Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 03-07-2014, 08:49 AM
 
1,138 posts, read 1,038,755 times
Reputation: 623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
The system you wish for is really the system we have.

Government has no involvement whatsoever in religious marriage (except some states do have laws on the books that ban private, polygamous associations - laws that I believe are blatantly unconstitutional (a judge in Utah recently ruled Utah's law is)).

Separate from religious or familiar marriage, we have secular, civil contracts within the law - they happen to be called civil marriages. If the name of the secular, civil law/contract bothers you, I'll gladly support your effort to change the name. Give me (as a homosexual) equal access to civil marriage law today, and tomorrow I'll join in your movement to change the name to whatever you want.
The problem is the word '' marriage ''. It doesn't apply to gays. The definition is only between a man and a woman. Even though you technically don't need to be religious or have a priest to be married, the concept is still based upon fundamental religious and social family constructs.

Therefore Marriage and Government have no business being with each other. I want the word '' Marriage '' dropped from the Government ENTIRELY. No calling it '' Civil Marriage '', no '' Marriage '' at all
The Government should only give and recognize secular Civil Contracts between people, any people regardless of relationship. Straight, gay, hell I don't even care if a Man wants to have a Civil Contract between him and his Xbox or even with multiple partners. As long as it's not being called '' Marriage '' by The State I don't care.

Marriage it's self should be a private thing among Churches, Synagogues (among other religions), and families, as that is what the term entails. It would not be recognized by the Government either. The definition would remain the same, as it should be IMO, and everyone would have equality. Best of all no one would have to have their Religious Rights and beliefs compromised.A Christian owned bakery would probably have no problem baking a cake for a lesbian couple's '' Civil Contract '' ceremony.

The debate would be over. It would no longer be an issue.

 
Old 03-07-2014, 08:50 AM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,658,346 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by CousinMaynard View Post
The homosexual offenders (Corinthians 6:9-10) playing the moral high-ground, THERE'S a doomed path!

You know, because Dr. Drew's over opinionated and under educated sidekick should be everybody's "go-to guy" when it comes to moral authority

not surprising to hear such racist steroetypes from that very prejudice demographic. west coast republican (castro district elitist?) could prolly tell some tales about that.
He has posted that video here several times lately. It's offensive.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 08:51 AM
 
13,819 posts, read 5,545,112 times
Reputation: 8509
Same purpose as heterosexual marriage I'd imagine. For some people, it's a tax/contract/privilege thing, for some it's purely religious/ceremonial/whatever, for some it's making a lifetime formal commitment to someone else in front of friends/family/god/etc, and for some it might be a combo of all three or none of the above.

essentially, whatever the myriad reasons heterosexuals choose/want to be married legally, I'd wager the same apply to homosexuals.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 08:58 AM
 
1,138 posts, read 1,038,755 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by CousinMaynard View Post
The homosexual offenders (Corinthians 6:9-10) playing the moral high-ground, THERE'S a doomed path!

You know, because Dr. Drew's over opinionated and under educated sidekick should be everybody's "go-to guy" when it comes to moral authority

not surprising to hear such racist steroetypes from that very prejudice demographic. west coast republican (castro district elitist?) could prolly tell some tales about that.
LMAO what's with the hyperbole dude? What the hell does Dr. Drew have to do with this? Lol what are you even talking about?

Racist stereotypes? Lol what?

San Francisco Castro Elitist? LMAO what does that mean?

I'm sorry but I don't understand anything in your post.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 09:00 AM
 
1,026 posts, read 1,189,400 times
Reputation: 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast Republican View Post
The problem is the word '' marriage ''. It doesn't apply to gays. The definition is only between a man and a woman. Even though you technically don't need to be religious or have a priest to be married, the concept is still based upon fundamental religious and social family constructs.

Therefore Marriage and Government have no business being with each other. I want the word '' Marriage '' dropped from the Government ENTIRELY. No calling it '' Civil Marriage '', no '' Marriage '' at all
The Government should only give and recognize secular Civil Contracts between people, any people regardless of relationship. Straight, gay, hell I don't even care if a Man wants to have a Civil Contract between him and his Xbox or even with multiple partners. As long as it's not being called '' Marriage '' by The State I don't care.

