Political Crossfire Forums

[tpainefan]

Thanks for all the posts. That was what I was asking for, information on the pro-gay marriage side which doesn't really seem to be readily available. I am not anti-gay I just wanted information and I got it.

[LostSoul3412]

tpainefan wrote: Thanks for all the posts. That was what I was asking for, information on the pro-gay marriage side which doesn't really seem to be readily available. I am not anti-gay I just wanted information and I got it.

If you want evidence, try the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Babylon_Horuv]

tpainefan wrote: It's been an hour and here are my thoughts on this subject, please give me your opinions. To me, marriage is a condition or philosophy by the church, whatever church defines marriage between a man and a woman. My biggest complaint with any pro-gay marriage ammendment is that it forces the churches to recognize gay marriages when they really don't. This is contradictory to the seperation of church and state.

Now, if it's because gay couples are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples perhaps the measurements or amendments should concentrate on the rights of domestic partners instead of gay marriages, thus not displaying a threat to those whose beliefs are against marriages of the same sex.

Churchs are not required to perform gay marraige, and because my church, which recognizes and performs gay maraiges, is not allowed to legally join two people of the same gedner separation of church and state has gone out the window. No-one can force a minister to perform a marraige they don't believe in.

[Babylon_Horuv]

tpainefan wrote: While I can look up any tax breaks that a married couple can have it doesn't answer the question why two individuals, regardless of sex, want to be recognized as being married. I got married during the Clinton administration, and I watched my income taxes rise. During the Bush administration, my income taxes as a married person declined. So we are back to ground zero. So how does being "married" help a gay couple?

taxes are the least important part of it for most couples. visitation rights in a hospital, the ability to own things in common, decision making rights if one's spouse is incapacitated. There are others all of which are more important than tax status for most.

[Babylon_Horuv]

tpainefan wrote: ieatfood wrote: tpainefan wrote: ontheyslay wrote: tpainefan wrote: It's been an hour and here are my thoughts on this subject, please give me your opinions. To me, marriage is a condition or philosophy by the church, whatever church defines marriage between a man and a woman. My biggest complaint with any pro-gay marriage ammendment is that it forces the churches to recognize gay marriages when they really don't. This is contradictory to the seperation of church and state.

Now, if it's because gay couples are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples perhaps the measurements or amendments should concentrate on the rights of domestic partners instead of gay marriages, thus not displaying a threat to those whose beliefs are against marriages of the same sex.

Marriage is a state institution, not a religious institution.

When I got married it was with the Holy Bible. It was between my wife and myself and God. How is that not a religious institution?

Because not everyone got married the way you do. Many people have secular marriages. The ceremony is irrelevant to the legal aspect. Legally, its a contract and the law doesnt care whether you sign the contract in a church or in your back yard.

If the law doesn't care, then why don't we try to get the same rights for a gay couple that a heterosexual couple has without persuing the marriage contract? Could there possibly be a different definition for such a relationship?

It is a marraige contract though, they want exactly the rights that a heterosexual couple has when they get married. Why call it something different if it is to be treated the exact same way legally?

[Babylon_Horuv]

detzX wrote: I spent a good hour arguing my point this weekend about this. My Republican friends made the comment of how the damn legislator(in MA) wont even let the people vote on gay marriage. That started the "argument" on why it should/shouldn't be aloud. Anyways, they think of it as something the gay community is doing because they can, they want to fight about it and ruin the tradition. :lol: I tried explaining but the damn Republicans are so stubborn they only see their point of view. They also think it's just a name, "Why can't they just accept a civil union and be happy, why does it have to be called marriage?" was one of the comments that kept coming up.

It's about the law, benefits, tradition, and equality.

"why can't the accept a civil union and be happy?" That's the stupidest arguement I have heard because the republicans keep making laws against civil unions. Might be different if they were making laws respecting civil unions.

[mODULAR mAN]

F'losrix wrote: Enoch wrote: F'losrix wrote: Why introduce yet more inefficiency into government by creating parallel institutions that provide the same benefits and protections? To appease people who don't like our use of a word? Because it has a deep, religious meaning to them? What about the deep, religious meaning it holds for us?

Oh, come on F'losrix...You should know better. You know that, in this country, your not allowed to be religious unless you are heterosexual and Christian. Come on now, what were you thinking? ;)
I suppose the problem is that I dared to think in the first place. :lol:

Gays can think? From what the Religionists say, you are too busy having wild, anonymous sex every second that you don't have time to think... :wink: :lol:

[F'losrix]

mODULAR mAN wrote: F'losrix wrote: Enoch wrote: F'losrix wrote: Why introduce yet more inefficiency into government by creating parallel institutions that provide the same benefits and protections? To appease people who don't like our use of a word? Because it has a deep, religious meaning to them? What about the deep, religious meaning it holds for us?

Oh, come on F'losrix...You should know better. You know that, in this country, your not allowed to be religious unless you are heterosexual and Christian. Come on now, what were you thinking? ;)
I suppose the problem is that I dared to think in the first place. :lol:

Gays can think? From what the Religionists say, you are too busy having wild, anonymous sex every second that you don't have time to think... :wink: :lol:
Only in their fantasies. I've never had anonymous sex.

[Mare Tranquillity]

F'losrix wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: F'losrix wrote: Enoch wrote: F'losrix wrote: Why introduce yet more inefficiency into government by creating parallel institutions that provide the same benefits and protections? To appease people who don't like our use of a word? Because it has a deep, religious meaning to them? What about the deep, religious meaning it holds for us?

Oh, come on F'losrix...You should know better. You know that, in this country, your not allowed to be religious unless you are heterosexual and Christian. Come on now, what were you thinking? ;)
I suppose the problem is that I dared to think in the first place. :lol:

Gays can think? From what the Religionists say, you are too busy having wild, anonymous sex every second that you don't have time to think... :wink: :lol:
Only in their fantasies. I've never had anonymous sex.

Maybe that's why Republicans are soooo down on gay people, they think that gays are having more sex than them.

[Enoch]

Mare Tranquillity wrote: F'losrix wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: F'losrix wrote: Enoch wrote: F'losrix wrote: Why introduce yet more inefficiency into government by creating parallel institutions that provide the same benefits and protections? To appease people who don't like our use of a word? Because it has a deep, religious meaning to them? What about the deep, religious meaning it holds for us?

Oh, come on F'losrix...You should know better. You know that, in this country, your not allowed to be religious unless you are heterosexual and Christian. Come on now, what were you thinking? ;)
I suppose the problem is that I dared to think in the first place. :lol:

Gays can think? From what the Religionists say, you are too busy having wild, anonymous sex every second that you don't have time to think... :wink: :lol:
Only in their fantasies. I've never had anonymous sex.

Maybe that's why Republicans are soooo down on gay people, they think that gays are having more sex than them.

That would explain a lot :lol: