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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,326,022 times
Reputation: 15291

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lior Arel View Post
Yes! Like when women joined the work force and started wearing pants!
I prefer that women not wear pants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Lakes & Mountains of East TN
3,454 posts, read 7,409,159 times
Reputation: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog View Post
... so it will open many lawsuits.
Can't wait for that bruhaha.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,326,022 times
Reputation: 15291
Quote:
Originally Posted by deerislesmile View Post
I would say that most marriage ceremonies ( at least in the US) are not at all public ceremonies...the vast majority are private celebrations and attended by invitees, not any Joe Shmo that wants to walk in off the street. But I have a feeling it's not the ceremony itself that you really dissaprove of, but rather the marriage itself- kinda like complaining about the design of a gas pedal when talking about peope who drive too fast, isn't it?
No. not really. It's more like complaining about people who think that "apples" should be called "gazorninplats."


Quote:
I don't know many people who use the terms "bride" and "groom" in any capacity except to describe the couple in relation to their actual wedding ceremony/wedding day.
Well, that's the capacity that we are discussing, isn't it?

Quote:
Civility is defined as formal politeness, or the act of showing regard for others. What civility is lost by same-sex marriage? They are not looking to prevent heteros from being married, but in the reverse... what civility are you showing for them? If there's anyone throwing away civility, manners, and respect, I would think it is not the gay that want the right to be married... but the people who would like to deny them that right, for no other reason than (apparently) terminology.
And logic.

Incivility, on the other hand, is grabbing our society by the hair and screaming into its face that it needs to change and legitimize absurd parodies of itself.

So I disagree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:49 AM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,610 posts, read 21,391,107 times
Reputation: 10108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
I prefer that women not wear pants.
I prefere women not wear anything
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:51 AM
 
2,265 posts, read 3,732,459 times
Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Not cool.

The really big rush to the altar was not expected to take place until Tuesday, which is when most counties planned to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Local officials are now required to issue licenses that have the words "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be.


Calif. gay couples get marriage licenses - Life - MSNBC.com
I'm curious to see how fast the 'divorces' between same sex couples start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
10,757 posts, read 35,433,231 times
Reputation: 6961
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbkaren View Post
And so it begins. Ratcheting up the level of deviance that we deem acceptable. What's next?
I'm sorry but I find your comment offensive. YOu may choose to not accept being Gay but I feel its innappropriate for you to make that statement on this board.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Lakes & Mountains of East TN
3,454 posts, read 7,409,159 times
Reputation: 882
I don't have a problem with gay people being gay. You won't catch me there, but hey, whatever.

In my opinion two people of the same sex cannot be married.

It's like someone marrying their car stereo or their parakeet. It's not valid.

I though Civil unions were designed to take care of all the worries gays are now once again, complaining about.

If one "partner" dies, and they're civil-unioned, does the other become his or her heir? Can one visit the other in the hospital? Can they be on one another's insurance?

If not, why? I thought that was the objective of civil unions.

And if not, what WAS the objective of civil unions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,577 posts, read 7,848,785 times
Reputation: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren View Post
I'm sorry but I find your comment offensive. YOu may choose to not accept being Gay but I feel its innappropriate for you to make that statement on this board.
he didn't personally attack anyone. there is nothing wrong with the statement. it's an opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,577 posts, read 7,848,785 times
Reputation: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbkaren View Post
I don't have a problem with gay people being gay. You won't catch me there, but hey, whatever.

In my opinion two people of the same sex cannot be married.

It's like someone marrying their car stereo or their parakeet. It's not valid.

I though Civil unions were designed to take care of all the worries gays are now once again, complaining about.

If one "partner" dies, and they're civil-unioned, does the other become his or her heir? Can one visit the other in the hospital? Can they be on one another's insurance?

If not, why? I thought that was the objective of civil unions.

And if not, what WAS the objective of civil unions?
just because they might view their marriage as valid, you don't have to. the government can't make you recognize something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Wallace, Idaho
3,352 posts, read 6,662,333 times
Reputation: 3589
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbkaren View Post
And so it begins. Ratcheting up the level of deviance that we deem acceptable. What's next?
Gosh, I know. Giving two consenting adults who are in love the same social and legal rights as everyone else? What is this world coming to?
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:21 AM.

© 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