# Gay Marriage...i don't get it



## Flex (Aug 27, 2004)

With all the political agendas swirling around with teh upcoming pres. election, perhaps you guys can explain something to me. 

Gay marraige is being shunned by president Bush, which i comprehend. So much so that he wants to make an ammendment condemming it. 

So, why is it illegal for companies/businesses/work places to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, yet the President blatantly discriminates who can get married?

so if you're gay, you CAN'T be discriminated against in the workplace, but CAN be if you wanna get married?

can someone explain this to me?


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 27, 2004)

He wants the church to back him in the election.  

The Catholic church is the richest organization in the world, and he is a republican.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Aug 27, 2004)

Funny how Bush wants to amend the constitution, but Cheney does not support an amendment.  That Bush/Cheney ticket has all their bases covered!


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 27, 2004)

Bush isn't Catholic, but yes, he want's their support (as does Kerry).

He'll probably get it, too.  Many Catholics simply will not vote for Kerry because he doesn't vote in conformity of the Churches teachings.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 27, 2004)

I admit I do not agree with gay marriage, I feel that it demeans the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, *but* the president should not be deciding whether it's right or wrong, the American people should.


----------



## nikegurl (Aug 27, 2004)

...and in my opinion it doesn't belong in the freaking Constitution.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 27, 2004)

Well, some states have.  I forget which state put it to a vote, but something like 75% voted to not allow it.  I have a feeling a similar thing would happen across the country.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 27, 2004)

I don't mind agreeing with Nikegurl, but when I have to agree with Prince it just pisses me off.

Needless to say, I'm PISSED!   

As much of a GWB supporter as I am I still have to say he's off base on this one.  This issue should not be at the Executive level.  And it DAMN sure shouldn't be an amendment to the Constitution.  


























Let's just shoot the freakin' faggots.


----------



## PreMier (Aug 27, 2004)

Why shoot them?  I could care less about homo's.. more women for me haha


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 27, 2004)

Ah, here's an article on it, may not have to become a constitutional admentment, since states are putting it to vote.

Missouri voters ban gay marriage
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) ??? Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday to ban gay marriage, the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there. 
Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as the gay marriage battle spreads to ballot boxes around the nation. At least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, will vote on similar amendments this year. 

The amendment had garnered 70% of the vote with 91% of precincts reporting.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 27, 2004)

Bush is just honoring his Majesty Moon's wishes that "dung eating dogs" aka. queers, fags, limp-wrists, dikes etc. be denied the right to marriage which is a christian right only.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 27, 2004)

Marriage..one man, one woman...period. if it takes an ammendment to guarantee that, so be it.

If you don't ammend the consitituion the PC folks will attack every state house and many, many of them will cave. The next thing you know, I will have to pay for health insurance for a homosexual employee to cover his "wife." Ain't happening.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 27, 2004)

I Are Baboon said:
			
		

> Funny how Bush wants to amend the constitution, but Cheney does not support an amendment. That Bush/Cheney ticket has all their bases covered!


So, you are expecting them to agree on everything?

As I recall Bush I had serious problems with Reagan's tax plan and they got along just fine.

If you show me two people who agree on every issue, one of them must be John Kerry.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 27, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Marriage..one man, one woman...period. if it takes an ammendment to guarantee that, so be it.



you're entitled to your opinion, but as I said this should be decided by the people, not the president.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 27, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> the right to marriage which is a christian right only.



Well, since Christians were the ones who INVENTED the institution of marriage, what's the problem?


----------



## Pepper (Aug 27, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> you're entitled to your opinion, but as I said this should be decided by the people, not the president.


 
So you think the Pres can just do it? 

The process involves representatives from EVERY state and requires a super-majority. That IS the people deciding.


----------



## shutupntra1n (Aug 27, 2004)

Whether or not you disagree with homosexuality or the uniting of two people of the same sex orientation, it's about time we had a President that was concentrating on issues at hand instead of walking around with his pants down. Republicans are "PRO" whatever costs me as a middle class citizen money. It's about time one of our Presidents was a good God fearing man and has some morality about homosexuality, abortion and war. You may not agree with his decisions but at least he is deciding what he feels is right and not making his decisions on popular demand. Personally I work in a place where many of my clients are away at war. Not to mention my father works for the United States Government. *Until a man/woman puts a uniform on and goes overseas they have no right to say what really goes on there.* The men and woman of armed forces are involved voluntarily and instead of so many people bashing the war they should be taking all that energy to find a lonely pen pal in Iraq, or send donations to families of lost loved ones or just support in any way possible. Gay marriage is only one of many things Bush has been faced with throughout his term. In light of the fact of the severity of *9-11* I don't think we will ever know how well any other man in Bush's seat would handled those trials. He has more on his plate in his term than most Presidents will or ever have had. Between 9-11, the war, natural disasters in the south, Gay marriages, cleaning up Clinton's left overs, sniper attacks, several major missing person cases, and all the other lime late cases.......  He is still holding his head high and he deserves some respect for that.   

I would be concerned if he okayed anything the American people wanted such as Gay marriage at the drop of a dime. We tend to be a whatever feels good is okay society. That some scary shit.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 27, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I admit I do not agree with gay marriage, I feel that it demeans the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, *but* the president should not be deciding whether it's right or wrong, the American people should.


I somewhat agree, but feel the *divorce rate* does just as much, if not more, to demean the sanctity of marriage.


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 27, 2004)

Bush is against it, as I am, because of personal convictions. Not politics. He's a born again Christian, not a catholic. Anyway I'd bet a majority of catholics are either for it, or don't care one way or another. Almost all Catholic politicians are democrats and are for gay marriage despite the churches teachings, same thing with sucking and ripping babies out of wombs for convenience. Show me a catholic democrat politician and I'll show you a politician thats going to hell.

                          The financial costs of legal gay marriage would be enormous. Imagine hundreds of thousands of them rushing to get married for the convenience of getting one partner under an insurance plan, a pension payout, other benefits. Imagine the scams resulting from such actions. Next they will want to adopt kids.

                        I'm way against this marriage thing.I believe it to be a perversion of a sacred institution and further evidence of a people with declining moral standards. But I also believe it should be up to individual states to vote on. America was always supposed to be a country where states had much of the power. The mushhead state I live in would probably vote for it. So be it, the people speak. Even the mushheads.

                         I have nothing against gays and I have known an awful lot of them. If anything they are probably more hardworking,educated,decent, and involved in the community then the general population. But gay marriage? Now way!......take care.....................Rich


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 27, 2004)

shutupntra1n said:
			
		

> *Until a man/woman puts a uniform on and goes overseas they have no right to say what really goes on there.*



Sorry, even though I wore the uniform for 22 years, I still can't back you up on this one.  I, just like every other person in uniform before and after me, served so our country and it's citizens could remain free and make their own choices.  One of those choices involves thinking, feeling and VOICING your ideas about different topics.  One of those topics is foreign policy.  I completely agree that most of the loudest voices haven't got a clue what's really happening over there and have even less of an idea about what they're talking about, but they still have the right to be heard.  So, while I completely agree with you on an emotional level, I have no logical way of agreeing.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 27, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Next they will want to adopt kids.



And then after that WOMEN WILL WANT TO VOTE!!!   

Sorry Rich, I just couldn't resist the joke.   

P.S.  I think the adoption thing came BEFORE the marriage thing.  re: Rosie O'Donnell.


----------



## shutupntra1n (Aug 27, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Sorry, even though I wore the uniform for 22 years, I still can't back you up on this one. I, just like every other person in uniform before and after me, served so our country and it's citizens could remain free and make their own choices. One of those choices involves thinking, feeling and VOICING your ideas about different topics. One of those topics is foreign policy. I completely agree that most of the loudest voices haven't got a clue what's really happening over there and have even less of an idea about what they're talking about, but they still have the right to be heard. So, while I completely agree with you on an emotional level, I have no logical way of agreeing.


I only know what I see on TV and here from other but my common sense tells me that if we are overseas and my fellow friends that are there tell me there is a just reason why we are there I would be the last person to spend my time boycotting the war. I don't mean that you should not voice your opinion but maybe for once we should stop taking things for face value. 

I will say as a christian sometimes things are not what they appear. Naturally things such as war will be disagreed upon between christians and nonchristians which is okay with me b/c god said it would be so. I see things as more of a optimistic perspective. I feel one reason we have gone there is b/c of the amount of good Christian Missionaries that have gone in to spread good words of love through God. After all, no matter what God you pray to at least these missionaries are teaching good things for a change to people who know nothing short of evil.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 27, 2004)

shutupntra1n said:
			
		

> common sense tells me




Ah, ah, ah...........no fair using your brain.   You might piss off the liberals.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 27, 2004)

I've been to a gay "marriage" they said their vows and kissed that was spiritual. 

The issue here is should they be recognized as partners for *legal* reasons, ie finacial reasons, medical insurance, being able to attend a funeral etc.

Most marriages are done by judges nowadays and not a clergy.


If same sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage then divorce should be illegal as well, does it not make the pure holiness null and void?


----------



## LAM (Aug 27, 2004)

So much for the seperation of Church and State...lol


----------



## maniclion (Aug 27, 2004)

America is one nation under God with Justice and Liberty for *ALL* (unless you have conflicting religious views)


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 27, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Bush isn't Catholic, but yes, he want's their support (as does Kerry).
> 
> He'll probably get it, too.  Many Catholics simply will not vote for Kerry because he doesn't vote in conformity of the Churches teachings.



On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of Catholics have questioned the selective importance of only certain teachings, and the church's leadership in the coverup of their own sexual abuse scandals haven't helped their credibility among parishoners, either. Others don't like the idea of the Pope dictating policy for a sovereign nation, a concept one would expect conservatives to certainly appreciate. 

Since Republicans are strongly in favor of the death penalty, for instance, which is completely against the teachings of the Catholic Church, your reasoning would indicate most Catholics would have to write the Pope's name in on the ballot to satisfy the Churches teachings and steer very clear of Republican candidates, as well.


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 27, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Well, since Christians were the ones who INVENTED the institution of marriage, what's the problem?




Actually, I believe anthropologists have long reported pagan marriage rituals taking place long before the advent of christianity. And that really doesn't matter, since not all christians believe gay Americans should be forbidden to marry.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 27, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Well, since Christians were the ones who INVENTED the institution of marriage, what's the problem?


Actually Marriage is covered in Genesis well before Jesus shows up.  The Old Testament is influential to Jews, Christians and Muslims.


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 27, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Well, some states have.  I forget which state put it to a vote, but something like 75% voted to not allow it.  I have a feeling a similar thing would happen across the country.



It depends on the wording of those amendments. Missouri's proposal was very simply worded, however I still don't believe it was a good idea. Even some right wing religious believers think that defining marriage in a state constitution could provide legal challenges to existing statutes preventing incestual marriages, for example. 

Moreover, state marriage laws are not supposed to reflect one segment's religious beliefs. That's why some states allow marriages between cousins, have different age requirements, etc. What the state provides are benefits and special privileges to people being allowed to marry. Passing constitutional amendments not only restricts those who cannot marry from ever securing certain basic human rights without State interference, but also raises the State's interest in regulating private lives. While the right wing loves laws that poke government's head inside private bedrooms, those same amendments can end up biting the rest of the population much harder.


----------



## Crono1000 (Aug 27, 2004)

i think gay people should be allowed to marry, and I think in 20-30 years I'll be telling my son/daughter about how when I was young being "gay" was a bad thing and that they couldn't even marry- like how my parents may tell me women couldn't vote or black men couldn't drink from the same fountain


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 27, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Actually Marriage is covered in Genesis well before Jesus shows up.  The Old Testament is influential to Jews, Christians and Muslims.




Not going to bet my next paycheck on this subject, I'm DEFINITELY no theological expert...........BUT, even thought spiritual "bonding" is indeed covered in Genesis, the actual institution of marriage was invented by the Roman Catholics...............................I think.   

Legal disclaimer:  I offer no proof of my above statement.  I could be completely wrong and if it's proven so I will freely admit my mistake.  I'm only voicing what I'm PRETTY SURE I've seen in the past.  "In the past" being the operative phrase here.  My old brain cells aren't what they used to be.


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 27, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> The financial costs of legal gay marriage would be enormous. Imagine hundreds of thousands of them rushing to get married for the convenience of getting one partner under an insurance plan, a pension payout, other benefits. Imagine the scams resulting from such actions. Next they will want to adopt kids.
> 
> *Actually, the federal government would MAKE money if same-sex marriage was approved. As for convenience. . .where is the public outcry over Britney's overnight marriage, all the marriages for a green card, for economic convenience? Most states neither interfere nor regulate the choices of a lifelong spouse, nor do they force or require divorce even when a crime is committed between spouses. Imagine the millions of scams we've already had to pay for because of the abuse of heterosexual marriages? Ah..or the husbands and wives who divorce or who are widowed, but end up shacking up with someone else instead of remarrying in order to fleece more alimony, child support, pensions and social security. *
> 
> ...



If they are such hardworking, educated, decent, involved members of the community, then why would they NOT ask for some kind of basic legal protections in their life relationships? Should their reward for being such good citizens be the continued exhumation of their bodies from graves against the deceased's wishes, because some minister across town is fearful having two partners buried together might cause society to burn in the fiery furnace?
I think if I was in their position, I'd be mounting a massive tax revolt. Why should they support community ambulance services if they aren't allowed to ride in the damned rescue vehicle? Why should they be making contributions to hospital support services if they can't make health decisions or have visitation rights? And why should they even think of paying state income and property taxes if the State, when there is an absence of any living "recognized" relative, can steal their estates and throw the partner out into the street when the other one dies?
That's the worst part about constitutional amendments - you pass those and then not even the smallest alteration can be made in existing marriage laws to address those grievances. And eventually, that unreasonable reaction will most likely really destroy state marriage, since the likely action should be that unmarried people attack those laws as discriminatory. 

Besides, someone interested in the sacred bond of marriage shouldn't need exclusive access to a few hundred special privileges. Those aren't supposed to be the reason for anyone to get married.


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 27, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Marriage..one man, one woman...period. if it takes an ammendment to guarantee that, so be it.
> 
> If you don't ammend the consitituion the PC folks will attack every state house and many, many of them will cave. The next thing you know, I will have to pay for health insurance for a homosexual employee to cover his "wife." Ain't happening.



Of course, that expense is much more worrisome than forcing them to take taxpayer's money in the form of public aid. 

But then, if you want a constitutional amendment that effectively turns them into refugees from political and religious persecution (after all, there are several thousand legally married same-sex couples now in Massachusetts), why allow those taxpayers access to other public services? 

I always wonder what the rest of you who are married would do if the federal government suddenly knocked on YOUR door and told you YOUR marriage was no longer recognized. Religious "conservatives" could pride themselves on establishing the first group of fellow citizens who may have to seek political asylum elsewhere. All to preserve the insecure "sanctity" of their own personal relationships.


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 27, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Not going to bet my next paycheck on this subject, I'm DEFINITELY no theological expert...........BUT, even thought spiritual "bonding" is indeed covered in Genesis, the actual institution of marriage was invented by the Roman Catholics...............................I think.
> 
> Legal disclaimer:  I offer no proof of my above statement.  I could be completely wrong and if it's proven so I will freely admit my mistake.  I'm only voicing what I'm PRETTY SURE I've seen in the past.  "In the past" being the operative phrase here.  My old brain cells aren't what they used to be.



Government became involved with marriage again several centuries ago because churches, known for their penchant for persecution and petty warfare, refused to keep accurate records of land, population, births and deaths. The records became so unreliable that governments took control of the institution in order to maintain a good count of the population and land holdings and to ensure proper inheritance rights for families. Unfortunately, marriage became less sanctimonious when the churchs performing them started constructing barriers based on special belief systems that often excluded people. But then, marriage wasn't about love back then, either - it was about property transfer.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 27, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> So you think the Pres can just do it?
> 
> The process involves representatives from EVERY state and requires a super-majority. That IS the people deciding.



the next think you're going to tell me is that the people (popular vote) elects the president.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 27, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I somewhat agree, but feel the *divorce rate* does just as much, if not more, to demean the sanctity of marriage.



cannot argue that.


----------



## gr81 (Aug 27, 2004)

I am so not getting into this! hells no.. dammit Flex, as J'Bo would call it, your a shit disturber! ha ha.. j/p buddy


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 27, 2004)

I am hetro. 
I love the body of a woman ... the tastes, curves, smells, and sounds of a woman as she gets off is one of her best gifts to man ... that said here is my rant.

If I want to spend my life with somebody, share our fortunes, enjoy mutually shared insurance benefits, have a natural transition of assets after death, and allow my soul mate to use my other earned and paid for benefits after I am dead than that is my right as an American. 

The ban on currant same sex union as well as all other laws in our country are based in our religious beliefs. Our religious beliefs dictate our morals and our morals tell us that same sex relations are wrong ... therefore these unions are illegal. Remove the religion and the basis for this ban crumbles. In America two consenting adults should not be denied their right to make these decisions based on someone else???s thoughts on morality. 

The laws of this country exist to protect its citizens. In a same sex union there would be no victims, no hazards, no medical issues, no side effects to the persons involved or anyone else for that matter. If there is no need for protection then the law can only be for religious reasons. The executive branch is constitutionally proscribed from establishing laws based in religious origin. 




			
				Rich46yo said:
			
		

> The financial costs of legal gay marriage would be enormous. Imagine hundreds of thousands of them rushing to get married for the convenience of getting one partner under an insurance plan, a pension payout, other benefits. Imagine the scams resulting from such actions. Next they will want to adopt kids.


 Another monotonous erroneous idiotic Richism ​ 



> Imagine hundreds of thousands of them rushing to get married


​  ​ 
As far as scams go, they are there and always will be. There is no reasonable basis in fact for them to increase or decrease with the legalization of same sex unions. 

Someone post a fincancial downside not already being experienced and I'l start being nice to Rich. Maybe. If it is really really good.

It costs money to throw a good wedding. The bridal industry would make millions from affluent gay weddings with all the anal retentive obsessing on colors and fabrics. The churches and town halls that allowed them would make bank.

The additional premiums paid for same sex partners would help the insurance industry ??? not hurt it. If the idea that someone would use their insurance to cover health care for their life partner were the basis for an unsound business model then insurance companies would not underwrite policies for traditional marriages. The legalization of same sex unions would increase the opportunities for additional revenue to the insurance industry as a whole.

The pension payout objection is preposterous. If an American pays into a pension plan and wants that money to go to a same sex partner then that should his or her legal right as an American. Who are you or anyone else to determine otherwise.


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 29, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> And then after that WOMEN WILL WANT TO VOTE!!!
> 
> Sorry Rich, I just couldn't resist the joke.
> 
> P.S.  I think the adoption thing came BEFORE the marriage thing.  re: Rosie O'Donnell.



                            YaKnow I just cant see two homosexual men adopting children, and raising them in such an envirement, as being anywhere near normal. And I certainly cannot equate the right to do so no-where near as moraly righteous as the right of woman to vote.

""""""""""""If they are such hardworking, educated, decent, involved members of the community, then why would they NOT ask for some kind of basic legal protections in their life relationships? Should their reward for being such good citizens be the continued exhumation of their bodies from graves against the deceased's wishes, because some minister across town is fearful having two partners buried together might cause society to burn in the fiery furnace?""""""""""""""""""

                          They can have any kind of relationship they want. They can put their partners in wills, can be buried as they want,"what are you talking about"? What has having a marriage certificate have to do with legal protection? "Riding in an ambulance"? Your kidding right? Where do you live? If someone doesnt want their partner to be left with nothing then make a will. Furthermore for every supposed one injustice there will probably be 100 scams. Prior to the AIDs epidemic homosexuals, most of all men, were extremely promiscuous. And I suspect they will be  with marriage as well. A buddy needs a surgicle procedure? "Hey I'll marry you and my insurance will pay,then, we'll get a divorce". Pensions too. Bill will figure,"why should no-one get my pension money when I die"? "I know, I'll marry Bob, whom Im currently fucking, and leave it to him cause hes a good guy". Who do you think is going to pay the bills for all this?

"""""But then, if you want a constitutional amendment that effectively turns them into refugees from political and religious persecution """""

                       Yeah, right. Were just going to throw them into concentration camps right? I think the bottom line is you either believe in the sanctity of marriage, and that the "S" is for a union of man and woman, that centers on raiseing children in a family, or you dont. I suspect gay marriage will eventually be passed into law and doing so will further erode family values which "started" with the liberal revolution in the 60's. Divorce, out of wedlock children,murdering babies in the womb,single moms, the whole house of horrors. Family values in America are in a crisis today and I sure dont see it getting any better.

                     Two homosexual men adopting children? What kind of household would that be for a kid to grow up in? Which one would the kid call "mom" and which one "dad"? Well if theres a legal marriage then theres no legal obstruction to adopting. Are you really for this?...take care..........................................Rich


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

Well, for one thing Rich, you know so little about this subject that it's almost comical. First, state laws about marriage aren't about the sanctity of anything - drop by the justice of the peace and read a sample "wedding" ceremony. State statutes are about benefits, inheritance laws, funeral arrangements,etc. Wills can and have been successfully challenged, especially in states were "conservative" judges adhere to some strange religious belief that a same-sex relationship is a mental and behavioral disorder. 

As for their promiscuity, one might look at the heterosexual male tradition for spiritual guidance and the lack of cultural emphasis on the virginity of the American male before his own marriage as an indication of social behavior. If you look at gay men as an example of promiscuity, then it would hold true that lesbians would more likely be successful at marriage than heterosexuals, so marriage should only be allowed for them.

It's strange to read that argument about two men raising a child, as if this is some kind of foreign concept. If you look at the cultural and historical tradition in this country, there has never been any overt concern about children requiring they have both a mother and father. In fact, the courts never pull children out of a heterosexual home in which one party divorces and has limited or no custody rights, or out of a home in which one or both parents die while the children are young. The preference for placement for a child has always been with the remaining family members (ironically, whether gay or straight). For centuries, single grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins...have raised children successfully in these situations, usually with the full support and acceptance of the legal system. To suddenly declare that two men or two women can't possibly raise a child is preposterous - it's been done for centuries without raising an eyebrow. 

Now, let's look at the legal "arrangements" these people can make. Sure, they can enter into any kind of "contract" they want, as long as they can afford the expenses and don't live in....say...the state of Virginia, which outlawed such contracts this year. 
Then there is the case of the gay couple in Denver, who went together to the gym one night. . .and one had a heart attack. The ambulance was called, but the other partner was told he couldn't ride to the hospital in it because he didn't have his "power of attorney" papers with him. So while he rushed home to get them so he could be allowed visitation and consultation for any emergency operations, the partner died in the rescue squad on the way to the hospital. 

If you look at many probate court records, you'll see many estate arrangements successfully challenged by extended "legally recognized" family members, who have an easier chance to claim that a same-sex relationship didn't exist and can contest both the will and inheritance requests. As for funeral arrangements, check out state "next-of-kin" laws - it's common for third cousins to be able to walk into a funeral parlor and not only force a change in funeral arrangements but bar the same-sex partner from the funeral service. One recent case in Missouri involved a court overruling the wishes of a deceased man who carefully instructed his partner while he was dying about where he wanted to be buried. The family, who apparently wasn't around at the time, sued to have the body exhumed. It was moved to an undisclosed location where the surviving partner cannot even visit and put flowers on the grave. 

Most state laws allow the government to acquire property if there is no will in place and no surviving extended family members. So, is a same-sex couple get together and one dies suddenly a month later, there are dozens of cases in which the State has taken not only the property of the deceased but the unidentified property of the surviving partner. Non-recognition means just that - the relationship didn't exist. 

I did the first national study on newspaper obituaries for these people several years ago, looking at the way their lives were identified in the "liberal" media - at the time, the exclusion of any existence of their relationships was common. Of course, the excuse at that time was that there were people in the community who would feel it was confirmation of a decline in "moral" values if we told the truth about a relationship in an individuals obituary (even if the dying person paid for it himself and requested it).
Naturally, lying and covering up the dignity of an individual life story isn't a "moral" issue. 

Conservatives, who claim to be against government intrusion into personal property rights, strangely support government regulation and intrusion into these couple's property rights. Surviving partners have to pay inheritance taxes when they do get to keep the home, have no access to pensions or social security paid by the wages within the relationship and lose their property more frequently because of those extra responsibilities. Nothing moral about that policy. . .

Your assumption that gay couples will automatically scam the system in the same way heterosexuals have done (including many divorced "christian" and Republican leaders) is a strange excuse for denying them basic human rights. Blaming individual behavior on "liberals" is pretty lame, since studies have shown that evangelical christians have a slightly higher divorce rate than the general population - go figure. Individual responsibility doesn't have a damned thing to do with sexual orientation - it has to do with character. A constitutional amendment banning all divorce would not only be more appropriate, but something that would force heterosexuals to take responsibility for their own vows and choices. Obviously, it's easier to pick on the lesbian couple who has been together for 50 years without any kind of legal support system. 

You believe it isn't possible for these people to be thrown into concentration camps? Think again - it isn't a far-fetched idea at all. In Germany, before Hitler came to power, same-sex relationships were not only visible but increasingly accepted. But when the rightwing dictatorship came to power, they were not only completely outlawed but they were rounded up and sent to work camps. During the war, some suffered castration and hormonal experiments to "change their behavior" - some were killed. 
If you look at the manifestos of many American religious and rightwing political groups, (including those who have quite a bit of influence in the Administration) they believe the existence of gays in our society is a threat to good social order. Both rightwing evangelicals and Republican groups favor criminalization of same-sex behavior and prison sentences. Your own Party's platform clearly calls for opposition for any legal protection in employment, immigration, or simple domestic partnership registry for PRIVATE insurance period. 

It is not only feasible that a federal constitutional amendment would create refugees from political and religious persecution, but highly likely that those who would have their marriages dissolved by force could (and SHOULD) seek political asylum. In every decision regarding relationships that this nation's Supreme Court has made (in terms of marriage), the right to intimate association has been considered an inalienable human right. The Court has only, in the past, enforced sexual activity laws. Even though the discriminatory sodomy laws were tossed out last year, Republicans are determined that the decision be reversed, and the states allowed to enter the homes of same-sex couples to arrest them in bed. A constitutional amendment that would refuse recognition for their existence, followed by...say, a step-up in enforcement of state anti-cohabitation laws would give these people every legal bit of evidence of our nation's intent to persecute them. If I was legally married and the government broke up my relationship, why the hell wouldn't I apply for refugee status to save my family?
Since you (and the President) think they can't raise children, don't you plan to pull them out of these couple's homes? Force them all to live scattered elsewhere? Or do you think these people have any reason to believe that, in your patriotic and moral wisdom, you'd fight for their right to continue living together?  Think again, Rich - and think about how you'd react if the government came to your door and ordered your marriage ended because someone else didn't think you made the proper choice.


----------



## kvyd (Aug 29, 2004)

I say we let them get married.   I honestly dont see the big deal.  Can anyone explain to me what the big problem is, other than religious assholes being fuck faces?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 29, 2004)

Well, the majority of the population in the US is christian.  The bible condems homosexuality.  So, your so called "religious assholes" out number you.

Put it to a vote, and see where things fall, after all, that would be the democratic way.  Some states already have, and people were against it by 70%.  I don't think it's going to be allowed in the majority of states, if any.  Unless of course the Governor allows it without a vote.  Most won't because they'll never see another term.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 29, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Well, the majority of the population in the US is christian.



unfortunately I might add.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 29, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> unfortunately I might add.



I'll bite... why?


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Well, the majority of the population in the US is christian.  The bible condems homosexuality.  So, your so called "religious assholes" out number you.
> 
> Put it to a vote, and see where things fall, after all, that would be the democratic way.  Some states already have, and people were against it by 70%.  I don't think it's going to be allowed in the majority of states, if any.  Unless of course the Governor allows it without a vote.  Most won't because they'll never see another term.



Not every christian denomination in the United States condemns those relationships. And we've been down the road about the bible condemning all sorts of things that sinners with benefits don't expect to lose their constitutional rights over. If we are going to start putting religious interpretations up to a popular vote as law in this nation, why don't we start with the first verse of the bible and start passing amendments that cause you some damage? There are reasons why, for example, we didn't put  interracial marriage up for a popular vote. . .because the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't want these people to be legally married. What you are saying in making this statement is that the interests of people down the street in someone's relationship is more important than the relationship itself - in effect meaning that you believe the government should interfere in an individual's life in order to protect your particular church's beliefs. 

This is exactly why this nation has a judicial system - to protect individual constitutional rights from the tyranny of those who would readily abrogate them to favor themselves. We should, using that philosophy, consider allowing outside religious groups to interrupt heterosexual weddings, especially if one party has engaged in premarital sex that would go against the viewpoints of another religious group. Then we should put their eligibility up for a vote - after all, recognizing their relationship carries a heavy financial and social burden for the rest of society, and since heterosexual marriages have such a high divorce rate (along with regular sinful behavior, including breaking commandments) it can't be in the public interest to encourage such irresponsible behavior. Who is the greatest danger in society, the same-sex couple that has been together 20 years, or the convicted heterosexual pedophile who is allowed to marry? The heterosexual rapist or registered sex offender...the spousal abuser? No call to put their inalienable rights up for a vote?

No democratic nation advocates a popular vote to abrogate rights for any group of members when a constitution is supposed to already guarantee those rights. What your Party advocates is amending that document to prevent a whole array of citizen rights, and, as in the case of places like Virginia, use it to pass more restrictive laws about those Americans. When the argument is nothing more than "the Bible condemns it" then Americans should understand that the death penalty should be instituted for those who commit adultery because true christians know the Bible condemns that practice. 

I don't think gay Americans are stupid - they know the hypocrisy behind the "vote" idea. . . and they know that even though 80% of americans believe they should have, say, equal employment rights, the religious right has blocked federal legislation giving them that for years. They also notice that no one is asking the public to vote on that issue, only the sanctity of their relationships. 

So, Stick...what would you say to those legal marriages that you'd vote to destroy? Tell them to come to church with you and they'll turn into heterosexuals? They'll more likely seek political asylum for both their faith and families before being forced to do that. 

The other issue that a popular vote assaults is the right to privacy, not only in the inalienable right to intimate association, but in the idea of due process and equal protection under the law. They are well aware that Republicans like Sen. Santorum believe that the right to privacy does not extend to gay Americans, and that the President himself has a history of defending Texas' own sodomy law which was arbitarily enforced by arrests in the private bedrooms of gay citizens. Shouldn't we be voting on which Americans have freedom of association, which ones get freedom of speech, which ones have freedom to inherit property? 

There are few things more likely to destroy this democracy than the tyranny exercised by the whittling away of the constitutional rights of select groups of citizens by means of the ballot box. Maybe you'll realize that when suddenly your right to bear firearms comes up for a "popular" vote down the road, or when a state becomes majority Mexican and African-American, and they demand to vote on limiting white rights... and the precedent will have been set in constitutional stone.  If you value your own rights, you never vote away the rights of someone else, whether your church wants to or not.


----------



## katie64 (Aug 29, 2004)

*Scriptures*

Biblical passages on the subject 

Personally I disagree with gay marriages, I just read an article in Psychology Today about 2 married gay men with an adopted daughter, the article was about "soul mates", I simply think it's wrong, especially for their daughter, who will be an outcast or follow suit with the same sex.........doesn't matter really, eventually there will be no more marriages, this world will become communal, men and women will have several partners all raising many children, like in the 60's, I believe it will revert back to this within the next 10 or 15 years, and at that point what the President thinks or anyone else won't really matter..........JMO


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that suggest a child raised by gay parents automatically becomes gay. . .and the logic behind that is so flawed that it doesn't warrant argument. The overwhelming majority of gay Americans come from stable heterosexual households, families that neither the Republican party values or believes in defending. If we honestly knew that they became "gay" through upbringing, wouldn't it make sense to punish the heterosexual parents for victimizing the children in such a manner? Shouldn't we pull the rest of the children from the household to make sure they don't produce any more of "them"?

What studies have shown so far, is that the children of same-sex parentstend to be more tolerant of diversity in our culture in all areas. Your reasoning would follow that a child who has lost both parents should be taken from a single grandparent's home or a household where aunts live together because it is unnatural.  It would also logically follow that a child raised in an orphanage administered by celibate nuns would be sexually dysfunctional. That isn't "normal" either, but has been part of raising children for centuries. What isn't normal to ME is that a father, for example, who can sexually abuse his child, can be removed from the home but the state cannot force him to be divorced. Or that, in a normal household, physical abuse can be heaped upon millions of children for 20 years and no one knows about it. Or that in the Catholic Church, priests can get away with sexual abuse of children and shuffled around for 50 years? 

In many cases, those same-sex couples have adopted children from third world countries or who are victims of abuse in heterosexual households...the unwanted troubled children that heterosexual adoptive parents don't usually want.


----------



## katie64 (Aug 29, 2004)

I'm not a scientist, nor was I making a scientific statement, it was a personal thought, as well as witnessing a friend of mine's son becoming more feminine than he needs to be, although I do believe genetics play a huge role in that and I didn't say that their daughter would automatically become gay, but I do think the odds are more to that way, it mentioned nothing about having a woman role model in her life, which I believe is imperative for any child, same if it were two women having a son, a male role model would be beneficial to his development in all aspects, physically, mentally, spiritual.

I made one statement concerning one situation, it is an observation, whether gay or not, any child brought up in a culturally diverse lifestyle will develop the sensitivities necessary to be on a better plane of existence in this world. As far as children being adopted by any loving being is a blessing in my estimation, regardless of being homosexual or heterosexual..

My statement was in a biblical sense, people are people, their choice is their own, it doesn't mean I wouldn't support my friend in her relationship, it's simply who she is and what she believes but it would not be my lifestyle choice.  Hope that clarifies more that I wasn't putting gay people down, I was merely stating that I don't spiritual believe in that, on the whole I would not vote for it's popularity but for my friend, I will always be her friend and support her with her choice. I know it's contradictory but most things are and it's how I feel.

My logic isn't flawed, it's what I think as a human being, it's my personal beliefs, and NO they do not warrant an argument, no one's opinions warrant an argument, it's just an opinion, it won't change the way of the world.


BTW...........good to see you KBM


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 29, 2004)

I had to ask myself If I really wanted to be in this conversation bad enough to have ro read this KBM guys three additional short stories. I decided I didnt. I also dont need a "study" to tell me whats normal for a child or not. In fact I dont need "experts" for anything,"another liberal trait" "lets find a liberal expert to back up what were saying".

                          I can make up my own mind. Homosexuals raising kids is fucked, and I for one am tired of them shoving their lifestyle down the throats of the rest of us,"no pun intended"......................take care...................Rich


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 29, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> If we are going to start putting religious interpretations up to a popular vote as law in this nation, why don't we start with the first verse of the bible and start passing amendments that cause you some damage?



Um, do you even KNOW what he first verse of the bible is, or says?  



> There are reasons why, for example, we didn't put  interracial marriage up for a popular vote. . .because the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't want these people to be legally married. What you are saying in making this statement is that the interests of people down the street in someone's relationship is more important than the relationship itself - in effect meaning that you believe the government should interfere in an individual's life in order to protect your particular church's beliefs.



No, I'm saying put it to vote and see what the people say.  It doesn't really matter what my view on it is, if it passes, then so be it - at that point it really doesn't matter what I think, does it?    Actually, I think the government should be extremely small and if it doesn't agree wtih my Church then I have a choice don't I?  I could move somewhere that is more in line with what I believe, or I can just deal with it.



> This is exactly why this nation has a judicial system - to protect individual constitutional rights from the tyranny of those who would readily abrogate them to favor themselves.



No, what we have is a judicial system that is legistlating from the bench, which is definately NOT what the founding fathers wanted.  Judges are supposed to interpet laws passed, not make them.  This isn't the case in the United States, anymore.



> We should, using that philosophy, consider allowing outside religious groups to interrupt heterosexual weddings, especially if one party has engaged in premarital sex that would go against the viewpoints of another religious group.



What philosphy?  I made a statement based on what I believe.  Don't put words into my mouth.

God gave man free will.  Each can choose their own path.  Nothing says I have to agree with it, or have to enable it - esp if I have a chance to remove, or prevent it.



> Then we should put their eligibility up for a vote - after all, recognizing their relationship carries a heavy financial and social burden for the rest of society, and since heterosexual marriages have such a high divorce rate (along with regular sinful behavior, including breaking commandments) it can't be in the public interest to encourage such irresponsible behavior. Who is the greatest danger in society, the same-sex couple that has been together 20 years, or the convicted heterosexual pedophile who is allowed to marry? The heterosexual rapist or registered sex offender...the spousal abuser? No call to put their inalienable rights up for a vote?



Have you READ the Bill of Rights?  Sounds like you are giving people more rights than they actually have.

See, you are going off on tangents (pedophiles, premaritial sex, etc) to argue THIS topic.  It doesn't apply to the topic at hand.



> No democratic nation advocates a popular vote to abrogate rights for any group of members when a constitution is supposed to already guarantee those rights.



What rights are being abrogated?  There is no *right* to be a homosexual.



> What your Party advocates is amending that document to prevent a whole array of citizen rights, and, as in the case of places like Virginia, use it to pass more restrictive laws about those Americans. When the argument is nothing more than "the Bible condemns it" then Americans should understand that the death penalty should be instituted for those who commit adultery because true christians know the Bible condemns that practice.



My party?  I have no party.  I'm an independent.  



> I don't think gay Americans are stupid - they know the hypocrisy behind the "vote" idea. . . and they know that even though 80% of americans believe they should have, say, equal employment rights, the religious right has blocked federal legislation giving them that for years. They also notice that no one is asking the public to vote on that issue, only the sanctity of their relationships.



I never said homosexuals were stupid.  If we are going to oppose the majority of opinion on a topic in this country, then it's no longer a democracy, is it?



> So, Stick...what would you say to those legal marriages that you'd vote to destroy? Tell them to come to church with you and they'll turn into heterosexuals? They'll more likely seek political asylum for both their faith and families before being forced to do that.



First, too bad, you are making the wrong choice.  Sorry it didn't work out for you.

I believe that homosexuality is a choice.

If they seek asylum, that is their choice.  Homosexuality is not a "faith", it's a lifestyle.



> The other issue that a popular vote assaults is the right to privacy, not only in the inalienable right to intimate association, but in the idea of due process and equal protection under the law. They are well aware that Republicans like Sen. Santorum believe that the right to privacy does not extend to gay Americans, and that the President himself has a history of defending Texas' own sodomy law which was arbitarily enforced by arrests in the private bedrooms of gay citizens. Shouldn't we be voting on which Americans have freedom of association, which ones get freedom of speech, which ones have freedom to inherit property?



I, again, urge you to read what your rights actually "are".



> There are few things more likely to destroy this democracy than the tyranny exercised by the whittling away of the constitutional rights of select groups of citizens by means of the ballot box.



Um, true democracys go by majority rule.  We are not one (true democracy).  Again, exactly what rights are being violated by banning gay marriage?



> Maybe you'll realize that when suddenly your right to bear firearms comes up for a "popular" vote down the road, or when a state becomes majority Mexican and African-American, and they demand to vote on limiting white rights... and the precedent will have been set in constitutional stone.



Would never happen.  BTW, you are assuming I am white.



> If you value your own rights, you never vote away the rights of someone else, whether your church wants to or not.



What rights?  There is NO right to be a homosexual.  READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  I'm not voting away someone's rights.


----------



## DFINEST (Aug 29, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> .....I for one am tired of them shoving their lifestyle down the throats of the rest of us,"no pun intended"......................take care...................Rich



Just like people may be tired of YOU shoving your lifestyle down their throats


----------



## DFINEST (Aug 29, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> ...What rights?  There is NO right to be a homosexual.  READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  I'm not voting away someone's rights.



There also isn't a right to be heterosexual....

Placing this in the Constitution will begin a sliding scale 
to restrict individual rights...

Constitution Amendments normally expand individual rights.

Once upon a time, there was also a LAW forbidding INTER-RACIAL marriage,
if it was still current, Clarence Thomas and others like him would forever be heart broken as  they would not have been able to marry their sweetheart.

I am not for gay marriage BUT this does not belong in the 
Constitution, PERIOD!


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> I had to ask myself If I really wanted to be in this conversation bad enough to have ro read this KBM guys three additional short stories. I decided I didnt. I also dont need a "study" to tell me whats normal for a child or not. In fact I dont need "experts" for anything,"another liberal trait" "lets find a liberal expert to back up what were saying".
> 
> I can make up my own mind. Homosexuals raising kids is fucked, and I for one am tired of them shoving their lifestyle down the throats of the rest of us,"no pun intended"......................take care...................Rich




GOOD, Rich. . .we know you have a short attention span for anything requiring more than memorized official Party dogma. By the way, you've never had any problem shoving your lifestyle down anyone's throat, have you?  You still haven't figured out that being called a liberal from you kinda ends up being a compliment.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 29, 2004)

DFINEST said:
			
		

> There also isn't a right to be heterosexual....
> 
> Placing this in the Constitution will begin a sliding scale
> to restrict individual rights...
> ...



Um, read up.  What did I say?  I said I thought States should vote for themselves to allow for it, and posted an example of where it didn't happen.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Never did I say that it should be an Constitutional Amendment, or not one.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 29, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> GOOD, Rich. . .we know you have a short attention span for anything requiring more than memorized official Party dogma. By the way, you've never had any problem shoving your lifestyle down anyone's throat, have you?  You still haven't figured out that being called a liberal from you kinda ends up being a compliment.



Heh, you like to throw that "party" affiliation line about, don't you?  Rich can speak for himself, so I'm not going to defend him, but.....

Talk about shoving a lifestyle down someones throat....

Isn't that EXACTLY what the gay movement is doing?


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Heh, you like to throw that "party" affiliation line about, don't you?  Rich can speak for himself, so I'm not going to defend him, but.....
> 
> Talk about shoving a lifestyle down someones throat....
> 
> Isn't that EXACTLY what the gay movement is doing?




Uh...well gosh, Stickboy...you mean they are forcing you to date other guys?
They are like going door-to-door, like..um..say, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons and about six other evangelical groups in my town, and recruiting people to their "lifestyle"? Or is it...maybe just thinking that they have the right to openly date and fall in love just like every other person..wow, sounds like some real heavy lifestyle imposition to me. Not a thing like...oh, say some Pat Robertson, who that minister I saw on the news today who told his congregation that it was a "crime" if they didn't vote this year. 

And yep - I throw any Party affiliation around when it's supporters toe every aspect of the Party line without thinking for themselves.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 29, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Uh...well gosh, Stickboy...you mean they are forcing you to date other guys?
> They are like going door-to-door, like..um..say, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons and about six other evangelical groups in my town, and recruiting people to their "lifestyle"? Or is it...maybe just thinking that they have the right to openly date and fall in love just like every other person..wow, sounds like some real heavy lifestyle imposition to me. Not a thing like...oh, say some Pat Robertson, who that minister I saw on the news today who told his congregation that it was a "crime" if they didn't vote this year.



LOL, is that the best you got?    

I'm going to have to assume you are gay, since you defend it so much.  I simply don't believe in your lifestyle, and won't sit by and have it intrude on my life.



> And yep - I throw any Party affiliation around when it's supporters toe every aspect of the Party line without thinking for themselves.



Oh, maybe I should change my status.  I'm an independent.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 29, 2004)

This entire debate is absurd.

 Government supported _marriage_ should simply be done away with.  It should be replaced with universal "domestic partnerships."  That way any couple can recieve the legal benefits of current government-backed marriage without dealing with the religion issue.  After that, any couple who wishes can go ahead and be "married" in a church.  Simply separate church and state (something that should have been done a long time ago).


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Um, do you even KNOW what he first verse of the bible is, or says?
> 
> *I'm gonna pretend you didn't even think of typing that. But we could move right to your church's probable contradictory teachings in Leviticus, if you like. . .and I'm sure you have a good handle on your denomination's history on instances where interpretations were changed.
> *
> ...



*You most certainly know you would be voting away someone's rights of due process and equal protection under the law. And you know that a federal constitutional amendment, just like the Marriage Protection Act, is designed to prevent those people from seeking redress for their material and practical grievances without addressing them as citizens.  Read the fine print in the Constitution - there is no right to DENY them being homosexuals. No right that is not enumerated in the Constitution is to be presumed to be denied (Article IX). 

Curiously, many states have interesting constitutional clauses - for example, some states may abridge the practice of a religion that can be shown to do significant harm to others - maybe the gay Americans left behind can effectively sue for being made human sacrifices for someone else's religious beliefs. *


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> LOL, is that the best you got?
> 
> I'm going to have to assume you are gay, since you defend it so much.  I simply don't believe in your lifestyle, and won't sit by and have it intrude on my life.



Not a good assumption. I have been a journalist for years, and happened to do two major research projects related to their relationship situation. I witnessed treatment by our society that no American citizen should have to endure. And I've seen the kind of people that treatment is coming from. . .and they have never met my definition of "christian." 

Hmm...and this coming from a man who gets (rightfully) annoyed when demonstrators shout  "baby killers" when he leaves the base. Wonder if those people (who you "felt" like killing - not rightfully) feel like you are intruding on their lives? We know they were intruding on yours. . .hence that reaction. Now...what country and people is it that you are being paid to defend? 

No personal offense - but unless you have a story of unwelcome sexual advances, I somehow think you probably don't have to worry about any illegal intrusion into your life. 

I think the concept of individual liberty means you don't have to become something if it isn't what you believe. . .I just showed this to a buddy and his response is:  "I don't believe in your "lifestyle" either - baby killer." and he isn't going to just sit by while your lifestyle intrudes on his life. 

Sorry - his words. Glad to know how dedicated you are to fighting for "freedom."


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 29, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> This entire debate is absurd.
> 
> Government supported _marriage_ should simply be done away with.  It should be replaced with universal "domestic partnerships."  That way any couple can recieve the legal benefits of current government-backed marriage without dealing with the religion issue.  After that, any couple who wishes can go ahead and be "married" in a church.  Simply separate church and state (something that should have been done a long time ago).



You got it - but let the marriage deadbeats fleece the churches instead of the rest of the taxpayers for a change. The only catch should be that if you marry in a church, you have to get divorced with the same church's permission. You'd see those ceremonies drop off real fast.


----------



## DFINEST (Aug 30, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Um, read up.  What did I say?  I said I thought States should vote for themselves to allow for it, and posted an example of where it didn't happen.
> 
> Sorry if that wasn't clear.
> 
> Never did I say that it should be an Constitutional Amendment, or not one.


