U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:31 PM
 
920 posts, read 477,171 times
Reputation: 638

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
Nope, I've just read the thing. King Solomon had 700 wives plus another 300 concubines.

Of course women did not have multiple spouses! Women were property.

In what way does government extract revenue from marriage? Do you mean the nominal fee for a marriage license?
Marriage licenses, marriage tax penalties. Previously, blood tests were required in many states, etc.

Of course, back in biblical times, women were property, whether married or not, and they were raped and abused wantonly without the protection of a husband, so yeah, there was a tradeoff. There were probably a lot more women than men during that time, too, so those horrible men that married up all those women and provided them protection may have actually not been so horrible.

I wasn't around then, but if you take this in context, it makes some sense that men had many wives, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:32 PM
 
Location: My House
33,120 posts, read 26,919,810 times
Reputation: 24462
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Thank you. I realize that you may disagree with me. And for the record, my son is gay and I don't belong to a church. I am not aware of any religion that does not recognize gays, but I do know that the act of homosexuality has been deemed a sin in all monotheist religions. I also know that everyone sins, myself included, so I am in no place to judge you or anyone else. I do understand the issues faced by gay couples when it comes to equal treatment under the law related to the privileges conferred on married couples and I believe that gay couples should be ensured those same privileges...just not at the expense of redefining marriage.

As I stated in another post, I voted in WA state for the Everything but Marriage law that was passed and enacted and provided for gay couples who registered their civil unions to receive all the benefits they seek with regard to property/medical/financial/etc. protections, as it should be.

I do not support "denying gay people of being with the one they love" or denying gay couples the legal protections they are entitled to under the law. I am not scared of gay people and I do not hate gay people. I just do not see where it benefits society as a whole to redefine a centuries old institution of 3% of the population, when such benefits can be provided legally and we can avoid issues like bullying certain religious businesses with the cudjel of the State.
Don't want to engage in a religious debate, but are you against people who are not religious getting married?

What about people from polytheistic religions?

Because, they get married, too.

I don't think that we can have a government-sanctioned institution (which is what marriage is in the US) that excludes adults from the right to marry the partner of their choice. Sexual orientation isn't really the issue. Equality is the issue.

If you don't belong to a church, why does this bother you? Would you rather gay people "sin extra" by being unmarried while having loving relationships that include sex or would you rather they marry and form strong family bonds so that they help create a more stable society?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:33 PM
 
920 posts, read 477,171 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
I don't care about your values or opinions. I care when you try to enforce laws that violate the constitutional protections afforded all citizens against me. Keep your values and opinions on how to live your life in your life and let me live mine with the same legal protections that you have.

I am not trying to enforce anything. Point me to any law that anyone is seeking to enforce that states that gay people are forbidden to marry?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,063 posts, read 1,727,922 times
Reputation: 1901
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
Why don't transgender people deserve the same protections?
I believe they deserve to be well treated in the workplace in that if their private preferences were made known they should not be fired or bullied, but on the other hand I also believe that males should not demand to be allowed to use the ladies room or force an employer to allow them to show up for work wearing ladies clothing. Things like that. They can dress any way they want to on their off time doesnt bother me one bit. I just don't think an employer should be forced to allow a man to show up for work dressed in drag.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:41 PM
 
920 posts, read 477,171 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Don't want to engage in a religious debate, but are you against people who are not religious getting married?

What about people from polytheistic religions?

Because, they get married, too.

I don't think that we can have a government-sanctioned institution (which is what marriage is in the US) that excludes adults from the right to marry the partner of their choice. Sexual orientation isn't really the issue. Equality is the issue.

If you don't belong to a church, why does this bother you? Would you rather gay people "sin extra" by being unmarried while having loving relationships that include sex or would you rather they marry and form strong family bonds so that they help create a more stable society?

It doesn't bother me on a religious level. It bothers me on a logical level.

