[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Mtbkngrl
I have no problem with the people who are so against this issue, what disturbs me is the fact that there are so many other things that deserve that kind of energy.

So why not feel the same way about people pushing for it to happen? If they stopped then both sides could relax, right?

I just read it as they are wrong and they should just put their energy elsewhere....

When the same should be said for both sides....that is IF energy should be spent on More pressing things than same sex marriages.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
That would seem to be the problem, no? They are not the same thing...in reality...and in history. But they can be afforded the same rights (good and bad) it's just people take offense to calling labling it something it isn't, marriage. That description is important to many even if it isn't to others.

I was trying to meet the two sides in the middle and find something to appease both sides.....guess that type of comprimise is wrong. I guess one side winning is the comprimise we are shooting for....

now that sounds like a plan.

For the purposes of the law conferring rights it would be the same thing. We are talking about the legal recognition of union between two people.

Marriage other than that may mean different things to you, me and everyone else here but it's the legal definition that remains constant.

So it really does not matter.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle
has silver been coaching you? since when did blacks choose to be black? Great junior word jumble, nothing more. On par with "focus on your own damn family", or "hate is not a family value".

it's pure laziness.

You are missing the "legal" boat here. Equal protection under the law is where Silver, L'Opie, and others keep dragging this seperate but equal stuff from. Do you think segregation was ended because of some kind hearted judges? No, it was ended beacase "seperate but equal" was deemed a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment.

The nervy thing the gay community has done is demand to be treated equally.

The parallel between the civil rights movement and the gay movement is valid. Both partys had legislation that denied them rights others held in society.

It's understandable that many are not comfortable with the concept that gay people are not degenerates, our society has hundreds of years of training in how to hate gays.

It's not acceptable, just understandable.

 

[fluff]

Lets call it gayrriage.

Definition - gayrriage is marriage between two people of the same sex. For _all_ legal points see marriage.

(I posted pretty much that yesterday I think...)

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by $tinkle
assuming that these costs must be absorbed, it seems like a logical place to recoup these losses would be in increases benefit costs, no? since your wife can speak w/ authority, i'll be interested to get that point of view. i'll do some digging through our policies as well.
these two relationships are so unequal. biologically, there exists no potential to reproduce. socially, their lifestyle may be tolerated, but it's not accepted by (most notably) religious folks. If you want to affect social change, you must deal w/ this portion of the population which will be more difficult to handle for your side than the gay community for their side.has silver been coaching you? since when did blacks choose to be black? Great junior word jumble, nothing more. On par with "focus on your own damn family", or "hate is not a family value".

it's pure laziness.

I'm a little out of date on keeping up in terms of scientific proof of stuff...but at one point wasn't there a debate that being homosexual was not necessarily a "Choice" as you put it, but in many cases is genetic?

There are some who are choosing to follow this path for whatever reason, but it is not always across the board. And I would have to say that even those who have made "choice" would not see it as such. For them there is no other alternative, and I would guess considering the agony many adults went through before coming out of the closet with who and what they are would be preferable if they'd "had a choice".

so long as we consider homosexuality a "choice" thing, the longer it will be for folks to accept it, because if it's a choice, then it can be considered a moral wrong. If it is not a choice, but something inherent in an individual for preference, then there is nothing that can be done about it and we need to do what we can to include them in society with equal status to all others.

I'm not so logical sequential this morning, so I apologize for rambling thoughts that are probably not as well put together as they might be.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by fluff
(I posted pretty much that yesterday I think...)

Yes, it was just as bad the first time around.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
so long as we consider homosexuality a "choice" thing, the longer it will be for folks to accept it, because if it's a choice, then it can be considered a moral wrong. If it is not a choice, but something inherent in an individual for preference, then there is nothing that can be done about it and we need to do what we can to include them in society with equal status to all others.

The opposite would happen. If people believe it genetic, then groups will look to cure them of this non-choice.

The search for whether it's a choice or genetics should never be done.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I'm a little out of date on keeping up in terms of scientific proof of stuff...but at one point wasn't there a debate that being homosexual was not necessarily a "Choice" as you put it, but in many cases is genetic?