You should read up as well; I only rebutted your statement about about a right to be HOMOSEXUAL.

In my post, every statement after this was not in 
reference to your quoted post....
sorry if I wasn't clear


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 30, 2004)

I agree with Prince. Christianity (and any other religion) blows, but that doesn't mean that gays should be allowed to have the same relationship rights as me and my wife.  It's just not the same thing.

By the way, the rest of you are long-winded as all hell.  What, do you specifically look for topics in which you can post what amounts to small books?  I swear some of you get off on this shit.


----------



## bulletproof1 (Aug 30, 2004)

these sexuality and/or religious threads should never be started. there is no solution and everyones beliefs and preferences are all different. minotaur (i hope i spelled that right) and i learned that the hard way a few weeks ago after going 9 rounds. it is truly an exhausting subject and 1 that has no end ..... imo.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 30, 2004)

bulletproof1 said:
			
		

> these sexuality and/or religious threads should never be started. there is no solution and everyones beliefs and preferences are all different. minotaur (i hope i spelled that right) and i learned that the hard way a few weeks ago after going 9 rounds. it is truly an exhausting subject and 1 that has no end ..... imo.



I'm catching on to that now, too.  I'm gonna try & stay away.


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 30, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I admit I do not agree with gay marriage, I feel that it demeans the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, *but* the president should not be deciding whether it's right or wrong, the American people should.



And Brittany Spears', Michael Jackson's, Liz Taylor's, et al numerous/brief/convenient marriages and divorces don't demean the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?  But the union of two people who love each other and plan to live until death do them part does, because they are the same sex?


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 30, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Marriage..one man, one woman...period. if it takes an ammendment to guarantee that, so be it.
> 
> If you don't ammend the consitituion the PC folks will attack every state house and many, many of them will cave. The next thing you know, I will have to pay for health insurance for a homosexual employee to cover his "wife." Ain't happening.



Um, excuse me, but most major corporations now offer 'domestic partner' benefits.

Furthermore...

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 30, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> And Brittany Spears', Michael Jackson's, Liz Taylor's, et al numerous/brief/convenient marriages and divorces don't demean the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?  But the union of two people who love each other and plan to live until death do them part does, because they are the same sex?



I was not saying that *only* gay marriage demeans it, that is the topic of this thread so that is all I posted.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 30, 2004)

bulletproof1 said:
			
		

> minotaur (i hope i spelled that right) and i learned that the hard way a few weeks ago after going 9 rounds.


The important thing is that you two learned to settle your differences in a properly homo-erotic manner.


----------



## GoalGetter (Aug 30, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I somewhat agree, but feel the *divorce rate* does just as much, if not more, to demean the sanctity of marriage.


 So true... 

 And in response to your earlier post about Bush /Catholics - that's exactly why. His attempt to have the constitution ammended was clearly an act of desperation to secure votes in that sector of the community. 

 This is a dirty, dirty race.

 ------------

 And Cheney has to be opposed. Besides "covering all bases", the fact remains that his daughter is a lesbian. If he were in favor of anything anti-gay, it'd be like he's anti-his own daughter...


----------



## LIFTorDIE (Aug 30, 2004)

Boys and girls.  Don't argue and fight.  As always the right IS right on this issue.  All the major controlling ideologies say being a fag or a dyke is morally bankrupt.  WE ALL live in this society controlled by the moral majority.  If you don't like the way we control it ... get the fuck outta here.  I hope that this is not too hard of a concept to grasp.  If you are a fag, go live in a society that likes homos.  America's moral majority doesn't like you.  Move away to another place.  Where you ask?  Don't have an answer ... and don't care.



My money for education is being wasted on you.  My money on health care is being wasted on you.  My drive time to work is being increased having to drive around you.  Television shows like Queer Eye for the Strait Guy are in the way when I channel surf.  I don???t want all this gaydom flying in my face when I look out at the world.  Since you assholes like to cruise so much I say we put you all on a cruise ship to a distant land ??? then sink it!


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 30, 2004)

LIFTorDIE said:
			
		

> Boys and girls.  Don't argue and fight.  As always the right IS right on this issue.  All the major controlling ideologies say being a fag or a dyke is morally bankrupt.  WE ALL live in this society controlled by the moral majority.  If you don't like the way we control it ... get the fuck outta here.  I hope that this is not too hard of a concept to grasp.  If you are a fag, go live in a society that likes homos.  America's moral majority doesn't like you.  Move away to another place.  Where you ask?  Don't have an answer ... and don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> My money for education is being wasted on you.  My money on health care is being wasted on you.  My drive time to work is being increased having to drive around you.  Television shows like Queer Eye for the Strait Guy are in the way when I channel surf.  I don???t want all this gaydom flying in my face when I look out at the world.  Since you assholes like to cruise so much I say we put you all on a cruise ship to a distant land ??? then sink it!


But tell us how you really feel.


----------



## LIFTorDIE (Aug 30, 2004)

This is LIFTorDIE's first post so I thought I would walk softly.


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 30, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I was not saying that *only* gay marriage demeans it, that is the topic of this thread so that is all I posted.



Granted, but it's a one-sided and slanted look at the subject.  No one who is pro same-sex 'marriage' is looking at it in the context of a religious or 'holy' union.  We all know most mainstream religions are against homosexuality, though there are a few churches and synagogues that will bless same-sex unions.  So why does anyone think that those of us pro same-sex 'marriage' want to force any religious institution to recognize it?  That ain't gonna happen.

Now, if someone can tell me how and why giving the exact same legal recognition and benefits to a same sex couple as to a heterosexual couple, will demean the rights of said heterosexual couple, I might be inclined to listen.


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 30, 2004)

LIFTorDIE said:
			
		

> Boys and girls.  Don't argue and fight.  As always the right IS right on this issue.  All the major controlling ideologies say being a fag or a dyke is morally bankrupt.  WE ALL live in this society controlled by the moral majority.  If you don't like the way we control it ... get the fuck outta here.  I hope that this is not too hard of a concept to grasp.  If you are a fag, go live in a society that likes homos.  America's moral majority doesn't like you.  Move away to another place.  Where you ask?  Don't have an answer ... and don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> My money for education is being wasted on you.  My money on health care is being wasted on you.  My drive time to work is being increased having to drive around you.  Television shows like Queer Eye for the Strait Guy are in the way when I channel surf.  I don???t want all this gaydom flying in my face when I look out at the world.  Since you assholes like to cruise so much I say we put you all on a cruise ship to a distant land ??? then sink it!



I don't think anyone could have made a more ignorant or hate-filled post if they really truly tried.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 30, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone could have made a more ignorant or hate-filled post if they really truly tried.


Is that a challenge?


----------



## GoalGetter (Aug 30, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> Is that a challenge?


 Hahaha, god I hope not. I don't think I could take another comment like that one without reaching for my can of whoopass.


----------



## Spitfire (Aug 30, 2004)

While Im gone you can talk among yourselves, Ill give a topic the Holy Roman Empire, It was neither Holy nor Roman...Discuss


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 30, 2004)

Spitfire said:
			
		

> While Im gone you can talk among yourselves, Ill give a topic the Holy Roman Empire, It was neither Holy nor Roman...Discuss


You were here?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 30, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Hmm...and this coming from a man who gets (rightfully) annoyed when demonstrators shout  "baby killers" when he leaves the base. Wonder if those people (who you "felt" like killing - not rightfully) feel like you are intruding on their lives? We know they were intruding on yours. . .hence that reaction. Now...what country and people is it that you are being paid to defend?



I actually clarified that comment in a different post.  I would never kill another American unless they were trying to take my life.



> I think the concept of individual liberty means you don't have to become something if it isn't what you believe. . .I just showed this to a buddy and his response is:  "I don't believe in your "lifestyle" either - baby killer." and he isn't going to just sit by while your lifestyle intrudes on his life.



LOL.  That's a good response from your buddy.    

I guess in the end, it's all about what people believe about themselves and things around them.  What's right for me, may be different from others.  However, I am a Catholic, and I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.  I can't be true to my faith if I were to go against church teachings.
God gave us all free will.  In the end, I don't have to answer for anyone's sins but my own.  Doesn't mean I can't try and give a lil nudge in the right direction.


----------



## DFINEST (Aug 30, 2004)

LIFTorDIE said:
			
		

> Boys and girls.  Don't argue and fight.  As always the right IS right on this issue.  All the major controlling ideologies say being a fag or a dyke is morally bankrupt.  WE ALL live in this society controlled by the moral majority.  If you don't like the way we control it ... get the fuck outta here.  I hope that this is not too hard of a concept to grasp.  If you are a fag, go live in a society that likes homos.  America's moral majority doesn't like you.  Move away to another place.  Where you ask?  Don't have an answer ... and don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> My money for education is being wasted on you.  My money on health care is being wasted on you.  My drive time to work is being increased having to drive around you.  Television shows like Queer Eye for the Strait Guy are in the way when I channel surf.  I don???t want all this gaydom flying in my face when I look out at the world.  Since you assholes like to cruise so much I say we put you all on a cruise ship to a distant land ??? then sink it!



As a dog eats it's own vomit,
so fools recycle silliness!

You can disagree with the homosexual lifestyle
without the HATE


----------



## bulletproof1 (Aug 30, 2004)

"Gay Marriage...i don't get it" - the title says it all ... no one is ever going to get it. a mod needs to close this thread.


----------



## DFINEST (Aug 30, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> .....I guess in the end, it's all about what people believe about themselves and things around them.  What's right for me, may be different from others.  However, I am a Catholic, and I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.  I can't be true to my faith if I were to go against church teachings.
> God gave us all free will...



AMEN


----------



## Mudge (Aug 30, 2004)

LIFTorDIE said:
			
		

> I hope that this is not too hard of a concept to grasp.  If you are a fag, go live in a society that likes homos.  America's moral majority doesn't like you.  Move away to another place.  Where you ask?  Don't have an answer ... and don't care



Its a free country, so who cares who doesn't like them or not? Do you run and hide every time someone doesn't like you?


----------



## maniclion (Aug 30, 2004)

Going by the mindset of those against this then according to the below statistics  
Black males in America shouldn't be allowed to marry since they will either be killed, die of AIDS or be unemployed as well as have children that will be looked down upon in school by the white majority and have a 28% chance of living in poverty.  

_African-American males are seven times more likely to be murdered than their Caucasian counterparts.  The African-American rate of HIV-AIDS infection is five times higher than that of Caucasians.  African-Americans comprise 38 percent of AIDS cases reported to the U.S. Center for Disease Control.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans is at 10.1 percent.  These statistics should concern us all. _


----------



## Randy (Aug 30, 2004)

nikegurl said:
			
		

> ...and in my opinion it doesn't belong in the freaking Constitution.


I agree with nikegurl....Gay Marriage goes against the constitutional law. This law should never have been proposed to be changed. It is my understanding the the President had nothing to do with banning gay marriage, even though he was against it (this was a decision from the State.)


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 30, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> However, I am a Catholic, and I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.  I can't be true to my faith if I were to go against church teachings.
> God gave us all free will.  In the end, I don't have to answer for anyone's sins but my own.  Doesn't mean I can't try and give a lil nudge in the right direction.



Why should you go against church teachings?  No one is asking you to become homosexual (not that you can, let me clarify   ) or marry another man, are they?  What does another person being homosexual have to do with you?     Giving that 'lil nudge' is offensive to a non-believer like myself.


----------



## slider (Aug 30, 2004)

Honestly I am confused by the whole deal in my expierence most Gay People are not christian because of the years of verbal abuse.  They do not want to be married to rub it in the face of god or anything like that.  It is for the most part all of the all of the legal impication that come with a spouse.  If one person in a gay couple get hospitilized to the point of near death or a coma.  THere partner can't even go visit them with the permision of the person family.  If anything is changed in our legal system they should have new form of marriage "union" so athiast and all other people shunned by catholics have an option with legal implications to there partner.  Now no one is stepping on anyone toe's and everyone gets treated equaly


----------



## RCfootball87 (Aug 30, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I admit I do not agree with gay marriage, I feel that it demeans the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, *but* the president should not be deciding whether it's right or wrong, the American people should.


Exactly.  The federal government should have nothing to do with it.  It should be a state thing.  Go ahead and get married in in California if you're gay, but Illinois may choose not to recognize it, etc.  That's how this country is supposed to work, states deciding how to run themselves, the federal government should never have gotten this powerful.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 30, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Why should you go against church teachings?  No one is asking you to become homosexual (not that you can, let me clarify   ) or marry another man, are they?  What does another person being homosexual have to do with you?     Giving that 'lil nudge' is offensive to a non-believer like myself.



Ok, I'll take these in the order your presented them:

1.  You are correct, no one is asking me to be gay.  However, since it I believe it to be wrong, and the chruch also teaches this, how could I ever support something like this?  I know it to be wrong, and therefore it will never get my support, esp if it comes to a vote.

2.  Someone else being a homosexual has nothing to do with me.  That doesn't mean I have to agree, endorse, or legitimize it.

3.  By nudge, I mean just stating my opinon (in a forum such as this).  I would never push someone to do something they didn't want to do.  IF they want me to hear their side of, they should have the courtesy to hear my side.  It's not like I approach perfect strangers and start to convert them.    

I understand that some take offense to religious views.  Perhaps they should understand that their behavior may offend me?  See, we have the right to say whatever we want to.  Again, just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.  

If anything's unclear (I am very tired tonight), let me know and I'll try to state it a different way.


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 30, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll take these in the order your presented them:
> 
> 1.  You are correct, no one is asking me to be gay.  However, since it I believe it to be wrong, and the chruch also teaches this, how could I ever support something like this?  I know it to be wrong, and therefore it will never get my support, esp if it comes to a vote.
> 
> ...



*I think you do just fine. Probably most of the frustration on my end is that no one ever addresses the material harms involved in this situation or discusses ways to compromise on those grievances and still satisfy the requirement that every citizen is equally protected under the law. Unless they can show me specific material or practical harm, someone else's religious beliefs mean nothing in that argument. And those churches know it, too - that's why they want that constitutional amendment to negate due process and equal protection clauses for gay Americans. It doesn't have anything to do with "protecting marriage" and everything to do with trying to remove their existence and legal protections as American citizens. It is very clearly reflected in the Republican Party platform this year.*


----------



## Spitfire (Aug 31, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> You were here?


No, and damn proud of it.


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 31, 2004)

RCfootball87 said:
			
		

> Exactly.  The federal government should have nothing to do with it.  It should be a state thing.  Go ahead and get married in in California if you're gay, but Illinois may choose not to recognize it, etc.  That's how this country is supposed to work, states deciding how to run themselves, the federal government should never have gotten this powerful.



Mmm, not quite (from the US Constitution, Article IV, aka the Full Faith & Credit Clause)...

_*Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. 


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. * _


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 31, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll take these in the order your presented them:
> 
> 1.  You are correct, no one is asking me to be gay.  However, since it I believe it to be wrong, and the chruch also teaches this, how could I ever support something like this?  I know it to be wrong, and therefore it will never get my support, esp if it comes to a vote.



It doesn't require your support or your vote.  It's a matter of already existing Constitutional law that is not being enforced.



			
				Stickboy said:
			
		

> 2.  Someone else being a homosexual has nothing to do with me.  That doesn't mean I have to agree, endorse, or legitimize it.



See above... you don't have to agree with or endorse it.  



			
				Stickboy said:
			
		

> 3.  By nudge, I mean just stating my opinon (in a forum such as this).  I would never push someone to do something they didn't want to do.  IF they want me to hear their side of, they should have the courtesy to hear my side.  It's not like I approach perfect strangers and start to convert them.
> 
> I understand that some take offense to religious views.  Perhaps they should understand that their behavior may offend me?



What behavior offends you?  If I see two heterosexuals making out in public it's just as offensive as seeing two homosexuals doing it.  There is a time and a place for everything.  There is nothing about homosexuality that you need to see that should offend you.  If two men making out offends you, then seeing a man and a woman making out should offend you.



			
				Stickboy said:
			
		

> See, we have the right to say whatever we want to.  Again, just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.



DING DING DING  We have a winnerrrrrr!!!


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 31, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Mmm, not quite (from the US Constitution, Article IV, aka the Full Faith & Credit Clause)...
> 
> _*Article IV
> 
> ...



This is exactly the constitutional point that religious extremists are afraid of, and the "activist" judges they are really referring to are really the Supreme Court judges in Loving v. Virginia who allowed an interracial couple who had been married in D.C. to be recognized in Virginia, where the state prohibited it. . . even outlawed it to the point that they were arrested. Trying to pass a federal amendment nullifying that clause only for same-sex couples is the religious right's goal, and the use of that amendment to prohibit and potentially recriminalize those relationships. The phony excuse that the "people" should have a voice in choosing to deny constitutional  rights to one segment of citizens is dangerous and will end up biting the rest of us in the butt down the road. 

In Illinois, first cousins over the age of 50 can marry, as long as one is sterile. Missouri prohibits any familial marriage. If a first cousins couple moves from Illinois to Missouri, the state does not dissolve their marriage or exclude them from benefits, even though the "people" there have chosen not to let first cousins marry.


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 31, 2004)

This "ban the homos" thing is one of the many ways the church drove me away. To think in 2004 you would still deny taking the sacrament to people for a sexual preference they were born with is just silly. You might as well drive away all people born with black hair. The hypocrisy of it all! Cover for child molesting priests, foster an atmosphere of sexual perversion in the priesthood that attracts such people, but deny the sacrament to a law abiding adult just because he/she was born with a sexual preference "for other adults" thats different then man/woman.

                      When I first became a policeman there was a lot of ignorance and distrust between us and the gay community. 99% of the ignorance was on our part, and frankly they were right to distrust us. Now? We have an awful lot of openly homosexual cops. Ive worked with some, and have worked in one of the largest gay communities in the country. It has been an interesting experience and at one time I never thought I'd "one day" consider them as "normal" as myself.  The bottom line is they almost never cause a problem for the police.

                       But I'm still uncomfortable when walking into a gay bar on "speedo night", or, "dress night","leather night"...ect I still don't like the idea of "gay marriage" because I believe it will further destroy whats left of the nuclear family. I do not believe such a household can raise children normally.

                      But such decisions are outside my control. If such legislation is passed I will live with it. Ive come a long way since being an 18yo in military basic training,"A homophobic institution if there ever was one". Anyone of us could have been born homosexual, its just one of the cards God shuffles each time someone is born. And most sexual perverts, especially percentage wise, are heterosexuals. Most of all child molesters.

                   Ive met to many people like Minotaur to still be living in ignorance. One of my best pinches ever was on a group of animals who were beating up gay men walking home from bars at night,"one guy they almost killed". They rightly deserve to be classified as a "hate crime" and offenders should be jailed for extended periods. Unfortunately this incident happened before such legislation was passed.

                Like I said, we've come a long way..........take care......Rich


----------



## Deanko (Aug 31, 2004)

*Protect the Sanctimony of Marraige*

Actually wasted...um...I mean 'spent:...my first hour at work reading this thread. All the talk about religion and morality in relationship to traditional vs. gay marraige reminded me of one of my favorite religious conservative parody sites on the internet--www.BettyBowers.com. Conservatives will hate it, at it is pretty anti-Bush. If you are of the other persuasion, you will be laughing your patooties off. 

Apropos of the thread, I found some zinger bumper stickers on there and tried to attach them in this post. I am sure these will infuriate some, but make others chuckle. Enjoy...or despise 'em. It's your call! Peace, D.


----------



## Minotaur (Aug 31, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> I still don't like the idea of "gay marriage" because I believe it will further destroy whats left of the nuclear family. I do not believe such a household can raise children normally.



Your p.o.v. is commendable, as is your willingness to be open-minded.  But you're making assumptions that have no basis in fact, and are actually absurd if you take them apart (not a personal attack on you... many people believe these things).

You're assuming that already-existing families will be taken apart to regroup as homosexual families.  That's absurd.  I have yet to see anyone make a legitimate (or any) argument for how homosexual marriages will cause the further decline of heterosexual marriages.  Does homosexual dating contribute to the decline of heterosexual dating?  

The disintegration of the nuclear heterosexual family has nothing to do with homosexuality.  Why can people not realize this?  Is homosexuality the new Judas goat for the decline in heterosexual marital values?  

And where do you think these children that *some* gay couples want to raise will come from?  They will come from the pool of unwanted and/or unadopted children.  Being raised by two people who will love the child is less preferable than the child being left in foster care?  My understanding is that the loving stable foster family is a thing of fiction or at the least a rarity.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 31, 2004)

slider said:
			
		

> If anything is changed in our legal system they should have new form of marriage "union" so athiast and all other people shunned by catholics have an option with legal implications to there partner.  Now no one is stepping on anyone toe's and everyone gets treated equaly


Atheists have no problem with "legal implications to there partner." Where did you hear otherwise?


----------



## tomas101 (Aug 31, 2004)

i could care less who marries who...it doesnt effect me in any way what so ever so why should i waste my time complaining about something i dont really give a flying fuk over...pple need to mind their own business...if they wanna adopt, then i say go for it...marry who ever the fuk u want, b/c i dont give 2 shits who anybody marries...
[/rant]


----------



## slider (Aug 31, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> Atheists have no problem with "legal implications to there partner." Where did you hear otherwise?


I know many athiest who have an unoficial union vs a marriage reconized by God.  I myself am not and I am happily married I just think all people in this country should have option not be pushed into those of christian wright if they choose not to belive.  WHen you boil all the water off this discussion the salt of it is NO ONE IS FREE WHEN TO THE CATHOLIC CHRUCH.  THere is no reson why a legal non-christian form of marriage could not be added to out freedoms.  Instead we all fall pray to the ignorance of ingorance.  Some People happening to be gay wanted to get married and said why not, so instead of saying lets make a way for them to get married THEY pointed a finger and said "NO" and started name calling to get the general public involved.  THE FREEDOM IN OUR COUNTRY IS COMMUNISM IN A PRETTY DRESS AND WE ARE ALL TO BUISY LOOKIN UP SKIRT IT'S TO REALY SEE WHATS GO ON.  THE CATHOLIC CHURCH RUNS THE WORLD HOW EVER IT SEE'S AND USES THE BIBLE AS TOOL TO SUPPORT THERE FALACITIC LIES AND REHTORIC.  IN THE END THERE IS NOTHING RELIGOUS ABOUT A MAN IN A BULLET PROOF CAR STANDING BETWEEN US AND GOD(WHOM EVER YOU CALL HIM/HER)TELLING PEOPLE THEY ARE WRONG.  Read the bible it is all there about casting the first stone, and passing judgement.  A better protest of gay rights would not be scream and have legal tantrums gay people should start showing up at large chirtian events and stand there silently with large sighns with biblical quotes like "who are you to cast first stone." or "Let the first man who is perfect pass judgement."  and fight the popes stupididty with intellegance and the word


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 31, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Your p.o.v. is commendable, as is your willingness to be open-minded.  But you're making assumptions that have no basis in fact, and are actually absurd if you take them apart (not a personal attack on you... many people believe these things).
> 
> You're assuming that already-existing families will be taken apart to regroup as homosexual families.  That's absurd.  I have yet to see anyone make a legitimate (or any) argument for how homosexual marriages will cause the further decline of heterosexual marriages.  Does homosexual dating contribute to the decline of heterosexual dating?
> 
> ...



