals and marriage with open arms. I'm sure most religions have their flaws but I most defiantly am biased against catholic religion. I was born and raised one and decided at an early age that it was not for me. I attended catholic schools all the way to high school and graduated out of one. I hated it. I contradicted every religion teacher I've ever had. They wouldn't allow me to do a project on gay marriage.

As for couples who marry for companionship and who cannot have children that is great as well. People need other people in their lives to be completely healthy. If they want to do so through marriage, who am I to stop them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Snakey

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
When I was 15 I considered myself a devout Christian and was opposed to gay marriage. I felt it did take something away from the institution of marriage, even if it didn't effect me directly, because I believed what I was told that acting on homosexual impulse was a sin. I also had an understanding of the world filtered almost entirely through my understanding of scripture and my faith, and in that world-view the Bible is the basis for all morality and marriage is a sacred pact originally engineered by God Himself between Adam and Eve. I saw gay marriage as a perversion of that and an affront to this tradition.

Even then, as now, it still galled me how many that called themselves Christians were so selectively concerned about THIS particular affront to their faith. Divorce, fornication, pre-marital and extra-marital sex all bothered me just as much as homosexuality did, no more and no less. I noticed the hypocrisy in other "Christians" who savagely denounced gays and how they damaged the institution of marriage without giving near as much attention to these other things.

Then, as now, I was very reluctant to pass judgment on anyone else. I understood that to be God's job, not my own. It saddened me to see so much sin in the world, so it did actually effect me personally, but what bothered me more was the hate speech spewed by those who proclaimed themselves Christian, directed at other "sinners" when they themselves were acting in very non-Christian ways.

For these and a thousand other reasons, I eventually lost my faith. I consider myself a recovering Christian now, since even though it took me a long time to get here, I'm much happier and more well-adjusted than I used to be. I'm probably much quicker to pass judgment now than I was in high school, and far harsher and more outspoken in my criticism of others, but my attitudes and beliefs regarding human sexuality, the human condition, and "victimless sins" have changed drastically, and now I tend to think that I get upset for more of the right reasons and fewer misguided ones.

I don't have much use for tradition or convention anymore, and I no longer believe that the sole function of marriage should be to raise god-fearing children. Because of that, I have no other way of reasoning that gays should not be allowed to marry if they want to. It makes them happy, and doesn't upset anybody other than those who are overly concerned about how other people live their lives. If the traditional definition of marriage has to be changed to accommodate this, I don't think that's a bad thing. Lots of things change and nobody bats an eyelash. When there is resistance to change, more often than not bigotry, misguided fear, or a lack of understanding is the chief culprit. I don't think any of these things are good reasons to preserve tradition.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I will take that to mean you concede my point. :smile:

Generally that means you don't have a point, or whatever point you are trying to make is completely irrelevant to the discussion. When you hear a defense attorney cry "objection! relevance?" and the judge proclaim "sustained," that doesn't mean the prosecution just won the case.