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.
The voters of this state overwhelmingly approved that marriage is between a man and a woman. While some attitudes have changed on this matter, including mine, the state doesn't seem in a hurry to correct that. I realize you may not be looking for a legal commitment (marriage) but why would you consider a state that is unlikely to ever approve gay marriage? If I were gay I think I'd be looking elsewhere. Change is mostly unwelcome here.
Isn't that sad?! People here always talk about freedom, pursuit of happiness bla bla bla and then they turn around and keep other people from being happy even though it has nothing to do with them. Hypocrites.
Mind your own f... business.
It's ridiculous that people should live somewhere else because they can't have the relationship with the person they love in the place they love. We are still living in the middle ages.
Btw. This is a general statement and not addresses at Myrc. It seemed to me it could look like it. Just wanted to clarify.
What exactly is a "city ordinance commending [gay people for their] lifestyle?"
Can you give an example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbiadata
I think that was a mean way of saying an ordinance against discriminating against people because they're gay.
Wow, I clearly hit a nerve. I wasn't being mean at all. I was referring to cities which, in an attempt to be "progressive," pass anti-discrimination laws or declare that there will be a "gay pride day." While these types of things seem mostly well-intentioned, I don't believe that they truly help the cause. I don't have studies to prove it, but I doubt that gay people in said city somehow feel more welcomed, safe, or accepted because of a vague anti-discrimination policy or because there is a gay pride day. And people who are already against it will probably be more turned off by a lifestyle with which they disagree, rather than become more accepting because of it.
I think such ordinances, policies, and "days" are a band-aid approach to something that is a much larger issue to me, which is freedom. If we want true marriage equality in the United States - which I fully support - then we should work to get government out of marriage. Two consenting adults, regardless of race or sexual orientation, should be allowed to get married, in a ceremony of their choosing, and have it be a valid contract. Why does the government need to recognize it or authorize it?!? Why should certain tax benefits be granted for one couple versus another? Why should hospital visitation rights be based on the government's approval or disapproval? It shouldn't be up to states, or cities, or counties, or the federal government, whether two consenting adults can get married. Any level of government interference into the process is compromising the freedom that I believe people should have. Adults who disagree with such a lifestyle shouldn't get a say, because it doesn't involve them.
Please don't jump to conclusions next time, and assume things about someone you've never met.
If we want true marriage equality in the United States - which I fully support - then we should work to get government out of marriage. Two consenting adults, regardless of race or sexual orientation, should be allowed to get married, in a ceremony of their choosing, and have it be a valid contract. Why does the government need to recognize it or authorize it?!? ... Any level of government interference into the process is compromising the freedom that I believe people should have.
This might be the dumbest thing I've read on this forum.
Ever.
Look up what a "contract" is, then explain to me how the government can NOT be involved in one and still be called "valid?"
Who would validate it? What if someone breaks the contract?
Last edited by Art123; 01-09-2014 at 12:08 PM..
Reason: I'd like to order an omelette, hold the eggs.
This might be the dumbest thing I've read on this forum.
Ever.
Look up what a "contract" is, then explain to me how the government can NOT be involved in one and still be called "valid?"
Who would validate it? What if someone breaks the contract?
It's not dumb. It's really quite simple. Allow people to make their own marriage contracts. They are the sole decision makers as to what is in the contract and what the terms are, similar to a business contract. The contract would be registered with the state, but the state would have no say in the drafting process or the appropriateness of the contract, so long as the two adults involved were consenting. The contract would be recognized as legal. Arbitration would occur in the courts, if necessary.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? This is as supportive of freedom and civil rights as you can get. An enlightened and open-minded soul such as yourself should be able to understand and get behind such an idea.
Isn't that sad?! People here always talk about freedom, pursuit of happiness bla bla bla and then they turn around and keep other people from being happy even though it has nothing to do with them. Hypocrites.
Mind your own f... business.
It's ridiculous that people should live somewhere else because they can't have the relationship with the person they love in the place they love. We are still living in the middle ages.
Btw. This is a general statement and not addresses at Myrc. It seemed to me it could look like it. Just wanted to clarify.
Yes, it is. But admittedly, it took the Supreme Court (was it that or another, I can't remember) ruling for me to see that. I wish our state government would open their eyes, but I don't expect that anytime soon. And as I stated, I'm not gay, so it doesn't now nor is it ever likely to affect me personally.
Until our state laws change, OP may not be as happy as he wants to be here.
It's not dumb. It's really quite simple. Allow people to make their own marriage contracts. They are the sole decision makers as to what is in the contract and what the terms are, similar to a business contract. The contract would be registered with the state, but the state would have no say in the drafting process or the appropriateness of the contract, so long as the two adults involved were consenting. The contract would be recognized as legal. Arbitration would occur in the courts, if necessary.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? This is as supportive of freedom and civil rights as you can get. An enlightened and open-minded soul such as yourself should be able to understand and get behind such an idea.
So you are moving from no government involvement to a very large amount of government involvement.
You realize that a HUGE part of our laws deal with contracts? It's a major part of law school. Business can't be the "sole decision makers" in what's in their contracts. That's ridiculous. They have to comport with the law.
As "sole decision makers," could a "valid" wedding contract say something like, the woman has to sleep in a tent during menses? And if it turns out she wasn't a virgin at the beginning of the contract, can we all stone her to death in the town square?
What would divorce be based on? The whims of whoever is their in your district?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenville
I was referring to cities which, in an attempt to be "progressive," pass anti-discrimination laws...
So such laws are "commending the gay lifestyle?" Do you think gay people have not been discriminated against?
We have very recently had laws making it illegal to even be gay. And you don't think they deserve the same protections that we have given women, minorities and religious groups?