                          On an intellectual level I realize being a homosexual is something your born with and I don't consider it a perversion. I, or my kid, could have just as easily been born gay. Any of us could have. My comments on sexual perversion being a mostly heterosexual trait is based not only on fact but actual crime statistics. Who knows, maybe on an intellectual level homosexuals are capable of raising children. Maybe it all comes to the individual individuals. But on a gut level I cant help but feel sure that children are better off being raised with a mother and a father in a traditional family setting.

                      Would a kid be better off being raised by two thoughtful,educated,financially secure, gay guy's? Instead of being raised in some un-careing dormitory setting? Probably! But such adoptions would also open up their own particular can of worms.

                    I don't know how many family disputes involving children Ive had to deal with in the last 21 years, and I don't know how many incidents involving kids and young people Ive had to deal with, but they number in the many thousands Im sure. And Ive seen that when a kid is raised in a house without two nurturing parents, a man and woman, they are often headed for trouble. If a kid raised by a single mom  so often ends up being a little jagg-off then what sense is it to allow a kid to be adopted by two single moms? Only this time they are married to each other? The same in reverse with a kid being raised by two gay guys. I don't care how good you are with hair, or how well you can decorate, a man is not going to take a mom's place.

                I look around the neighborhood I live in,"one of the few like it in this shithole city", and almost 100% the people in it are catholic, have kids, and there is a husband and a wife in the house. We don't have gang problems where I live, or drugs being sold on the street. Our kids go to school, get good grades, and most of all behave. Ive worked all over and have been in middle class Black and Spanish neighborhoods that are the same, so obviously the formula works for everyone. Generally, "GENERALLY", a kid growing up in a house with a stable nuclear family, "mom and dad","man and woman", they will develope well. Its a formula thats worked since we came out of the trees and it would be foolish to change it.

                       On any other issue Im very supportive of gays......take care..........Rich


----------



## bulletproof1 (Aug 31, 2004)

damn i check in here every now and then and yall are still writing page after page. dont you see it is a circle with no end?


----------



## maniclion (Aug 31, 2004)

How about the case on the t.v. show E.R where the lesbian Doctor and her GF had a child born by the GF.  Her GF later died but since they couldn't be married her GF's parents had custody of the child even though she had raised and cared for it.  She's a doctor, she's young meaning she'll definetly be able to care for the child and her health isn't going to fail her in the childs adolescent years so who is a better candidate to raise that child?

Here's another scenario, my gf's brother is gay.  His partner has a nephew that they care for often.  The nephews mother brings him to their house to have them babysit in dirty clothes with a trash bag of dirty clothes as his luggage, she raely does laundry, feeds him a steady diet of hot dogs and macaroni & cheese, lets him go without taking a bath or brushing his teeth for a few day's at a time and when he's with his mom he's a whiny brat.  When he goes to his Uncles house, his laundry gets done, he bathes two times a day, brushes his teeth 3 times a day, he eats real meals and is well behaved if he starts whining he gets a spanking.


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 31, 2004)

Without question theres homosexuals with the right stuff to be parents. But we have to look at the big picture. BTW What has been Kerrys position on all this. Hes been silent on it hasnt he, as he often is concerning taking a position which "either way" will cost him votes. At least Bush stands for what he believes in, and even his enemies dont say he isnt a sincere Christian.

                           I already know he's another Catholic democrat whos pro-abortion...............nice...real nice! "Got an un-wanted bun in the ole oven"? "Just suck it out with the ole vaccum,piece by gory piece"...take care..............Rich


----------



## Randy (Aug 31, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> "Got an un-wanted bun in the ole oven"? "Just suck it out with the ole vaccum,piece by gory piece"...take care..............Rich


The bun probably didn't belong in the oven to begin with  

As for Bush, I agree...at least Bush stands up for what he believes in and not affraid to compromise his votes for doing it  **** GO BUSH ****


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 31, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> The bun probably didn't belong in the oven to begin with
> 
> As for Bush, I agree...at least Bush stands up for what he believes in and not affraid to compromise his votes for doing it  **** GO BUSH ****


\

Uh, actually, the Dubya has flipflopped on this issue several times, trying to opt for a kinder, more compassionate approach as the election draws near, but likely to lose the gay Republican vote this time around. As governor, he fought to keep a sodomy law that was only enforced against gay Americans, including the case that eventually went to the Supreme Court, in which law enforcement officials arrested two men in their bedroom. He was adamantly opposed to the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing those people a right to privacy. As President, he talked about compassion and how any two people should be allowed to enter any contract they wanted, then found himself backing a constitutional amendment worded by religious extremists that would prevent that in nearly any form. Now he says that he wants a constitutional amendment defining marraige (which can be used to take away due process and equal protection claues for gays) but believes states should only be free to offer civil unions if they choose. Almost sounds enlightened, until he has to run on a political platform that specifically is against those too, along with any contractual agreement that might let two people recognize themselves in a relationship.  He's stuck with a Party controlled by evangelical extremists.

Kerry has consistently opposed marriage equality, but is in favor of civil unions that include access to some federal benefits. He also is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment.


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 1, 2004)

"""""""""Kerry has consistently opposed marriage equality, but is in favor of civil unions that include access to some federal benefits. He also is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment.""""""""""""

                          So Kerrys answer is, "maybe,kinda,sorta"? Exactly the kind of policy crafted to lose the least votes. Man is this guy transparant or not?.....take care...................Rich


----------



## MaxMirkin (Sep 1, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> ....if he starts whining he gets a spanking


I just bet he does. .........


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 1, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> """""""""Kerry has consistently opposed marriage equality, but is in favor of civil unions that include access to some federal benefits. He also is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment.""""""""""""
> 
> So Kerrys answer is, "maybe,kinda,sorta"? Exactly the kind of policy crafted to lose the least votes. Man is this guy transparant or not?.....take care...................Rich



Uh no...he has consistently been against same-sex marriage, but has also voted against Republican attempts to discriminate against benefits in federal laws, something the President has supported. He has also supported non-discrimination federal proposals in employment, immigration and hate crimes legislation. Bush has either stalled or has been against even those proposals. The Republican platform calls for opposition to any sort of legal protections for both singles and couples.


----------



## fantasma62 (Sep 1, 2004)

I hear the sound of a can of worms being opened...


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 3, 2004)

I love this quote from the Prez's speech on this subject: 

"Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law," he said.

Hmm..it's interesting to note that he doesn't view the use of the word "ALL" in the constitution as being a "strict" interpretation. An "activist" judge, like the Republican-appointed justices in Massachusetts, erroneously believed that constitutional provisions that said no citizen could be treated differently than others, exactly the way the Constitution was written. Now where does the Prez get the idea that "ALL" only means...well, those he thinks should be honored above others?  At least one thing is for sure - conservatives will never again be able to seriously use the words "special rights" to characterize anything other than privileges for themselves.
And at least one gay buddy of mine says he now refers to them as "sinners with benefits". That has a nice ring to it.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 3, 2004)

Hell, worse. . . he expects the rest of the taxpayers to contribute even more to "preserve marriage" by financing federal counselling (including many faith-based initiatives) designed to "help' people STAY married. Now I wonder how long his second term will be in session before the religiously correct demand that every marriage go through that federal counselling program before being allowed to file for divorce? 

I'll be expecting all of those "pro-Family" legal groups to start filing briefs trying to block each divorce filing. . .this could get fun.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 4, 2004)

How many think that the founding fathers would have been less inclined to give this "right"?


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> How many think that the founding fathers would have been less inclined to give this "right"?



This is one of the most shallow arguments 
ever used by the "religious" right. . you don't "give" rights to people who are supposed to have them already guaranteed. By your reasoning, the "founding fathers" meant the Constitution to permanently exclude African-Americans because religious beliefs at the time saw them as less than people. The same would hold true for a woman's right to hold property, since women were considered property at the time. And the Founding Fathers intended that only white men who owned property were eligible to vote.  Those would all be "strict" interpretations of the intent of the Founding Fathers. 

This isn't 1790  - and attempts to frame an American's constitutional rights based on the cultural assumption that, if the Founding Fathers didn't like gays in 1790, then they meant the Constitution to exclude them as part of "the people" forever is nothing more than religious conjecture projected by groups who mostly didn't exist then, either. They didn't write any clause of that nature into the document. Of course, we don't know that the Founding Fathers didn't intend that "religion" only pertained to those denominations that existed at the time, either.  That would eliminate most of today's evangelicals from constitutional protection.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 4, 2004)

My point was, and is, that it wasn't acceptable then, it's not acceptable to the majority of folks in the country now.  You want to be gay?  Be gay.  Just don't shove it down the throats of people that don't agree with the lifestlye.

Like I said, put it to a vote, and let the American people decide.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> My point was, and is, that it wasn't acceptable then, it's not acceptable to the majority of folks in the country now.  You want to be gay?  Be gay.  Just don't shove it down the throats of people that don't agree with the lifestlye.
> 
> Like I said, put it to a vote, and let the American people decide.



OK, let's try this a different way. An individuals sexuality has not been proven to be caused by adherence or rejection of the interpretation of Bible verses. This means the only characteristic we KNOW isn't innate is religion. Expecting one group of Americans to have their relationship orientation voted on by those of another persuasion, especially those who refuse to admit that they're own orientation was based solely on scripture, rather than instinct could very well be seen as a violation of someone else's religious beliefs.

Since you've never alluded to the fact that any gay person has tried to...uh...force anything down your throat, your statements continue to be about exercising a curious interest in regulating the private lives of other Americans. 

If we take your reasoning, then we should be voting on whether your Catholic Church should continue to be recognized. It has proven to cause substantial damage to others. The majority of Americans are not Catholic nor do they agree with the Pope. After that sexual abuse scandal, we should be voting on the Church as a legitimate religion. 

In other words, if you want to be Catholic, then be one. If that is what prevented you from being "gay" then fine. Just don't shove your Church's teachings down the throats of people who don't agree. Or, as one recently released song would say:  "Keep your Jesus OFF my p*nis."


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

wow, kb.

why don't you run for president, buddy?

i dont think i've ever read one post of yours that isnt intelligent, incredibly worded and articulate. F#$% Bush, vote KB!


----------



## Randy (Sep 4, 2004)

Gay Marriage is just wrong... religion or no religion.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 4, 2004)

> i dont think i've ever read one post of yours that isnt intelligent, incredibly worded and articulate. F#$% Bush, vote KB!



I know, I love this guy. someone on this board who actually knows what the fucc he is talkin about and is articulate enough to express it..


----------



## maniclion (Sep 4, 2004)

I keep hearing the argument that it will lead to a motherless or fatherless family.  Isn't that what divorce does?  If they ban same sex marriage then they have to ban divorce.  Then we'll see how many people flip-flop.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 4, 2004)

for the record, I believe that gays should be able to have every right that anyone else does, except for that Queer eye show, I can't stand even seeing previews for that shit. however its my opinion that raising children with two same sex [arents is not a good idea. Is it better to have two loving gay parents than two choas filled hetero parents, absolutely. but Kids need a mother AND a father, not two of each. The male influence in a boys life is EXTREMELY important, and if you don't think so, just look at the millions of kids in the inner cities growing up with no father figure and how they turned out. Your mom can provide alot of things but she can't calm you down like a man can, she can't teach you to be a man. Each parent has a role and a child needs both. It is what it is


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Well, we can't forget the thousands of kids who never see their Dad because he's too busy being deployed to fight in foreign wars. Or so busy trying to earn enough money to make ends meet that the kid's only memory is being yelled at to shut up and give the old man the remote and a beer cuz he had a hard day. 