I have no issue with gay people entering domestic partnerships in which every legal benefit they seek is conferred upon them.

I agree that a stable society is better for everyone.

I do not agree that equality is the issue. If equality were the issue, then gays would be fighting to legalize polygamy, too. If the issue is to make all coupling equal, then there should be no distinction at all with regard to number of individuals, ages, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

Currently, any male is equally free to marry any female and vise versa. The fact that a male is not attracted to a female, does not constitute inequality under the law. The fact that a male demands that the law recognize his preference to marry another man is preferential treatment under the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:43 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,355,944 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Don't want to engage in a religious debate, but are you against people who are not religious getting married?

What about people from polytheistic religions?

Because, they get married, too.

I don't think that we can have a government-sanctioned institution (which is what marriage is in the US) that excludes adults from the right to marry the partner of their choice. Sexual orientation isn't really the issue. Equality is the issue.

If you don't belong to a church, why does this bother you? Would you rather gay people "sin extra" by being unmarried while having loving relationships that include sex or would you rather they marry and form strong family bonds so that they help create a more stable society?
A religious argument against gay marriage, equal rights for gays, etc doesn't hold water any way because such religious tenants have to be applied so randomly. For instance, the Bible makes two mentions of homosexuality being bad. However, it has 10 times as many mentions of pork and shellfish being bad. None of the people who oppose equality are also trying to get pork and shellfish pulled from store shelves and restaurant menus so the entire movement is very clearly about closemindedness and anger, not religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:44 PM
 
7,405 posts, read 4,442,210 times
Reputation: 8376
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
It ended protection not just for LGBT, but for straight people as well. The laws stated "based on gender identity or sexual orientation", straight people are included in that as well.

Sure. Do we have a lot of trouble with straight people being discriminated against unfairly? I don't believe we do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:46 PM
 
920 posts, read 477,171 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76 View Post
There is no logical reason to deny equal rights to people. It's hard for me to understand your opinion because I do not see it as a valid opinion. I do not think that you hate me or are scared of me. I think that you are afraid that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and you are afraid of treating homosexuals equal under the law. I also do not believe that you are able to recognize your own fear but I hope for the sake of your son that you are able to overcome it.

Why would I be "afraid that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality"? That doesn't even make sense??? I do believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law.

I'm sorry you don't understand my opinion, but that doesn't translate to me fearing anything. That is about as logical as saying that if I don't agree that pizza tastes good, I must fear and hate it.

People are allowed to have different values and opinions without fear and hatred of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,754,029 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
I am not trying to enforce anything. Point me to any law that anyone is seeking to enforce that states that gay people are forbidden to marry?
The law of mississippi.
It is currently illegal for me to get married to my fiancee. It is also illegal for us to have a civil union, a domestic partnership, or have any other contractual agreement that resembles marriage.

"Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state"

"Any marriage between persons of the same gender is prohibited and null and void from the beginning. Any marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction does not constitute a legal or valid marriage in Mississippi"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,355,944 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
I believe they deserve to be well treated in the workplace in that if their private preferences were made known they should not be fired or bullied, but on the other hand I also believe that males should not demand to be allowed to use the ladies room or force an employer to allow them to show up for work wearing ladies clothing. Things like that. They can dress any way they want to on their off time doesnt bother me one bit. I just don't think an employer should be forced to allow a man to show up for work dressed in drag.
Men and women can have their genders legally changed. If a man legally becomes a woman after transitioning physically then how would her using the ladies' room impact anyone? Transgender people are less likely to commit sexual assault than straight people and transgender women(as in male-to-female) are almost all straight(as in attracted to men). If sexual encounters/assaults are what you're worried about then giving transgender women access to ladies' rooms is the best solution. If what you're worried about is people being uncomfortable over a transgender person using their bathroom, that's not a valid argument. For decades blacks weren't allowed to use whites' bathrooms and we put an end to that because equality takes precedent over your feeling icky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top