U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2012, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,588 posts, read 10,745,752 times
Reputation: 9292

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. There's nothing romantic about it.
Well said. Love and marriage are sometimes to separate entities. Marriage of convenience or marriage to increase power between two families has been going on for centuries. This issue is about power and status..Gays and lesbians have this notion that if they can be part of this social contract that they will get more power and respect...well- that might not happen. When say two royal families wanted to increase power....they would unite through marriage...but....in the long term the power would reside in the production of an heir..the deal was not finalized till an heir was produced...That is a rarity for gays and lesbians...

 
Old 11-29-2012, 06:20 AM
 
17,297 posts, read 25,664,733 times
Reputation: 8567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
Well said. Love and marriage are sometimes to separate entities. Marriage of convenience or marriage to increase power between two families has been going on for centuries. This issue is about power and status..Gays and lesbians have this notion that if they can be part of this social contract that they will get more power and respect...well- that might not happen. When say two royal families wanted to increase power....they would unite through marriage...but....in the long term the power would reside in the production of an heir..the deal was not finalized till an heir was produced...That is a rarity for gays and lesbians...

Another "speaker for the gays" who is not gay (presumably).


Wonderful!



Keep your own intentions and house in order.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
29,041 posts, read 44,951,970 times
Reputation: 20423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
Well said. Love and marriage are sometimes to separate entities. Marriage of convenience or marriage to increase power between two families has been going on for centuries. This issue is about power and status..Gays and lesbians have this notion that if they can be part of this social contract that they will get more power and respect...well- that might not happen. When say two royal families wanted to increase power....they would unite through marriage...but....in the long term the power would reside in the production of an heir..the deal was not finalized till an heir was produced...That is a rarity for gays and lesbians...
No, gays and lesbians (presumably) have the notion that marriage will afford them the ~1000 rights & benefits associated with legal unions. I've never heard anyone say their goals are power & respect, at least not in relation to the issue of marriage.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 07:50 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,092,585 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
You may now kiss the applicant | Danny Westneat | The Seattle Times

A lib-leaning Seattle Times columnist named Danny Westneat wrote an interesting piece on some of the unintended consequences of "gay marriage" which will become law in Washington state next week. It was signed into law by outgoing Gov. Gregoire. But here in WA a law can be challenged by getting enough signatures; then it goes to a vote of the people and is either upheld or rejected. "Gay marriage" was upheld by the voters by 53-46.

The way I see it, what two consenting adults want to do is none of my business. Three consenting adults, for that matter. But my objection to the "gay marriage" issue was that this was an English word with a longstanding meaning, and now we are re-defining it. Why couldn't we have just passed legislation allowing 'civil unions?' I've seen polls that found that even most evangelicals are ok with that.

The column by Westneat shows some of the unintended consequences when we redefine words. County auditors around the state are having to re-tool all their forms due to the new law. No more brides and grooms. The state Dept of Health chimed in with the suggestion of "spouse A" and "spouse B." I wonder how much that idea cost taxpayers. Did they focus-group it? Your tax dollars at work. "It drains the romance right out of it, doesn't it?" says Chelan County auditor Skip Moore.

Words have always been very important to me. One thing I've always noticed in politics is that people who have a constant need to play games with words, are often on the wrong track. Orwell covered the topic pretty well.
It's the new apathy in our country where everyone is forced to "go along, to get along."

Government endorses marriage for only one reason, because men and women make babies, and babies grow to become our future, and the best way to raise these children is in a marriage where both parents are legally bound to raise and care for them. The marriage ceremony, fairytale wedding gowns, hospital visitation rights, and public displays of mutual love and affection are all ancillary aspects to traditional marriage. Sadly, the ancillary aspects to marriage are all our modern, apathetic culture thinks marriage is about.