I almost agree with what you say, except usually these people are adopting kids who are either orphaned, in foster homes, or disturbed enough that no upstanding "normal" family wants them. I think the influence of both sexes is important, too, but unless we change child placement laws, the tradition in this country has been to leave children with the next of kin, whether they are single, widowed or divorced. We don't pull kids out of a single parent household or away from families to make sure they have the influence of the other sex - the parent uses relatives and friends to help fill that void. One reason the divorce laws were liberalized was that it was believed it was better to let parents who don't get along live apart rather than let the kid see his Daddy beat up Mommy. We don't exactly examine the character of people who are allowed to marry and procreate, but we do examine the ability of those who adopt to provide a good home. 

I always laugh when I see an evangelical church doing a "How to make sure your child doesn't become homosexual" seminar for parents. Instead of telling them not to let them near a priest.....okay, I couldn't resist that one, sorry Stickboy, I was outa line.... . . I can't wait to see the kinds of lawsuits that church gets the first time a child turns out gay anyway.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

And I can't stand that _Queer Eye_ show either. . .they should stick that Karen character from _Will and Grace_ onto the program to chill them out with some of her medicine.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Sep 7, 2004)

It's just not natural.  If you allow this, what's next?  Midgets getting married?!?!


----------



## Randy (Sep 7, 2004)

Midgets getting married was the last proposal Max.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 7, 2004)

Max you are starting to sound like a Democrat ... Pretty soon you'll be asking us to vote for Nadir.


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 7, 2004)

"""""""""Well, we can't forget the thousands of kids who never see their Dad because he's too busy being deployed to fight in foreign wars. Or so busy trying to earn enough money to make ends meet that the kid's only memory is being yelled at to shut up and give the old man the remote and a beer cuz he had a hard day."""""""""""

                          KBM now do you really give a damn about those "fathers fighting foreign wars" who "never got to see their kids"  or is this just another manifestation of your own selfish personal political agenda. Did you mouth such concerned phrases when Bill Klinton was in, and would you if John Kerry was elected?

                       C,mon now, tell the truth....................take care.............Rich


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 7, 2004)

Why Rich, you and that crystal ball of gloom and doom just caught me again....

Actually, it was a concern when President Clinton was in power - if you recall, he was the one who made a campaign promise to gay service personnel that he would end the ridiculous witch hunts in the armed services over their closeted enlistment. Even though the right wing, at the time, was preoccupied with contending those people didn't have long relationships (the universal promiscuity argument was popular), there were gay service personnel who had partners and families back home. 

Of course, the situation now involves the extended duty responsibilities of people like National Guardsmen who didn't expect to be deployed overseas at the time of their enlistment. Historically, our military didn't use large numbers of Guardsmen for deployment, and now that it has occured, it has created a rather lengthy hardship for those families. That hardship, of course, means the removal of the father and/or mother figure for the period of time they are assigned. 

The same often happens in peacetime as well. Military personnel can be assigned locations where they don't want to take their families, so there can be fairly long absences, depending on the type of career and assignment. The obvious point is that there are many situations in many family households in which there is no 1950's-style environment for a variety of reasons. That pressure can come from employment responsibilities to natural situations like early death and/or divorce. Our system of justice has not acceded to pulling children out of a home simply because one of the heads of household is absent for long periods of time - or permanently. The remaining spouse generally is responsible for finding alternative ways of providing that influence through other family members (gosh, including gay ones) and friends. Specific community programs were created to even help that endeavor, like Big Brothers/Big Sisters - even the Scouts try to help fill that void. 

These aren't isolated situations, either - while we might prefer that there be a stable household headed daily by both a mother and a father, a lot of companies interfere with that by demanding lots of extra working hours and lengthy and frequent business trips. We know that in cases where the parents are killed, the child is placed in a home with a single aunt or uncle, or even a grandparent as a priority over removing the child to foster care. 

Now don't tell me you made your kid fetch you a beer just as you started to type that post....


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 7, 2004)

"""""Now don't tell me you made your kid fetch you a beer just as you started to type that post.... """""""

                         I dont drink alchohol or use drugs of any kind. Anyhooo, maybe we actually agree on something. I to believe the prosectution of homosexuals by the military is not only un-constitutional, but stupid and self-defeating. Its nobodys business when one adult wants to sleep with another when off-duty. The US Military is one of the last homophobic bastions we have in our society. And since its funded by the taxpayer it has no right to be.......take care...............Rich


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 7, 2004)

wow..we actually DO almost agree with something. And I can tell you that Clinton broke his campaign promise to end that ban when he caved to a lot of homophobes and instituted that ridiculous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In ten years, that policy has caused the often selective discharge of 10,000 soldiers, many of whom served with honor and had distinguished careers in the service. Just recently, one Marine officer was kicked out just because he had apparently been not discreet enough when he was in a gay chat room online - he was baited. 

Seems to me that the military has a code of conduct that limits sexual behavior for everybody - and that should be the uniform way it needs to be handled FOR everybody. Unfortunately, the Party's platform adopted in New York calls for a return to the old policy of asking about experiences from recruits upon enlistment and reinstating the "incompatible" crap to allow for the old official "witch-hunts" again.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 7, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> OK, let's try this a different way. An individuals sexuality has not been proven to be caused by adherence or rejection of the interpretation of Bible verses. This means the only characteristic we KNOW isn't innate is religion. Expecting one group of Americans to have their relationship orientation voted on by those of another persuasion, especially those who refuse to admit that they're own orientation was based solely on scripture, rather than instinct could very well be seen as a violation of someone else's religious beliefs.
> 
> Since you've never alluded to the fact that any gay person has tried to...uh...force anything down your throat, your statements continue to be about exercising a curious interest in regulating the private lives of other Americans.
> 
> ...



Um, when the bullshit stops flowing from your mouth, you may get some other kind of response from me.  

I know what game you are TRYING to play, but guess what?  I'm not falling for it.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 7, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> wow, kb.
> 
> why don't you run for president, buddy?
> 
> i dont think i've ever read one post of yours that isnt intelligent, incredibly worded and articulate. F#$% Bush, vote KB!



Amazingly enough, others find almost all of his post to be on the completely other side of intellect, wording, and articulation.


----------



## moon (Sep 7, 2004)

let the Gays marry! They are only a minority! Maybe this make their lives better. Isn't it better. Gays are gifted by God to be like dat. ^^


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 7, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> He wants the church to back him in the election.
> 
> The Catholic church is the richest organization in the world, and he is a republican.



Tha Catholic Church ain't got shit on the jews. If they did, we'd be supporting the Vatican as heavily as we support terrorist Israel. But that's neither here nor there, and I really don't care to enter this thread.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 7, 2004)

Here's my take on gay marriage. Americans are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If getting maried makes you happy, it is your right. If it offends someone else, and they aren't happy, that's their own problem.


----------



## Randy (Sep 8, 2004)

My take is that it is morally wrong, and would provide a negative impact on society.
I don't believe we in California should allow it, nor any other state. Outside of that it goes against the constitutional law. You allow gay marriage, what's next?It's ridiculous to even propose such a thing in my mind.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 8, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Amazingly enough, others find almost all of his post to be on the completely other side of intellect, wording, and articulation.



While we all know that you are a nationally-recognized intellectual heavyweight, I think my own professional credentials would stand up pretty easily in this area compared to your own. Your only argument has been that this is against your personal religious beliefs, which only means it is apparently the reason YOU aren't one of those people. 

The Catholic Church isn't exactly a democracy, nor did it advocate secular democratic governments for most of its history. Moreover, it is a rather shallow rationalization to justify persecution of others based on no more information than one denomination's biblical interpretation of less than a dozen verses - most of which are in the Old Testament. Trying to legislate "love" has always failed - which is one reason why your OWN choices in relationship is protected above the interest of the State. 

The idea of marriage is NOT about whether the Church should designate morality - the point is these relationships not only exist, but have been around for a long time, despite religious disinformation campaigns designed to pretend they aren't there or that the parties are incapable of maintaining them. The recognition of those relationships are about benefits and responsibilities that promote stability - one would think a conservative would encourage that kind of responsibility from a couple. I haven't seen where those 1000 + benefits are enumerated as state responsibility to provide married people in the Bible - and churches certainly aren't footing that bill. 

Since you think it is a "game" to question the validity of your religious faith, but NOT a "game" to suggest you have the right to question the validity of another American's relationship orientation, it sounds just like religious persecution to me - those who don't subscribe to your faith are supposed to suffer both materially and financially in order to make the Church feel better about it's claim to moral standing and leadership. One does wonder how much money and time the Church has spent trying to find out the causes for this situation with these people - my guess is that it is negligible at best. 

Of course, it has spent about $500 million in settlement payouts for it's own sexual abuse scandal, a staggering amount of money which has caused school closings, some church closings and parish restructuring - all because of a coverup that lasted some 50 years. It not only decided it was "moral" to attach a monetary amount to personal violations, but tried to hide them when they directly contradicted their own teachings of celibacy. Then they try to tell those outside the Church that they have to engage in a celibate life if they can't "change" their homosexuality. 

There is nothing innate about religion. No one is born into a Church. Yet those rights are protected more than the rights of gender, race and sexual orientation in this country. If you and your Church want to persecute within your body, that's certainly a protected right - to expect all others to adhere to those teachings is a violation of their freedom to worship according to their own conscience. Not every denomination holds to those teachings - several bless same-sex unions and consider themselves just as faithful and christian as your church does. And they have just as much constitutional right to practice those ceremonies as any other church in this country. 

The right to marry is provided by the State, not the Church. Churches only have the right to perform a ceremony - it isn't a requirement to access the benefits of marriage. And the State has to answer to it's own constitution, not the teaching or leadership of someone else's church. 

Since your Church has always been adamantly against divorce, which affects marriage more than a few thousand same-sex couples seeking benefits, I have yet to see them demanding and pushing a divorce amendment.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 8, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> My take is that it is morally wrong, and would provide a negative impact on society.
> I don't believe we in California should allow it, nor any other state. Outside of that it goes against the constitutional law. You allow gay marriage, what's next?It's ridiculous to even propose such a thing in my mind.



It does not go against constitutional law - that's the reason why the right wing is clamoring for constitutional amendments designed to abridge the rights of those people. It's easy to think something is morally wrong when it isn't about your own life or yourself - but damaging if it causes permanent material suffering from those people. These aren't illegal immigrants - they are constitutionally-protected natural-born citizens of this nation. They have to pay taxes. But they are also designated as permanent unmarried people who have faced some pretty awful treatment because of the way some marriage statutes have been written. 

In my mind, there is something morally wrong about a State recognizing the rights of a third cousin over someone's estate and burial OVER the person they chose to spend their life with  - especially if that someone was not allowed to legally protect that partner because of the State. The simple answer would have been for states to look at some of those laws and rewrite them to allow for these situations and recognize individual rights and responsibilities instead of engaging in legalized theft. 

This, to me, just isn't about marriage - it's about individual rights. I should be allowed to decide for myself who visits me in the hospital, who makes health decisions for me, how I want my body disposed of, how I want my property inherited without interference or redefinition of my life from the government. I should be able to decide who my family is without the bonds of marriage and without spending 30 times as much to attempt to do so, only to have it challenged and changed in court. 

Distribution of property based on someone else's sense of "morality" is definitely NOT a conservative philosophy - it is government interference in the  life choices of an individual. These aren't criminals here - they owe the State or strangers nothing. Why should anyone give a rat's ass whether you think that life was "moral" or not? You certainly aren't going to walk around the neighborhood and ask everyone if your choice of a wife is approved - nor would you accept someone telling you that their "church" or "moral" beliefs don't approve of her. It wouldn't change a thing for you - you'd marry her whether the church or the neighbors liked her or not. And if the State disapproved, you'd live with her anyway.

There are thousands of examples of heterosexuals who left churches that didn't approve of their marriages or divorces, which is one reason why states don't put any "moral" requirement or test on allowing people to marry.


----------

