Gay Marriage? (Rudy Giuliani, party, gay people, senator)

[Yeledaf]

Marriage is the union of one man and one women.

If we alter that definition, and call the union of two men or two women a "marriage", how can we forbid the further expansion of the term to encompass the marriage of one man and three women, or one woman and four men, or a man and a hula hoop, or a woman and her chihuahua, or the New York Yankees and their attorneys?

Change is incremental, remember?

[Sporin]

If "Marriage" is a word the church is so fond of, I say let them keep it.

Here in Vermont we have Civil Unions and I think that's a great way to go. I have a number of gay friends, both single and CU'ed and they are all quite content with that as well.

I also think the Federal Gov't should leave social issues up to the states.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by Sporin

If "Marriage" is a word the church is so fond of, I say let them keep it.

Here in Vermont we have Civil Unions and I think that's a great way to go. I have a number of gay friends, both single and CU'ed and they are all quite content with that as well.

I also think the Federal Gov't should leave social issues up to the states.

It's not a question of "church." It's a question of how we define civilized, stable Western society.

Having said that, I agree with you about the "civil unions" legal solution, and your opinion on the feds leaving social issues to the states. Especially when it comes to abortion.

[boiseguy]

a dog can't sign a marriage license... nor can a hoola hoop..
A straight man who wants to marry 3 women can do that in his religion, but its not recognized by the state, But he can marry one of them under the state... so he's not left out of marriage.. two people... its not a hard concept...calling marriage anything other than what it is.. is discrimination.
Creating a Different name for Gay people is saying that what they are doing is not the same as what a straight people are doing. And don't bring kids into it. Gay people adopt kids, as well as straight people who are unable to have kids
it comes down to this.. marriage is marriage.. whoever you married is your personal business... don't give me rights to marry but back hand slap me by calling it something other than marriage. not gay marriage.. not civil union..
just.. "Marriage"
people are making the issue harder than what it is because of their internal fears and issues with the topic. People agree that gay people should not be discriminated against.. but somewhere in their mind they do not view it as equal to a straight marriage.. That should not be distinguished by the Government. But the churches can do that...

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by boiseguy

a dog can't sign a marriage license... nor can a hoola hoop..
A straight man who wants to marry 3 women can do that in his religion, but its not recognized by the state, But he can marry one of them under the state... so he's not left out of marriage.. two people... its not a hard concept...calling marriage anything other than what it is.. is discrimination.
Creating a Different name for Gay people is saying that what they are doing is not the same as what a straight people are doing. And don't bring kids into it. Gay people adopt kids, as well as straight people who are unable to have kids
it comes down to this.. marriage is marriage.. whoever you married is your personal business... don't give me rights to marry but back hand slap me by calling it something other than marriage. not gay marriage.. not civil union..
just.. "Marriage"
people are making the issue harder than what it is because of their internal fears and issues with the topic. People agree that gay people should not be discriminated against.. but somewhere in their mind they do not view it as equal to a straight marriage.. That should not be distinguished by the Government. But the churches can do that...

Dude, we talked yesterday. You want to change the definition of marriage, I don't. It's as simple as that.

Feel free to change all the definitions you want, as long as you do it in the privacy of your own home, and don't try to impose your opinions on the rest of us. (Good luck with "dead", by the way. )

[TXboomerang]

Creating a Different name for Gay people is saying that what they are doing is not the same as what a straight people are doing.

Yep, it is different. Unless it would be a man and woman, it is a different combination.

people are making the issue harder than what it is because of their internal fears and issues with the topic.

No, some people just stick to their opinions and don't change them because someone keeps insisting that they have to change them.


I read an article not long ago by a happy man ("gay" man) who thought it would be interesting to come up with a unique term for a homosexual comittment. He looked at it as an opportunity to distinguish it as something not only deserving of recognition, but deserving of being uniquely named.

[rd2007]

Originally Posted by GottaHerdOn

You're eyes have been corupted by the conversative right that has put our country 60 years behind everywhere else... Look at Canada, much smaller, but a much better place to live. Because they don't have as much conservative things messing everything up. If our country had more liberals and moderates we would be MUCH MUCH better off

so you've lived in Canada? or reading about it in wikipedia is enough for you to form this opinion??

Originally Posted by GottaHerdOn

No... I currently have NOTHING. I have no rights with my boy friend. We've dated long term and lived together over a year. But I have no rights with him. Not that I really want them right now. But after I graduate with my undergrad and get a job. It would be nice to have a legal marriage with all the rights and benefits thereof.

ahh, college student, you've got it all down. I remember back when I used to know everything... now I know that I'll learn something new every day and it's only taken me 40 years to get here...

Originally Posted by GottaHerdOn

good post on marriage.... ify on children. I can tell you right now I'm having kids. If anyone ever tries to take them from me, I will fight to the death. My kids will not be influenced to be gay or bisexual, if they are great. I will teach them acceptance, tolorance and to treat every person as they should be treated. If those children have to deal with having gay parents, well IMO anyone who gives them a hard time about that needs to quit hating. Those same kids probably have parents that are against inter-racial marriage, and other "TABOO" issues

nice of you to think of the kids...


and if one more person uses the term progressive I'm gonna scream... progressive towards what?? complete destruction???

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Marriage is the union of one man and one women.

If we alter that definition, and call the union of two men or two women a "marriage", how can we forbid the further expansion of the term to encompass the marriage of one man and three women, or one woman and four men, or a man and a hula hoop, or a woman and her chihuahua, or the New York Yankees and their attorneys?

Change is incremental, remember?

Marriage is a CONTRACT. Literally, that's all it is, legally speaking.

Under the law, ANIMALS, CHILDREN, and INANIMATE OBJECTS do not have capacity to contract, and a contract between children, or a child and an adult, is void and/or voidable, depending on the situation.

Two grown, consenting adults, however, should be allowed to enter into the contract, and just as we never thought twice about the "next" consequences of allowing blacks to enter into marriage contracts with whites after the end of segregation, it is pointless to worry your head with the most bizarre combinations of "what ifs" down the line. Slippery slope is again, a lazy man's argument.... or the argument of someone who HAS NO argument.



Good thing you're still thinking about that "incremental change" thing, though. I knew that once you realized it had nothing to do with math, you'd come around.

[boiseguy]

there's a difference between changing what marriage is in national law and changing it in a religious context...
People who were of different races, found it illegal to marry...and now its not.. but there are still places they can go in america where they get dirty looks and people do not agree...that is the only argument I'm making to include someone of the same sex...its a union of two people... instead of looking at what makes it different.. I'm just looking at what makes it the same... if you want to talk about differences.. just like it was mentioned before.. people of different hair colours or nationalities.. should not be able to marry.. because it isn't traditional..... I'm sorry.. I understand where you're coming from.. but its just not logical...

[texanborn]

Originally Posted by GottaHerdOn

You're eyes have been corupted by the conversative right that has put our country 60 years behind everywhere else... Look at Canada, much smaller, but a much better place to live. Because they don't have as much conservative things messing everything up. If our country had more liberals and moderates we would be MUCH MUCH better off

Your eyes have been blinded by the commie liberal left! If you think this country is 60 years behind everyother country, you must not get out to often.....You think Canada is a better country only because it is more liberal ! I happen to think that it is your liberal ways and those liberals like you is what's messing up this country, not conservatives.