There are some who are choosing to follow this path for whatever reason, but it is not always across the board. And I would have to say that even those who have made "choice" would not see it as such. For them there is no other alternative, and I would guess considering the agony many adults went through before coming out of the closet with who and what they are would be preferable if they'd "had a choice".

so long as we consider homosexuality a "choice" thing, the longer it will be for folks to accept it, because if it's a choice, then it can be considered a moral wrong. If it is not a choice, but something inherent in an individual for preference, then there is nothing that can be done about it and we need to do what we can to include them in society with equal status to all others.

I'm not so logical sequential this morning, so I apologize for rambling thoughts that are probably not as well put together as they might be.

Your not as bad as MY ramblings, yet.... ....so your OK. Ohio, I think posted about a study saying it wasn't all choice.....yet that study hasn't turned the world upside down and changed peoples conception on the point at which someone is/or becomes homosexual.

It hasn't been proven, yet, that it is a predeturmined tendency or a choice. So accepting it as being inherant is premature at best.

How long did it take us to go from gay marriages to....Homosexuality choice, yes or no?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Lets call it gayrriage.

Definition - gayrriage is marriage between two people of the same sex. For _all_ legal points see marriage.

(I posted pretty much that yesterday I think...)

To hard to say with a straight ( ) face.

How about Gayiage? drop the "r"s? Or maybe Garriage. Drop the "y"

For some reason the y-r thing is throwing the hybrid word off.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
assuming that these costs must be absorbed, it seems like a logical place to recoup these losses would be in increases benefit costs, no? since your wife can speak w/ authority, i'll be interested to get that point of view. i'll do some digging through our policies as well.

This is DRB's wife home due to the snow storm. That is exactly where those increased costs are going to go, increased benefits costs to all participants. The point of D's post and one that is exceptionally plain to see was that if the company had not had to institute this ridculous "separate but equal" policy of domestic partners and been able to continue the policy of benefits for married couples with same-sex marriages being acceptable these additional administrative costs would have not been incurred.

Originally posted by $tinkle
these two relationships are so unequal. biologically, there exists no potential to reproduce. socially, their lifestyle may be tolerated, but it's not accepted by (most notably) religious folks. If you want to affect social change, you must deal w/ this portion of the population which will be more difficult to handle for your side than the gay community for their side.has silver been coaching you? since when did blacks choose to be black? Great junior word jumble, nothing more. On par with "focus on your own damn family", or "hate is not a family value".

it's pure laziness. [/B]

That is an amazing number of words that says and means nothing. Good job on that one.

See ya,
the wife.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
That is an amazing number of words that says and means nothing. Good job on that one.

See ya,
the wife.

Oooooo SNAP!

*I like her *

PS- keep warm up there. Our Charlotte office is closed today (jsut an hour or so ago) due to the snow.

 

[Mtbkngrl]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
So why not feel the same way about people pushing for it to happen? If they stopped then both sides could relax, right?

I just read it as they are wrong and they should just put their energy elsewhere....

When the same should be said for both sides....that is IF energy should be spent on More pressing things than same sex marriages.

Because one side is pushing for equal rights and one side is trying to stop that from happening.

For the record.....I could care less if I could get married to another woman. I believe you can be in a long-term, meaningful relationship without having to go that extra step. Especially considering how debased the whole institution of marriage has become. I would however like to have the same benefits afforded to those people who are married. I also believe that heterosexual couples who choose not to get married should recieve the same benefits if they have been in a legitimate long term relationship.

I would love to quit my job knowing I could be covered by my girlfriends health insurance. But I could careless about being married, so I guess I'm an exception to all the homo's parading around city hall's across america.

 

[RhinofromWA]

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BEING MARRIED?
The legal requirements for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state. Although there are differences between the requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Some requirements set by state law can include:

(1) a marriage license issued by the county clerk or clerk of the court (along with payment of a fee)

(2) both man and woman are 18 or older, or have the consent of a parent or a judge if younger (discussed below)

(3) proof of immunity or vaccination for certain diseases

(4) proof of the termination of any prior marriages by death, judgment of dissolution (divorce) or annulment.

(5) sufficient mental capacity (often this is determined as the ability to enter into a contract)

(6) the couple are not close blood relatives

(7) blood test for venereal disease

(8) satisfaction of a waiting period from the time the marriage license is issued to the time the marriage ceremony is performed

(9) performance of a marriage ceremony with witnesses and a person recognized by the state to have the authority to perform marriage ceremony (such as a priest, rabbi or a judge)

(10) recording of the marriage license after marriage ceremony is performed

(11) consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this)

A marriage performed in another jurisdiction -- even overseas -- is usually valid in any state as long as the marriage was legal in the jurisdiction where it occurred. For example, if a couple is married in Canada and then moves to California, California will recognize the validity of the marriage as long as the requirements for a valid marriage in Canada were present at the time the couple entered into the marriage.
Link to famil-law site.

the bolded part is a possible loop hole....