Marriage it's self should be a private thing among Churches, Synagogues (among other religions), and families, as that is what the term entails. The definition would remain the same, as it should be IMO, and everyone would have equality. Best of all no one would have to have their Religious Rights and beliefs compromised.A Christian owned bakery would probably have no problem baking a cake for a lesbian couple's '' Civil Contract '' ceremony.

The debate would be over. It would no longer be an issue.
The debate will never be over because there are people who are opposed to homosexuals simply being allowed to breathe the same air.

What do you propose we do for people who were not married in a church or religious ceremony? Insist that they call their marriage of 20,40,60 years by another name? I didn't marry in a church, so should I start saying that I am civil unioned?

As a happily married person, I don't mind one bit sharing the word marriage with same sex couples.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 09:04 AM
 
15,492 posts, read 10,423,298 times
Reputation: 15746
Because they want to be miserable like everyone else - - (just kidding). I think it originally stemmed from wanting benefits, or the ease in getting those benefits. I'm not against gay marriage btw, but the hoopla is beyond obnoxious.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 09:07 AM
 
1,138 posts, read 1,038,755 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
He has posted that video here several times lately. It's offensive.
It's only offensive to The Rainbow Gestappo. Everyone else either thinks it's true, or funny. Even if they disagree with it. Except for The Rainbow Gestappo, anything that doesn't agree with their views 100% is offensive and homophobic to them. Such tolerant and open minded people they are.

I have nothing against average gay people. These people are my friends, coworkers, and loved ones. I only have a problem with The Gay Activist Mafia and their miltiant ways.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 09:11 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,070,046 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
yes you can, if you adopt your deceased boyfriends child upon his death, you then can sue on behalf of your child, in the same way Michael Jacksons family sued the doctor on behalf of his children.
You misunderstand the right I'm describing.

States allow immediate family the right to sue in court for the wrongful death of family members. If I am murdered, my father, mother, and sister can sue the murderer for my wrongful death.

You cannot sue my murderer for my wrongful death. My boyfriend cannot sue for my wrongful death. However, my legal spouse can sue for my wrongful death - that is a legal right conferred by civil marriage.

I can't contract that right into existence with my boyfriend. We can only get that right if the state lets us legally marry each other.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 09:12 AM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,658,346 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast Republican View Post
It's only offensive to The Rainbow Gestappo. Everyone else either thinks it's true, or funny. Even if they disagree with it. Except for The Rainbow Gestappo, anything that doesn't agree with their views 100% is offensive and homophobic to them. Such tolerant and open minded people they are.

I have nothing against average gay people. These people are my friends, coworkers, and loved ones. I only have a problem with The Gay Activist Mafia and their miltiant ways.
Go ahead and scream all you want. Need I remind you that your side is losing, and has almost lost? People like you are in the minority. An ever-shrinking minority.

Same-sex marriage coverage takes sharp turn as opposition fades | Fox News

Game over for the bigots. What will be your next culture war? I suppose it's a war on poor people if Paul Ryan has his way.
 
Old 03-07-2014, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,073,003 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast Republican View Post
Many people see it as an equality issue, though that's not really the goal of Gay Activists. For them gay marriage is pretty much just a way for them to push their lifestyle onto others and try to '' normalize '' it.

The Government cares about it because it's a power grab. They can get away with using Federal Activist judges to overturn the will of the people, because they know that there are enough people out there who support it. They are using the gay marriage issue as a weapon to overthrow States Rights and grow their power. The media is also in bed with them.

If this was any other issue (such as gun rights) I can guarantee you that people wouldn't allow it. Imagine if Federal Activist Judges ruled that guns are Unconstitutional over a state? People would be up in arms. And with gay marriage the Government hopes to do just that later, maybe not with guns but something else.

I wish we would get Government out of Marriage and vice versa. Then this issue wouldn't exist. Secular Civil Contracts for everyone, Marriage is for Churches, Synagogues, families etc...
We have that now, you can totally go to your church and get a religious marriage that has nothing to do with the government. So I guess you have no problem with us that don't want to have religious marriages and prefer civil marriages.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top