Is it ok, in your opinion, to deny someone entrance to a restaurant because they are gay, or black or Christian?
Should an employer be allowed to hire and fire based on sexual orientation, race, or religion?
What protects people from such things? Human kind-heartedness?
So you are moving from no government involvement to a very large amount of government involvement.
No I'm not. I'm removing the government's say over who can and cannot get married. That's huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
You realize that a HUGE part of our laws deal with contracts? It's a major part of law school. Business can't be the "sole decision makers" in what's in their contracts. That's ridiculous. They have to comport with the law.
No, Art, I don't realize that a huge part of our laws deal with contracts. I'm a moron who routinely drools on myself, which naturally makes typing on a keyboard very difficult. In the rare case nobody has ever told you, you come across in a very condescending way.
Allowing two consenting adults to draft their own marriage contract would mean changing the current law from one which says the government has a say in the contract, to one which says that the contents of the contract are solely between the two individuals. This isn't difficult, Art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
As "sole decision makers," could a "valid" wedding contract say something like, the woman has to sleep in a tent during menses? And if it turns out she wasn't a virgin at the beginning of the contract, can we all stone her to death in the town square?
If the two parties freely agreed to that contract, including the punishment for lying, then sure. Who am I to say that their decision is crazy? If that works for them, and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, that's fine with me. Why do you have a problem with it? Are you saying that you feel it is your right to decide what is best for someone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
What would divorce be based on? The whims of whoever is their in your district?
No, divorce would be based on what is stipulated in the contract. I feel like you're overthinking this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
So such laws are "commending the gay lifestyle?" Do you think gay people have not been discriminated against?
The laws themselves don't commend the gay lifestyle, but some use them as a way to suggest that his or her city is "gay friendly." We've all heard someone say, "Our government supports homosexuality" even though that isn't what the law is really saying. I've heard it many times from those in the Columbia forum, who say that Columbia is "gay friendly' because it has an anti-discrimination law against homosexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
We have very recently had laws making it illegal to even be gay. And you don't think they deserve the same protections that we have given women, minorities and religious groups?
Of course I think they deserve the same protection. I don't think ANYONE should be the victim of a crime for their gender, nationality, religion, or lifestyle choice. Which is why I think homosexual couples should be as free as heterosexual couples to get married without interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
Is it ok, in your opinion, to deny someone entrance to a restaurant because they are gay, or black or Christian?
Should an employer be allowed to hire and fire based on sexual orientation, race, or religion?
Of course those things aren't okay, and I am offended that you are suggesting I would. Please step away from your liberal knee-jerk reactions to things you don't understand, and READ what I have stated. I support gay rights, which to me, is part of supporting human rights. I am tired of distinctions being made for this group and that group. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and not to be discriminated against. I have never said anything to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
What protects people from such things? Human kind-heartedness?
A government that focuses on people, and not labels, is what ideally protects people from such things. Why do we need to label people as a certain ethnicity, or a certain religion, or a certain sexual orientation? Seriously, why do some people insist on that? Because it really shouldn't matter when we are talking about laws for the citizens of a city, county, state, or nation.
Unfortunately, people on both sides of the political aisle get caught up in labels, whether they be to segregate a certain group or give special treatment to a certain group. Neither is right in my opinion.
The voters of this state overwhelmingly approved that marriage is between a man and a woman. While some attitudes have changed on this matter, including mine, the state doesn't seem in a hurry to correct that. I realize you may not be looking for a legal commitment (marriage) but why would you consider a state that is unlikely to ever approve gay marriage? If I were gay I think I'd be looking elsewhere. Change is mostly unwelcome here.
You don't just pick up and move to another state from the state you were born and raised in and love with your aging mama still here. She's on my side. Also, it is unconstitutional for something to be put on a ballot that can lead to a majority denying the minority the same right the majority has, in this case the right to marry someone they love "that way" who loves them back "that way." And not everyone who wants to get married does so for pregnancy, francis.
Allowing two consenting adults to draft their own marriage contract would mean changing the current law from one which says the government has a say in the contract, to one which says that the contents of the contract are solely between the two individuals. This isn't difficult, Art.
If the two parties freely agreed to that contract, including the punishment for lying, then sure. Who am I to say that their decision is crazy? If that works for them, and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, that's fine with me. Why do you have a problem with it? Are you saying that you feel it is your right to decide what is best for someone else?
No, divorce would be based on what is stipulated in the contract. I feel like you're overthinking this.
Works for them? When people agree, they don't need the courts, or the law.
You're way over-simplifying it. Say a couple's contract says their marriage is a Christian one, and Biblical rules apply. Sounds pretty common, actually. Many marriage contracts state that the marriage is "under the laws of God."
So the man expects the woman to sleep in a tent during her period, and of course obey his every command. He also assumed she was a virgin on their wedding day.
Is she just SOL when he sues for a divorce because she refuses to obey him and go sleep in that tent? He gets everything he wants because she broke the contract? We all can go stone her in the streets? Really?
You're calling for lawlessness in a lot of ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenville
A government that focuses on people, and not labels, is what ideally protects people from such things. Why do we need to label people as a certain ethnicity, or a certain religion, or a certain sexual orientation? Seriously, why do some people insist on that? Because it really shouldn't matter when we are talking about laws for the citizens of a city, county, state, or nation.
Unfortunately, people on both sides of the political aisle get caught up in labels, whether they be to segregate a certain group or give special treatment to a certain group. Neither is right in my opinion.
Why do we need labels in the laws? Because laws are written in reaction to reality, not lofty rhetoric.
So laws have to be written, using labels, (aka words) to specifically insure that people are being treated fairly.
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.
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.
Are you Steve Doocy?
In the rare case nobody has ever told you, you come across in a very condescending way.