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Mtbkngrl
Because one side is pushing for equal rights and one side is trying to stop that from happening.

For the record.....I could care less if I could get married to another woman. I believe you can be in a long-term, meaningful relationship without having to go that extra step. Especially considering how debased the whole institution of marriage has become. I would however like to have the same benefits afforded to those people who are married. I also believe that heterosexual couples who choose not to get married should recieve the same benefits if they have been in a legitimate long term relationship.

I would love to quit my job knowing I could be covered by my girlfriends health insurance. But I could careless about being married, so I guess I'm an exception to all the homo's parading around city hall's across america.

Again I ask, do they want equal rights or the same title? Both sides are causing this drain on resources that could be going elsewhere. No one is side is any different...just depends on what side you are on I guess. Both sides feel right. The other side feels that this isn't a rights issue....they are protecting their definition of marriage.

I posted a interesting possible loophole (though I doubt I an the only person to question it) in a post above this one.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
You are missing the "legal" boat here. Equal protection under the law is where Silver, L'Opie, and others keep dragging this seperate but equal stuff from.

where does the law fail to protect (NOT afford or grant)? Are they being disallowed to own property, as blacks were? Are they denied their right to vote, as women were? Or, are they being denied the request to marry, as the lineally consanguous, currently wed, and applicants who have yet to come of age are?

Originally posted by ummbikes
Do you think segregation was ended because of some kind hearted judges? No, it was ended beacase "seperate but equal" was deemed a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment.

The nervy thing the gay community has done is demand to be treated equally.

The parallel between the civil rights movement and the gay movement is valid. Both partys had legislation that denied them rights others held in society.

you may have made a compellingly emotional case, but not a correct one, as i've outlined. Tell me this, do you have a problem with the Harvey Milk public school in NY? That's separate but equal, and not created by straights. So your whole segregation argument is threadbare.

Originally posted by ummbikes
It's understandable that many are not comfortable with the concept that gay people are not degenerates, our society has hundreds of years of training in how to hate gays.

It's not acceptable, just understandable.

Perhaps you don't feel this way, but it seems that if my researched and widely shared opinion isn't the flavor of the month, i'm "bigotted" (fluff)? This question is obviously rhetorical, and begs yet another one: why are attempts made to link the gay community to the black community except when it comes to identifying gay-baters (vice race-baters a-la jesse & sharpton)?

i have, and will continue to, kick confucian knowledge upon this, and other topics of interest:

"When things are investigated, then true knowledge is achieved; when true knowledge is achieved, then the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, then the heart is set right (or then the mind sees right); when the heart is set right, then the personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, then the family life is regulated; when the family life is regulated, then the national life is orderly; and when the national life is orderly, then there is peace in this world." --Confucius

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Oooooo SNAP!

*I like her *

PS- keep warm up there. Our Charlotte office is closed today (jsut an hour or so ago) due to the snow.

Keep your hands off my girl.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
Keep your hands off my girl.

She sounds like a live wire.

*For the record my hands were never anywhere near said woman* lol

 

[jdcamb]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The point Im getting at is that "the underdog" the "frail and downtrodden" arent always the guys to back up. Sure you feel bad for them and all, but seriously, how does this contribute to the greater good of our society?
My answer is that it does not, and therefore its wrong.

Wow...thanks for clearing that up for me..... I so get it now....they don't matter and they are wrong. Thanks again....

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by jdcamb
Wow...thanks for clearing that up for me..... I so get it now....they don't matter and they are wrong. Thanks again....

they do matter and i will defend their existing civil rights. I have not seen any post here where they are labeled as insignificant, nor wrong.

sorry to butt in.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle
they do matter and i will defend their existing civil rights.

That's like saying in 1950, "I'll defend the exisiting right of these Negros not to be slaves, but I'll be damned if I will let them vote."

 

[jdcamb]

Originally posted by $tinkle
they do matter and i will defend their existing civil rights. I have not seen any post here where they are labeled as insignificant, nor wrong.

sorry to butt in.

Uhhh....this one....