Children? Hollywood has made single women with a love child as the new norm. The black culture has made baby mommas and "hit it and quit it" the new norm. The new modern cultural decline, to destroy the traditional family, and wipe out traditional moral and ethical values is marching onward.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,921 posts, read 19,107,941 times
Reputation: 9155
A bunch of crybabies bitching about nonsense? I'd say that was a pretty predictable consequence, and certainly entertaining.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,455 posts, read 6,303,630 times
Reputation: 3583
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
The homosexual doesn’t want “equality” instead the homosexual wants marriage redefined and expanded for everyone in society so that it is no longer a man and a woman. Homosexualized “marriage” will never be the equivalent equal to man / woman marriage because homosexuals are unable to become husband and wife i.e. the unification of the two sexes.
Who are you to pronounce that homosexuals do not want equality? This homosexual, and all other homosexuals that I know want equality, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:47 AM
 
3,421 posts, read 2,586,902 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
You may now kiss the applicant | Danny Westneat | The Seattle Times

A lib-leaning Seattle Times columnist named Danny Westneat wrote an interesting piece on some of the unintended consequences of "gay marriage" which will become law in Washington state next week. It was signed into law by outgoing Gov. Gregoire. But here in WA a law can be challenged by getting enough signatures; then it goes to a vote of the people and is either upheld or rejected. "Gay marriage" was upheld by the voters by 53-46.

The way I see it, what two consenting adults want to do is none of my business. Three consenting adults, for that matter. But my objection to the "gay marriage" issue was that this was an English word with a longstanding meaning, and now we are re-defining it. Why couldn't we have just passed legislation allowing 'civil unions?' I've seen polls that found that even most evangelicals are ok with that.

The column by Westneat shows some of the unintended consequences when we redefine words. County auditors around the state are having to re-tool all their forms due to the new law. No more brides and grooms. The state Dept of Health chimed in with the suggestion of "spouse A" and "spouse B." I wonder how much that idea cost taxpayers. Did they focus-group it? Your tax dollars at work. "It drains the romance right out of it, doesn't it?" says Chelan County auditor Skip Moore.

Words have always been very important to me. One thing I've always noticed in politics is that people who have a constant need to play games with words, are often on the wrong track. Orwell covered the topic pretty well.
Really? these are the unintended consequences? Are we supposed to be upset because...gasp...they have to re-tool all the forms for the new law. Oh, the horror
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:50 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,092,585 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Another "speaker for the gays" who is not gay (presumably).


Wonderful!



Keep your own intentions and house in order.
And yet it is the gay community that is so presumptuous that they demand that we must endorse their relationships. Why don't you keep your intentions in your house?
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:53 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,092,585 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
Who are you to pronounce that homosexuals do not want equality? This homosexual, and all other homosexuals that I know want equality, nothing more, nothing less.
Meanwhile the bisexual person who wants to marry a man and a woman is not allowed the same equality, oh the shame and horror of bigotry and small minded moral conservatives.
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:56 AM
 
3,421 posts, read 2,586,902 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Minorities still have rights in this country, ya know... my people (the Jews) only make up 2% of the population, so would it be fair to take our equal status too? I mean, who cares about a measly 2% when it comes to freedom and equality? I think we should also stop appeasing disabled folks with ADA regulations, since they're not a huge percentage of the population either. Whiny minorities!!

Time for a quote: "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

Furthermore, if your marriage is a "meaningless, empty function devoid of value" simply because some gay couples are also married, it probably wasn't the best marriage anyway. And it's not like straight people are doing it justice, with the current divorce rate being something like 60%. Not to mention the number of quickie weddings (a la Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian), shotgun weddings, "trophy wives," gold-diggers, green card marriages, etc, etc. Sorry to break the news, but marriage hasn't been that sacred or meaningful since WAY before gays decided to join the party. I bet they'll do a better job of it too, given that shotgun weddings are impossible - and given how long many of them have been waiting, with the same partner no less, it's much more likely to last.
This is the second thing that drives me crazy about anti-gay people, they act as if us heterosexuals treat marriage like the sacred cow it should be. Between divorce, cheat, SPOUSAL ABUSE, staying in the marriage just for kids, celebrities treating marriage like its a weekend event, we have no room to be lecturing gay and lesbians about the virtues of marriage.
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.


Closed Thread

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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