Originally posted by Burly Shurly
The point Im getting at is that "the underdog" the "frail and downtrodden" arent always the guys to back up. Sure you feel bad for them and all, but seriously, how does this contribute to the greater good of our society?
My answer is that it does not, and therefore its wrong.[/B]

I was being facetious. Sorry for that lame attempt...jdcamb

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
That's like saying in 1950, "I'll defend the exisiting right of these Negros not to be slaves, but I'll be damned if I will let them vote."

that's like saying in 1970 "i'll defend the existing civil rights of those under 21, but i'll be damned if i'll let them vote".

So you are proposing that we have a 28th constitutional amendment?

please respond to this & to the harvey milk public school question

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by jdcamb
Uhhh....this one....



I was being facetious. Sorry for that lame attempt...jdcamb

he said "it" [legalization/recognition of gay marriage] is wrong, not they are wrong.

that's my read on it.

 

[LordOpie]

while I think queers should suffer the same fate as everyone else and be allowed to marry, I don't think it's the same level as equal rights for blacks.

Remember: Not allowing queers to marry is forcing them to live in sin.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Remember: Not allowing queers to marry is forcing them to live in sin.

ah, but that implies sex, which all you people have stated, is anything but(t).

 

[jdcamb]

Originally posted by $tinkle
he said "it" [legalization/recognition of gay marriage] is wrong, not they are wrong.

that's my read on it.

I think it would be safe to conclude that BS doesn't like anyone other then folks just like him and considers anyone that doesn't agree with him to be wrong. I also think he is a homophobe based on offhand comments he has made in some of his posts/replies.

I find it hard to believe he is in PR with some of the crap he posts. But hey its a free country. He must hold it all in until he gets on RM and just lets it flow out of him. I also think that he wishes he could take some it back and just holds the line to save face. I mean nobody really believe that some folks should just die like he has stated..... If you suit up on the firestarter team then you better expect to play.....jdcamb

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by jdcamb
I think it would be safe to conclude that BS doesn't like anyone other then folks just like him and considers anyone that doesn't agree with him to be wrong. I also think he is a homophobe based on offhand comments he has made in some of his posts/replies.

I find it hard to believe he is in PR with some of the crap he posts. But hey its a free country. He must hold it all in until he gets on RM and just lets it flow out of him. I also think that he wishes he could take some it back and just holds the line to save face. I mean nobody really believe that some folks should just die like he has stated..... If you suit up on the firestarter team then you better expect to play.....jdcamb

Or he just likes trolling...

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle
that's like saying in 1970 "i'll defend the existing civil rights of those under 21, but i'll be damned if i'll let them vote".

So you are proposing that we have a 28th constitutional amendment?

please respond to this & to the harvey milk public school question

No, there is less of a need for a constitutional ammendment for legal gay marriage than there is for an ammendment against. It's really one line of code, like I have said before.

Harvey Milk isn't a great idea IMHO because seperation is not the way to overcome diffrences and gain mutual understanding of different peoples. I can see why a school like Milk exisits, I just don't think the concept desrves wide spread application.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
No, there is less of a need for a constitutional ammendment for legal gay marriage than there is for an ammendment against. It's really one line of code, like I have said before.

we are in agreeance.
along w/ tammy bruce, one of my favorite columnists who (rightfully) let bush have it on wednesday:

Now, in Washington, D.C., the president has declared the need to amend the U.S. Constitution! Really now—that appears to be as much of a stunt as the rogue gay marriages in San Francisco. And this from a man (who along with Cheney) in the last election who said it should be a matter left to the states. It seems, though, only if the states do what you like.

Clearly, the Constitution should be amended as a last resort. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, or abortion, or saving the spotted owl (or not), the Constitution is not made of silly putty—to be twisted and shaped and torn apart depending on our national mood. It is written in a way that makes us have to struggle with issues we face.

After all, if we are truly committed to wanting to save and not tamper with our traditional institutions, which represent the core of the American value system, doesn’t the Constitution fall into that category as well?

too bad she's gay

 

[911]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Legalizing gay marriage confers official recognition and acceptance of what most Americans do not want to recognize or accept. It's hard to tell your kids that they shouldn't do something when the state says "go right ahead; it's OK".

Are you seriously inferring that parents can simply tell their kids "Now Billy, don't be gay... you hear me? I'm serious Billy, don't like other boys ok? Being gay is evil so don't do it."

Americans need to stop closing their eyes and pretending that homosexuality doesn't exist. Explaining to your child the true nature of human sexuality won't make him/her gay. And the state should say that it's ok, or at least explain that it's a natural ocurrance... or would you rather have homosexuals grow up in shame and denial?

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Originally posted by 911
... or would you rather have homosexuals grow up in shame and denial?

Unfortunately, arguments of empathy and compassion don't work with the anti-gay crowd as they show no signs of possessing either.

As far as Georgy Peorgy's little amendment goes ...

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There would appear to already be one that prohibits congress from making any law what so ever about the issue. At least, that's how I read it. Marriage is, after all, an establishment of religion.

edit: just added the italics

 

[zod]

Originally posted by 911
And the state should say that it's ok, or at least explain that it's a natural ocurrance... or would you rather have homosexuals grow up in shame and denial?

I don't need the state telling me anything, but if they are going to explain that homosexuality is a natural occurance then they better do the same for pedophelia, beastality, and the likes.....because those also are natural occurances.
Just because something is a "natural occurance" doesn't make it right or something that should be accepted IMO.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by zod
I don't need the state telling me anything, but if they are going to explain that homosexuality is a natural occurance then they better do the same for pedophelia, beastality, and the likes.....because those also are natural occurances.
Just because something is a "natural occurance" doesn't make it right or something that should be accepted IMO.

Ah yes, but therein we re-enter the debate about consent...and how if it's natural AND between consenting adults then it's fine....however nature doesn't matter if it is between an adult and a child who cannot consent (and by child we're talking pre-adolescence - as is the true definition for pedophelia), and nature doesn't matter in beastiality because an animal cannot consent. Nor does nature matter if it is either a homosexual or hetero sexual act if either party does not consent....right? So this argument is silly.

If two consenting adults wanna enjoy each other, then no one else has the right to tell them to stop. If two consenting adults love each other and want to get married, then what's it to ya?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
If two consenting adults wanna enjoy each other, then no one else has the right to tell them to stop. If two consenting adults love each other and want to get married, then what's it to ya?

He isn't saying they can't be gay.....he is saying they shouldn't marry. He is not stopping them from being them. He is stopping them fmo being married

From a family law site I linked to way up there (about 10-20 psot s ago )

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BEING MARRIED?
The legal requirements for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state. Although there are differences between the requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Problem is many people feel that it is a case of a square peg trying to fit a round holes. Both the round and square pegs are PEGS, but at the same time they are not the same and don't "fit" the same hole "description".....unless you ream out the hole to make it work for both. To much "hole" talk and mentioning reamming....sorry I thought it was funny after I typed it. I can't make that crap up. (I wish I could) :

 

[nydave]

That is why a man and a woman get married...to make babies.
Let's face the facts, homosexual behavior is abnormal. Yes homosexuals do exist, I have no problem understanding that. I could care less what they to in the privacy of their own home. They cannot reproduce, that is why we have civil unions for them. Marriage is for normal couples...one man and one woman.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by nydave
That is why a man and a woman get married...to make babies.
Let's face the facts, homosexual behavior is abnormal. Yes homosexuals do exist, I have no problem understanding that. I could care less what they to in the privacy of their own home. They cannot reproduce, that is why we have civil unions for them. Marriage is for normal couples...one man and one woman.

and what if the man or woman can't have kids? And what about a man and woman who have a kid out of wedlock?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by nydave
That is why a man and a woman get married...to make babies.
Let's face the facts, homosexual behavior is abnormal. Yes homosexuals do exist, I have no problem understanding that. I could care less what they to in the privacy of their own home. They cannot reproduce, that is why we have civil unions for them. Marriage is for normal couples...one man and one woman.

Now that's definitely silly....There's tons of male/female marriages that occur when one or the other cannot reproduce for genetic/physical reasons....and there's more that simply don't want kids, or just want to adopt. So this to me is not a valid reason why it must be one man and one woman. If I can't reproduce and they can prove it at the time of my marriage this means I can't marry?

 

[nydave]

I see your point and agree.
Lets just say that I believe marriage should continue to be between a man and woman only.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by nydave
I see your point and agree.
Lets just say that I believe marriage should continue to be between a man and woman only.

are you religious or homophobic?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
are you religious or homophobic?

Was there a third option?

Or was the third option 'both'...:devil: