Same Sex Marriages [Archive] - Deep House Page Forums

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 08:32 AM

Bush wants to ban same sex marriages. I think it is a good idea, only because heteorsexuals that live together are not recognized as partners when it comes down to benefits (government, insurance, etc.) If he makes it okay for gays to marry they have the benefits of married people and the others don't want to marry will be left out. I know in some states common law is recognized but not in the US overall. I believe that partners should have benefits without being married.

What type of line should be drawn at this point. Is Bush overstepping his boundaries by getting in the bedroom or is it okay for the president to do this? What do you think?

Please, I am not making this a religious/social debate because there are some of us that know what the teachings of God are, and know about right and wrong. Though marriage is formed from religious practices but that is not the issue. The christians or true believers of their faith will drag this out with what God says and there are people that don't believe in religion that will drag this out with their philosophy based on what man says.

This is more a social issue rather than a religious one. When the time comes we will all find out the one who reigns overall and He will have the last say ;)

D J 1 3 8

07-31-2003, 08:36 AM

Actually, I think you can't say it's not a religious issue. The whole reason that the right wing is trying to ban gay marriage is completely rooted in their Christian faith.

Fletch

07-31-2003, 08:38 AM

This may be a discrimination issue. If one group of partners is getting benefits and another group isn't, there may be a problem.

I will ask this: don't states have laws on common-law marriages? (living together without the vows. But you have to live together a certain amount of years.)

I know each state has different views on common-law couples. If so, how much of a disparity is it from state to state?. Peace.

der geile hund

07-31-2003, 08:40 AM

My understanding of the background of the gay marriage movement is this: when AIDS first starting ravaging the gay community, men whose partners were no longer able to manage their own affairs would find themselves shut out of all financial and medical decisions if the family of the partner chose to do so. I don't think anyone gives a shit if it's called marriage or not, there should be a way to formally say that two people are legally together.

07-31-2003, 08:41 AM

Who cares? I say let 'em be. As long as you ain't hurtin' nobody, do as you wish.

Peace and chicken grease,

AD http://deephousepage.com/smilies/smokin.gif

MsAlayneous

07-31-2003, 08:41 AM

i think God created ALL people. man is the one that chooses to exclude legally the love of same sexes. graemlins/jpshakehead.gif i dont get it. if two people are in love and want to get married, why not?anyhow, to each his own (and thats the whole point isnt it?)...
but on a lighter note, a friend sent me this: enjoy. peace :D

Now that gay marriage has been legalized in Ontario,
there are some new rules:

1) On the day of a gay wedding, it's bad luck for the
two grooms to see each other at the gym.

2) Superstition suggests that for good luck the couple
should have: Something bold, something flirty,
something trashy, something dirty.

3) It's customary at gay and lesbian nuptials for the
parents to have an open bar during the entire
ceremony.

4) Gay wedding tradition dictates that both grooms
refrain from eating any of the wedding cake because
it's all carbs and sugar.

5) It's considered bad luck for either of the grooms
to have dated the priest.

6) During the first dance, it's considered unlucky to
use glow sticks, flags, whistles or hand held lasers.

7) For good luck at the union of a drag queen, the
bouquet is always thrown in the face of a hated rival.

8) The reception hall must have a disco ball and at
least one go-go dancer.

9) The wedding singer is not allowed to play/sing
"Let's Hear It For the Boy", "It's Raining Men," or "I
Will Survive."

10) The father of the Bottom pays for everything.

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by DJ 138:
Actually, I think you can't say it's not a religious issue. The whole reason that the right wing is trying to ban gay marriage is completely rooted in their Christian faith. It's their religious issue. Some people get so wrapped in other people's wrong doing they don't focus on themselves and their own actions. Those people are being judgemental, judging the people, wanting to exclude them. The main reasons people don't want to be bothered with religion because of the judgemental finger is being pointed at them. Yes, it's an issue but those right wing conservatives have an agenda. They are teaching judgement not love. As soon as you start talking to people about what they are doing wrong they tune you out.

This post isn't a religious post. I was directing towards people that have that right wing conservative view.

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by der geile hund:
My understanding of the background of the gay marriage movement is this: when AIDS first starting ravaging the gay community, men whose partners were no longer able to manage their own affairs would find themselves shut out of all financial and medical decisions if the family of the partner chose to do so. I don't think anyone gives a shit if it's called marriage or not, there should be a way to formally say that two people are legally together. This is one view I was looking for. Thank you

ngeso

07-31-2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
Bush wants to ban same sex marriages. I think it is a good idea, only because heteorsexuals that live together are not recognized as partners when it comes down to benefits (government, insurance, etc.) If he makes it okay for gays to marry they have the benefits of married people and the others don't want to marry will be left out. I know in some states common law is recognized but not in the US overall. I believe that partners should have benefits without being married.

What type of line should be drawn at this point. Is Bush overstepping his boundaries by getting in the bedroom or is it okay for the president to do this? What do you think?

Please, I am not making this a religious/social debate because there are some of us that know what the teachings of God are, and know about right and wrong. Though marriage is formed from religious practices but that is not the issue. The christians or true believers of their faith will drag this out with what God says and there are people that don't believe in religion that will drag this out with their philosophy based on what man says.

This is more a social issue rather than a religious one. When the time comes we will all find out the one who reigns overall and He will have the last say ;) this isn't really progressive. you're siding with conservative thought, because you're of the opinion that before gays/lesbians get that break (i.e. proper marriage w/all the legal trimmings), you should get some of those benefits first. what's worse is you're making a choice you're free to make and denying gay/lesbian people the very same range of choice.

people should be free to define their relationship-status regardless of their sexual preferences. and we should be pushing our governments and the powers-that-be to avail homosexual people exactly the same freedoms, rights and responsibilities that are accorded us 'normal' people.

just my opinion.

[i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.]

[ July 31, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: ngeso ]

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 09:22 AM

i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif

darrow

07-31-2003, 09:27 AM

I think heterosexuals often take the benefits of marriage for granted and don't necessarily think about the implications of not having certain benefits that are derived from marriage.

I have two friends that have been together for 15 years. I have no doubt that they will be together until they are two old, grumpy men. They are in their mid-40s right now. One is a bus driver and has been doing that for at least 15 years (think "pension" at this point). The other is a project manager for a technology company. They each have one teenage boy (biological) and one of the boys is a freshmen in college. They ALSO, two years ago, took in two kids (boy and girl) that the sister of one of the men could no longer take care of (drug addiction/abuse issues).

These guys, except for the fact that they are men, live the typical American married life - raising kids, living in the burbs, graduations, paying taxes, sending kids to school, going to church, blah blah blah.

What happens, for instance, if one of them dies in a horrible accident caused by a wreckless driver? Unlike a married man or woman, neither one of these guys could sue for wrongful death, despite not only the pain and anguish from losing a loved one but also because of the sudden and debilitating loss of income.

Some questions for everyone to think about. Maybe the questions help shed some light on how important the issue of recognizing other types of relationships beside the traditional man-woman one is (and I try not to get hung up on the word "marriage" because I think that distracts the conversation)...

Can you imagine NOT having the right to sue for wronful death if your husband or wife was killed because of someone else being wreckless?

Can you imagine not being able to receive your husband's or wife's pension after his or her death?

Can you imagine having to forfeit property to your husband's or wife's family because they contest your right to ownership based on the notion that your relationship was not a legally recognized one?

Can you imagine not having the basic right to visit your husband or wife in the hospital when he or she is dying?

Can you imagine someone having the legal right to contest your right to your children and right to guardianship of those children if your husband or wife died? (and when I say "your children" I'm talking specifically about the ones you raised for let's say 15 years but are not biologically your children)

Can you imagine not having the rights to your husband or wife's retirement benefits?

Denying couples these rights seems to be nothing but a way of denying property and access to assets. I have yet to hear an articulate argument as to WHY this practice is ok or WHY it should continue. Typically, I hear the "sanctity of marriage" phrase, but even that does not address the issues above or others.

What I would like to see is the government moving from making statements about why they think "gay marriages" are bad to providing alternatives to address the inequities people in these relationships face.

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 09:34 AM

Hey Darrow I have one term that can cease all of what you stated:

Last Will and Testament. Once it is in writing no one can touch it, they can try and fight it but can't touch it.

Anna Nicole was married to the Billionaire and didn't recieve one dime because of the son and his lawyers.

darrow

07-31-2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
Hey Darrow I have one term that can cease all of what you stated:

Last Will and Testament. Once it is in writing no one can touch it, they can try and fight it but can't touch it.

Anna Nicole was married to the Billionaire and didn't recieve one dime because of the son and his lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure, but I don't think last will and testament addresses all the issues regarding property, child custody, retirement benefits, the right to bring suit etc., at least not as completely and clearly as it would for a married, straight couple.

There are things that people can do...wills, power of attorney, etc. (I have all of that), but again, I don't know how easy it is for the state and families to contest those things when we are talking about a gay couple.

any lawyers want to provide some insight?

[ July 31, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: darrow ]

Dolemite73

07-31-2003, 09:53 AM

Bush and all of the right wing homophobes are taking this thing too far. What's next, banning interracial marriages? Discrimination is discrimination, gay or straight. WE can not judge nor should we judge who people choose to be with.

ngeso

07-31-2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif [/QUOTE]but what you're saying nonetheless is that benefits should remain tied to the institution of marriage, that heterosexual partners can make the choice to marry or not with regard to those benefits, and that homosexual partners should not have that choice because they're homosexual.

i do not agree with that.

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by ngeso:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif [/QUOTE]but what you're saying nonetheless is that benefits should remain tied to the institution of marriage, that heterosexual partners can make the choice to marry or not with regard to those benefits, and that homosexual partners should not have that choice because they're homosexual.

i do not agree with that. [/QUOTE]What I am saying is totally opposite, benefits should be given to partners that live together regardless of sex. Whatever you do as a lifestyle is part of you not the world. Who cares who loves who or what sexual preference you have. Marriage is just a piece of paper to some and benefits to others.

NubianSista

07-31-2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Dolemite73:
Bush and all of the right wing homophobes are taking this thing too far. What's next, banning interracial marriages? Discrimination is discrimination, gay or straight. WE can not judge nor should we judge who people choose to be with. I agree :(

Next he will be taking away all rights (especially Black Americans) beware there is a much bigger picture here. Key words: Conform and Uniformity according to the laws and beliefs of our dear President.

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Nubiansista:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dolemite73:
Bush and all of the right wing homophobes are taking this thing too far. What's next, banning interracial marriages? Discrimination is discrimination, gay or straight. WE can not judge nor should we judge who people choose to be with. I agree :(

Next he will be taking away all rights (especially Black Americans) beware there is a much bigger picture here. Key words: Conform and Uniformity according to the laws and beliefs of our dear President. [/QUOTE]No, as Black Americans, we are doing a good job of that already by not taken advantage of the things we have access to. It's funny how alot of other non-minorities aren't paying much attention to their obstacles, they seem to overcome them. When are we going to learn to step out of our comfort zone and overcome. The civil rights movement have already been fought, now is the time to take advantage of it. Support your Black Universities, Black Businesses, educate each other instead of stepping on each other. Because if we don't look out for ourselves, then yes our civil right will be taken away because we give too much power to the ones we should be taking power from. If other generations fought to get out of their bondage what is taking us so long?!

I got one word: VOTE!

[ July 31, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: DiscoLady ]

Basecore Boy

07-31-2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Albert Diaz:
Who cares? I say let 'em be. As long as you ain't hurtin' nobody, do as you wish.

Peace and chicken grease,

AD http://deephousepage.com/smilies/smokin.gif I will agree. Who cares! Marry a camel if you like.

Elbert Phillips

07-31-2003, 11:21 AM

Live and let everyone live. There was a time in this nation's not too distant past when black heterosexuals were denied the right of marriage, among other essential things. Let's not rubber stamp the warped perspectives of government "elected" officials or in religious sectors. Let's recognize love and committment, not gender.

[ July 31, 2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: EL ]

NubianSista

07-31-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nubiansista:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dolemite73:
Bush and all of the right wing homophobes are taking this thing too far. What's next, banning interracial marriages? Discrimination is discrimination, gay or straight. WE can not judge nor should we judge who people choose to be with. I agree :(

Next he will be taking away all rights (especially Black Americans) beware there is a much bigger picture here. Key words: Conform and Uniformity according to the laws and beliefs of our dear President. [/QUOTE]No, as Black Americans, we are doing a good job of that already by not taken advantage of the things we have access to. It's funny how alot of other non-minorities aren't paying much attention to their obstacles, they seem to overcome them. When are we going to learn to step out of our comfort zone and overcome. The civil rights movement have already been fought, now is the time to take advantage of it. Support your Black Universities, Black Businesses, educate each other instead of stepping on each other. Because if we don't look out for ourselves, then yes our civil right will be taken away because we give too much power to the ones we should be taking power from. If other generations fought to get out of their bondage what is taking us so long?!

I got one word: VOTE! [/QUOTE]I am a registered voter and I appreciate your insight on this issue. That is your opinion, I agree to a point. Because I do support black business and I contribute too many charitable organizations with in my community. I still believe in the long run we will be affected. Exercising our rights didn't help when his butt got into office. And I still won't let that discourage me. I understand the struggles of our predecessors. I will not allow their efforts to be in vain.

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Nubiansista:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nubiansista:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dolemite73:
Bush and all of the right wing homophobes are taking this thing too far. What's next, banning interracial marriages? Discrimination is discrimination, gay or straight. WE can not judge nor should we judge who people choose to be with. I agree :(

Next he will be taking away all rights (especially Black Americans) beware there is a much bigger picture here. Key words: Conform and Uniformity according to the laws and beliefs of our dear President. [/QUOTE]No, as Black Americans, we are doing a good job of that already by not taken advantage of the things we have access to. It's funny how alot of other non-minorities aren't paying much attention to their obstacles, they seem to overcome them. When are we going to learn to step out of our comfort zone and overcome. The civil rights movement have already been fought, now is the time to take advantage of it. Support your Black Universities, Black Businesses, educate each other instead of stepping on each other. Because if we don't look out for ourselves, then yes our civil right will be taken away because we give too much power to the ones we should be taking power from. If other generations fought to get out of their bondage what is taking us so long?!

I got one word: VOTE! [/QUOTE]I am a registered voter and I appreciate your insight on this issue. That is your opinion, I agree to a point. Because I do support black business and I contribute too many charitable organizations with in my community. I still believe in the long run we will be affected. Exercising our rights didn't help when his butt got into office. And I still won't let that discourage me. I understand the struggles of our predecessors. I will not allow their efforts to be in vain. [/QUOTE]Now let's encourage others to do the same and the powers that be will not have a say so over our lives or our descendants' lives

Peace

falko

07-31-2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ngeso:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif [/QUOTE]but what you're saying nonetheless is that benefits should remain tied to the institution of marriage, that heterosexual partners can make the choice to marry or not with regard to those benefits, and that homosexual partners should not have that choice because they're homosexual.

i do not agree with that. [/QUOTE]What I am saying is totally opposite, benefits should be given to partners that live together regardless of sex. Whatever you do as a lifestyle is part of you not the world. Who cares who loves who or what sexual preference you have. Marriage is just a piece of paper to some and benefits to others. [/QUOTE]if that is what you are saying, then what does that have to do with gay marriage? you claim to be arguing that a certain set of benefits should not be restricted to only those who are married.

no one appears to be disagreeing with you. but regardless of whether it's right or wrong, certain rights are tied up with marriage, and people are saying that it's wrong for gay people to be systematically denied those rights because they are gay. although straight "partners" do not recieve the same rights as straight "married" couples, they have CHOSEN not to be married. shouldn't gay people have the same CHOICE?

your line of reasoning appears similar to those expressed the other day against the gay schools... just because everything is not perfect for everyone else, things should not be made better for gay people... ?

[ July 31, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: falko ]

cynti

07-31-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Albert Diaz:
Who cares? I say let 'em be. As long as you ain't hurtin' nobody, do as you wish.

Peace and chicken grease,

AD http://deephousepage.com/smilies/smokin.gif I will agree. Who cares! Marry a camel if you like. [/QUOTE]For real , "Eat a sausage and die ! " Savage Nation. God's gonna be the only one to truly acknowlegde what is deemed as a married couple anyway. There are plenty of heteros married according to the word of God and don't know it. Don't graemlins/sleep2.gif . And so what, it's about taxes and money for folks to be "legally" married anyway not just . graemlins/1luvu.gif

ngeso

07-31-2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by falko:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ngeso:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif [/QUOTE]but what you're saying nonetheless is that benefits should remain tied to the institution of marriage, that heterosexual partners can make the choice to marry or not with regard to those benefits, and that homosexual partners should not have that choice because they're homosexual.

i do not agree with that. [/QUOTE]What I am saying is totally opposite, benefits should be given to partners that live together regardless of sex. Whatever you do as a lifestyle is part of you not the world. Who cares who loves who or what sexual preference you have. Marriage is just a piece of paper to some and benefits to others. [/QUOTE]if that is what you are saying, then what does that have to do with gay marriage? you claim to be arguing that a certain set of benefits should not be restricted to only those who are married.

no one appears to be disagreeing with you. but regardless of whether it's right or wrong, certain rights are tied up with marriage, and people are saying that it's wrong for gay people to be systematically denied those rights because they are gay. although straight "partners" do not recieve the same rights as straight "married" couples, they have CHOSEN not to be married. shouldn't gay people have the same CHOICE?

your line of reasoning appears similar to those expressed the other day against the gay schools... just because everything is not perfect for everyone else, things should not be made better for gay people... ? [/QUOTE]exactamundo!

manfred

07-31-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif [/QUOTE]people get married for worse reasons. pregancy, legal status, whatever. don't pretend that it's holier than thou now.

Bobby

07-31-2003, 01:32 PM

You can rationalize it all you want. It's wrong. Marriage is about a real family. Man, woman, child. Period. Marriage wasn't created so Antoine and Lamar could hookup. It's about time a public leader speaks out against something so shameful and absurd.

manfred

07-31-2003, 01:37 PM

MYOR

07-31-2003, 01:40 PM

Bobby

07-31-2003, 01:49 PM

This whole thing about "gay rights" (try saying that with a straight) Is a non-important issue. This is nothing more but an attempt to force the majority of people to except something that will only furthur hurt this already messed up society. Just some more waste for the toilet.

cynti

07-31-2003, 01:49 PM

Bobby

07-31-2003, 01:52 PM

Do everybody a favor and keep it in the closet.

domodisco

07-31-2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
You can rationalize it all you want. It's wrong. Marriage is about a real family. Man, woman, child. Period. Marriage wasn't created so Antoine and Lamar could hookup. It's about time a public leader speaks out against something so shameful and absurd. Sigh...again with the hatred and rhetoric. Your name-calling and ignorance is what is shameful and absurd. I know it would just be easier to ignore you, but here goes.

Please remember, we live in a secular society based on the rule of law. Currently, those laws discriminate against me and millions of others.

The issue of marriage, as it relates to the law in this country has/should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH morality or religion or your personal beliefs. The issue boils down to civil and legal protections - legal and religious ideals of marriage are not one and the same. Listen I've been in a committed, loving relationship for TEN years (and HOW DARE YOU call that shameful or depraved or try to force your morality on me or anyone else). You'd be better taking care of your own business.

For example: my partner is a diabetic. If he gets ill, then I have no legal right to see him in the hospital, deal with his financial, health and legal issues etc. If, heaven forbid he dies, I have no say in his burial, and his family could bar me from the funeral if they wanted, as well as claim any assets or property from his estate, regardless of how long we have been together. I don't know the specifics of common-law, but I'm almost 100% certain that those protections do not extend to same-sex couples.

So before you insult me and millions of others, I urge you to reflect a little. You have no right to judge me or my relationships, and you (and Mr. Bush) sure as hell have no right to tell me that I have no standing under the law. Shit, anyone heterosexual, regardless of the quality or love of their relationship can marry, with all of the legal and civil protections offered. So, because I don't fit into your moral universe my commitment to my partner is invalid? I'm just supposed to suck it up and deal with it? This is America, right?

MYOR

07-31-2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
Do everybody a favor and keep it in the closet. You must be very young... :(

Bobby

07-31-2003, 02:06 PM

Sigh...again with the hatred and rhetoric. Your name-calling and ignorance is what is shameful and absurd. I know it would just be easier to ignore you, but here goes.

Please remember, we live in a secular society based on the rule of law. Currently, those laws discriminate against me and millions of others.

The issue of marriage, as it relates to the law in this country has/should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH morality or religion or your personal beliefs. The issue boils down to civil and legal protections - legal and religious ideals of marriage are not one and the same. Listen I've been in a committed, loving relationship for TEN years (and HOW DARE YOU call that shameful or depraved or try to force your morality on me or anyone else). You'd be better taking care of your own business.

For example: my partner is a diabetic. If he gets ill, then I have no legal right to see him in the hospital, deal with his financial, health and legal issues etc. If, heaven forbid he dies, I have no say in his burial, and his family could bar me from the funeral if they wanted, as well as claim any assets or property from his estate, regardless of how long we have been together. I don't know the specifics of common-law, but I'm almost 100% certain that those protections do not extend to same-sex couples.

So before you insult me and millions of others, I urge you to reflect a little. You have no right to judge me or my relationships, and you (and Mr. Bush) sure as hell have no right to tell me that I have no standing under the law. Shit, anyone heterosexual, regardless of the quality or love of their relationship can marry, with all of the legal and civil protections offered. So, because I don't fit into your moral universe my commitment to my partner is invalid? I'm just supposed to suck it up and deal with it? This is America, right? Be a real man or woman and "straighten up". By the way I never name-called anyone here I'm jsut expressing my opinion. So suck it up (great choice of words) and deal with it.

Just as I always thought too this is all about money.

MYOR

07-31-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sigh...again with the hatred and rhetoric. Your name-calling and ignorance is what is shameful and absurd. I know it would just be easier to ignore you, but here goes.

Please remember, we live in a secular society based on the rule of law. Currently, those laws discriminate against me and millions of others.

The issue of marriage, as it relates to the law in this country has/should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH morality or religion or your personal beliefs. The issue boils down to civil and legal protections - legal and religious ideals of marriage are not one and the same. Listen I've been in a committed, loving relationship for TEN years (and HOW DARE YOU call that shameful or depraved or try to force your morality on me or anyone else). You'd be better taking care of your own business.

For example: my partner is a diabetic. If he gets ill, then I have no legal right to see him in the hospital, deal with his financial, health and legal issues etc. If, heaven forbid he dies, I have no say in his burial, and his family could bar me from the funeral if they wanted, as well as claim any assets or property from his estate, regardless of how long we have been together. I don't know the specifics of common-law, but I'm almost 100% certain that those protections do not extend to same-sex couples.

So before you insult me and millions of others, I urge you to reflect a little. You have no right to judge me or my relationships, and you (and Mr. Bush) sure as hell have no right to tell me that I have no standing under the law. Shit, anyone heterosexual, regardless of the quality or love of their relationship can marry, with all of the legal and civil protections offered. So, because I don't fit into your moral universe my commitment to my partner is invalid? I'm just supposed to suck it up and deal with it? This is America, right? Be a real man or woman and "straighten up". By the way I never name-called anyone here I'm jsut expressing my opinion. So suck it up (great choice of words) and deal with it.

Just as I always thought too this is all about money. [/QUOTE]You know Bobby its real obvious you don't have a clue what your talking about.. so why don't you educate yourself then comment...

Bobby

07-31-2003, 02:22 PM

I know what I'm talking about and I'm sorry about your friend being sick. But why should you guys be entitled to the same benefits as legimate married couples. I don't believe 2 unmarried normal people should receive martial benefits.

domodisco

07-31-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:

Be a real man or woman and "straighten up". By the way I never name-called anyone here I'm jsut expressing my opinion. So suck it up (great choice of words) and deal with it.

Just as I always thought too this is all about money. And so...what...you and the anti-gay ignoramuses get to define what a 'real man' is? I would be laughing if I wasn't too busy pounding my head against the wall...again, let me remind you that you have no idea who I am or what I'm like. I have just as much of a right to be myself in this country as you or anyone else.

I don't want 'special rights'. I would like to have the same legal status and protections as everyone else, and passing a CONSTITUIONAL AMENDMENT or a federal law permanently taking those rights away is not what America should be about.

You're right - you do have the right to your opinion, but this is a site about dance music, and a big percentage of the people who visit are gay (not to mention people in the dance music industry), so coming on here and calling gays 'sick, deviant and depraved' and spouting your hateful rhetoric is in fact name-calling. As for this being 'only about money' - I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply.

richierich

07-31-2003, 02:30 PM

I thought this was about having sex the same way graemlins/conf44.gif

darrow

07-31-2003, 02:31 PM

(quick...someone post another thread title with the word "gay" in it. That will distract Bobby from this thread for a bit)

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 02:36 PM

Brut by Faberge

07-31-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
Do everybody a favor and keep it in the closet. Not trying to change your mind or anything, but i invite you to consider something:

A. if gay and lesbian families/relationships aren't "real" so to speak, why do you bother arguing about them, or worrying about them at all? i for one, don't believe that fairies (no pun intended) are "real," but i don't go around boycotting theater showings of "peter pan," or picketing places that sell books featuring fairies, or dissing fairies at all. they are not a part of my universe, and i am secure in my belief system. you on the other hand do not seem so secure...and i have learned that it is usually when people aren't secure in who they are that they go and attack others. think about it.

B. also, you shuld edit your comment that family is "man woman and child" or whatever, because there are plenty of str8 single-parent homes and childless couples, as well as gay families who will give you something to reckon with should you ever diminish the value of what they have. it's not about money, it's about love, support, and open commitment, but we've already addressed that.

C. good luck should you ever have a child who grows up and realizes that he/she is gay and wants to have a FAMILY. jeez...

sincerely,

THX-1138 (clear-headed bulldagger)

Brut by Faberge

07-31-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by richierich:
I thought this was about having sex the same way graemlins/conf44.gif icon_rofl.gif

darrow

07-31-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by richierich:
I thought this was about having sex the same way graemlins/conf44.gif I almost missed this.

icon_rofl.gif

MYOR

07-31-2003, 02:41 PM

What it boils down to its simple.. NO ONE should have the RIGHT to tell anyone who they should love or marry.. whether you are black, white, green, blue, straight or gay.. Its up to the individuals involved... If people don't agree with it fine.. But they should NEVER have a CHOICE in the matter....

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

07-31-2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by manfred:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif [/QUOTE]people get married for worse reasons. pregancy, legal status, whatever. don't pretend that it's holier than thou now. [/QUOTE]My point exactly. Why make this a marriage issue. People screw over marriage now why add to it. Some heteorsexuals cannot even get it right, that is why alot of folk just live together. This should be an issue if partners can share benefits or have claim to an estate of a loved one that shared the same residence for years. Not once did I say that marriage was too sacred for gays.

However, if a law like this is passed then the issues will be forced on The institution of Church in which alot of people outside of the church feel shouldn't judge. It's one thing to make it socially acceptable but to force it on Church (in which has taught for years against alot of morality issues) it is not acceptable. Just like gays have rights, people that practice religion have the right to not accept it.

Do not take want I have posted as personal views, I am going on what I've heard and read on both sides.

MYOR

07-31-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by manfred:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> i just reread your post, discolady - i'm not sure whether we're agreeing or disagreeing; i interpreted your agreement with Bush's plans as your being envious of benefits gays would get if they were married as opposed to heterosexual couples who don't marry and hence don't benefit. i'm sorry if i misunderstood you - nonetheless i hope you understand my point of view. thanks.
Envy has nothing to do with my argument. (As a matter of fact I am married) Actually I am being mindful of any person that don't want to marry in order to have benefits. I understand your point of view Ngeso. The reasoning behind my argument is not being judgemental or descriminatory. My point is, if homosexuals get that right where does that leave the rest of the country that want to just stay commonlaw, marry more than one spouse, have mistresses, etc. This law will open a pandora's box of others wanting special treatment as well. This will force people to marry that may not want to, just to have benefits. graemlins/conf44.gif [/QUOTE]people get married for worse reasons. pregancy, legal status, whatever. don't pretend that it's holier than thou now. [/QUOTE]My point exactly. Why make this a marriage issue. People screw over marriage now why add to it. Some heteorsexuals cannot even get it right, that is why alot of folk just live together. This should be an issue if partners can share benefits or have claim to an estate of a loved one that shared the same residence for years. Not once did I say that marriage was too sacred for gays.

However, if a law like this is passed then the issues will be forced on The institution of Church in which alot of people outside of the church feel shouldn't judge. It's one thing to make it socially acceptable but to force it on Church (in which has taught for years against alot of morality issues) it is not acceptable. Just like gays have rights, people that practice religion have the right to not accept it.

Do not take want I have posted as personal views, I am going on what I've heard and read on both sides. [/QUOTE]Discolady, its seems to me overlooking is that we have a choice to get marry.. They are not even given a choice..

Brian

07-31-2003, 02:59 PM

Discolady I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages. It's strictly a legal matter, and it would then be up to the couple to pick where they wanted to have the religious (or not) ceremony .. obviously they would pick a place that accepted such a ceremony .. and obviously a Catholic church, for example, would not be such a place.

darrow

07-31-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Brian:
Discolady I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages. It's strictly a legal matter, and it would then be up to the couple to pick where they wanted to have the religious (or not) ceremony .. obviously they would pick a place that accepted such a ceremony .. and obviously a Catholic church, for example, would not be such a place. good point. Churches already perform same-sex ceremonies. The legality of performing the ceremony isn't the question. The issue is the legal recognition of the union by the state and federal institutions and the subsequent legal access to the rights derived from marriage that are of concern.

Brut by Faberge

07-31-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by darrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Discolady I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages. It's strictly a legal matter, and it would then be up to the couple to pick where they wanted to have the religious (or not) ceremony .. obviously they would pick a place that accepted such a ceremony .. and obviously a Catholic church, for example, would not be such a place. good point. Churches already perform same-sex ceremonies. The legality of performing the ceremony isn't the question. The issue is the legal recognition of the union by the state and federal institutions and the subsequent legal access to the rights derived from marriage that are of concern. [/QUOTE]true, but many gays i know who are getting hitched would also cite public acceptance of their commitment as a driving force of the movement.

as with racial civil rights, it is about more than being able to go to that school or get that job or eat at that restaurant...it's about being respected as an equal, contributing member of society on the books and otherwise. if that was not the case, gay folks would not have been engaging in public commitment ceremonies for all these years.

it's social and spiritual as much as it is legal i think. the legality of it would help affirm the unseen aspects. but that, too, depends on who you talk to. someone said earlier that people get married for all sorts of reasons. that's a fact!

JMNYC

07-31-2003, 03:29 PM

Many people live together who dont want to be married or share the "benefits" of marriage. The issue here is that heteros get the choice and homos don't. That's unfair, in a country in which supposedly "all men are created equal". Period.

Just because I live with somebody, doesn't make them my "life partner", even if we are dating and/or deeply in love with each other. Making a decision to become true "partners" is about much more than shacking up together. A domestic partnership and a marriage should carry the same advantages and benefits. The choice to enter into those situations should be taken very seriously.

Maybe if straight people really understood what it's like to not have that choice, they'd think more seriously before getting married in the first place. Remember, as holier than thou as you want to be about the issue, there is a 50+% divorce rate among straight couples (not even getting into the rates of adultery). This says to me that many heteros don't take marriage as seriously as they may think... apparently, that's unless it's same-sex marriage.

darrow

07-31-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Discolady I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages. It's strictly a legal matter, and it would then be up to the couple to pick where they wanted to have the religious (or not) ceremony .. obviously they would pick a place that accepted such a ceremony .. and obviously a Catholic church, for example, would not be such a place. good point. Churches already perform same-sex ceremonies. The legality of performing the ceremony isn't the question. The issue is the legal recognition of the union by the state and federal institutions and the subsequent legal access to the rights derived from marriage that are of concern. [/QUOTE]true, but many gays i know who are getting hitched would also cite public acceptance of their commitment as a driving force of the movement.

as with racial civil rights, it is about more than being able to go to that school or get that job or eat at that restaurant...it's about being respected as an equal, contributing member of society on the books and otherwise. if that was not the case, gay folks would not have been engaging in public commitment ceremonies for all these years.

it's social and spiritual as much as it is legal i think. the legality of it would help affirm the unseen aspects. but that, too, depends on who you talk to. someone said earlier that people get married for all sorts of reasons. that's a fact! [/QUOTE]yep, I agree with what you said totally. My point wasn't to devalue or minimize the aspects you just pointed out. I was just clarifying (or trying to clarify) that the discussion isn't about making churches perform marriage ceremonies. I think the issue that will be before the courts is the legality of the union that people enter into.

I think there is more of a challenge in seeking this from the acceptance/respect angle (makes people way to nervous I think) than it is from the legal angle, but all reasons definitely come into play.

Brut by Faberge

07-31-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by darrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by THX-1138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Discolady I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages. It's strictly a legal matter, and it would then be up to the couple to pick where they wanted to have the religious (or not) ceremony .. obviously they would pick a place that accepted such a ceremony .. and obviously a Catholic church, for example, would not be such a place. good point. Churches already perform same-sex ceremonies. The legality of performing the ceremony isn't the question. The issue is the legal recognition of the union by the state and federal institutions and the subsequent legal access to the rights derived from marriage that are of concern. [/QUOTE]true, but many gays i know who are getting hitched would also cite public acceptance of their commitment as a driving force of the movement.

as with racial civil rights, it is about more than being able to go to that school or get that job or eat at that restaurant...it's about being respected as an equal, contributing member of society on the books and otherwise. if that was not the case, gay folks would not have been engaging in public commitment ceremonies for all these years.

it's social and spiritual as much as it is legal i think. the legality of it would help affirm the unseen aspects. but that, too, depends on who you talk to. someone said earlier that people get married for all sorts of reasons. that's a fact! [/QUOTE]yep, I agree with what you said totally. My point wasn't to devalue or minimize the aspects you just pointed out. I was just clarifying (or trying to clarify) that the discussion isn't about making churches perform marriage ceremonies. I think the issue that will be before the courts is the legality of the union that people enter into.

I think there is more of a challenge in seeking this from the acceptance/respect angle (makes people way to nervous I think) than it is from the legal angle, but all reasons definitely come into play. [/QUOTE]well said graemlins/beerchug.gif

peace

Brian

07-31-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brian:
Discolady I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages. It's strictly a legal matter, and it would then be up to the couple to pick where they wanted to have the religious (or not) ceremony .. obviously they would pick a place that accepted such a ceremony .. and obviously a Catholic church, for example, would not be such a place. good point. Churches already perform same-sex ceremonies. The legality of performing the ceremony isn't the question. The issue is the legal recognition of the union by the state and federal institutions and the subsequent legal access to the rights derived from marriage that are of concern. [/QUOTE]true, but many gays i know who are getting hitched would also cite public acceptance of their commitment as a driving force of the movement.

as with racial civil rights, it is about more than being able to go to that school or get that job or eat at that restaurant...it's about being respected as an equal, contributing member of society on the books and otherwise. if that was not the case, gay folks would not have been engaging in public commitment ceremonies for all these years.

it's social and spiritual as much as it is legal i think. the legality of it would help affirm the unseen aspects. but that, too, depends on who you talk to. someone said earlier that people get married for all sorts of reasons. that's a fact! [/QUOTE]Well I think acceptance among particular religious institutions is a different issue althogether. I'm not suggesting some people don't want that, but this issue of gay marriage pertains to the legal recognition of the marriage .. the government can't control what churches do in this regard (for example abortion is legal but it is forbidden by the Catholic church).

JMNYC

07-31-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Brian:
.. the government can't control what churches do in this regard (for example abortion is legal but it is forbidden by the Catholic church). although the gov't can't control what churches do, the church can and often does control what government does. Remember that the Catholic church is the wealthiest institution in the world.

Hence, abortion laws and gay marriages = under attack. If it weren't for the pressure from the religious organizations, these would not even be the issues they are today.

darrow

07-31-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by JMNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brian:
.. the government can't control what churches do in this regard (for example abortion is legal but it is forbidden by the Catholic church). although the gov't can't control what churches do, the church can and often does control what government does. Remember that the Catholic church is the wealthiest institution in the world.

Hence, abortion laws and gay marriages = under attack. If it weren't for the pressure from the religious organizations, these would not even be the issues they are today. [/QUOTE]Vatican Launches Global Campaign Against Gay Marriages (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6800-2003Jul31.html)

JMNYC

07-31-2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
This is nothing more but an attempt to force the majority of people to except something that will only furthur hurt this already messed up society. Just some more waste for the toilet. Sounds like the same argument made against outlawing slavery. Who's feeding you this crap?

TAC

07-31-2003, 07:38 PM

Without getting into it. This is all about policy.

Same sex marrriages don't produce soldiers for the armies.

Think about it before you fly of the handle.

Peace
TAC

JMNYC

07-31-2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by TAC:
This is all about policy.
Same sex marrriages don't produce soldiers for the armies.
nor do they produce mindless drones who just follow the status quo...

NubianSista

08-01-2003, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nubiansista:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nubiansista:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Dolemite73:
Bush and all of the right wing homophobes are taking this thing too far. What's next, banning interracial marriages? Discrimination is discrimination, gay or straight. WE can not judge nor should we judge who people choose to be with. I agree :(

Yes my sista biggrinangel.gif

Next he will be taking away all rights (especially Black Americans) beware there is a much bigger picture here. Key words: Conform and Uniformity according to the laws and beliefs of our dear President. [/QUOTE]No, as Black Americans, we are doing a good job of that already by not taken advantage of the things we have access to. It's funny how alot of other non-minorities aren't paying much attention to their obstacles, they seem to overcome them. When are we going to learn to step out of our comfort zone and overcome. The civil rights movement have already been fought, now is the time to take advantage of it. Support your Black Universities, Black Businesses, educate each other instead of stepping on each other. Because if we don't look out for ourselves, then yes our civil right will be taken away because we give too much power to the ones we should be taking power from. If other generations fought to get out of their bondage what is taking us so long?!

I got one word: VOTE! [/QUOTE]I am a registered voter and I appreciate your insight on this issue. That is your opinion, I agree to a point. Because I do support black business and I contribute too many charitable organizations with in my community. I still believe in the long run we will be affected. Exercising our rights didn't help when his butt got into office. And I still won't let that discourage me. I understand the struggles of our predecessors. I will not allow their efforts to be in vain. [/QUOTE]Now let's encourage others to do the same and the powers that be will not have a say so over our lives or our descendants' lives

Peace [/QUOTE]

NubianSista

08-01-2003, 06:58 AM

Yes my sista biggrinangel.gif

darrow

08-01-2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by TAC:
Without getting into it. This is all about policy.

Same sex marrriages don't produce soldiers for the armies.

Think about it before you fly of the handle.

Peace
TAC are you saying that the government is against gay marriages because no offspring (potential military recruits) are produced?

08-01-2003, 07:25 AM

what goes on in someone else's life has nothing to do with me...as long as they are happy - which most opposite sexed married folk are not...

it trips me out how folk will denounce a same sex marriage, yet condone an unhappy, unfulfilling and unpeaceful opposite sex marriage...

a reality check is in order...

TAC

08-01-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by darrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TAC:
Without getting into it. This is all about policy.

Same sex marrriages don't produce soldiers for the armies.

Think about it before you fly of the handle.

Peace
TAC are you saying that the government is against gay marriages because no offspring (potential military recruits) are produced? [/QUOTE]Yes. That's part of it. Same sex marriages don't produce offspring, period. Policy is what its about. Nation building and remaining in world dominance.

JMJNYC, don't shoot the messenger. I really don't care what people do either way behind closed doors. I'm just providing a piece to the puzzle. No endorsement, here.

Peace
TAC

sr hadden

08-01-2003, 02:16 PM

banning same sex marriage is the same as saying people of the same gender who have sex and love each other don't exist .... your president chooses to be blind so f¨k him very much

peace

sr hadden

08-01-2003, 02:19 PM

& i hate that bull about being able to do what you want behind closed doors, people can do what they want period.

peace

Bobby

08-01-2003, 02:29 PM

If its offensive to the majority of the population, then get a clue and stop trying to make every except your choice of lifestyle. Now because you choose to have sex with a person of the same gender you deserve special rights for that. Gimmie a break

Bobby

08-01-2003, 02:31 PM

Not only is it an offense to every normal person but it is an offense to nature as well.

darrow

08-01-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by TAC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TAC:
Without getting into it. This is all about policy.

Same sex marrriages don't produce soldiers for the armies.

Think about it before you fly of the handle.

Peace
TAC are you saying that the government is against gay marriages because no offspring (potential military recruits) are produced? [/QUOTE]Yes. That's part of it. Same sex marriages don't produce offspring, period. Policy is what its about. Nation building and remaining in world dominance.

JMJNYC, don't shoot the messenger. I really don't care what people do either way behind closed doors. I'm just providing a piece to the puzzle. No endorsement, here.

Peace
TAC [/QUOTE]Ok, I can imagine someone believing and upholding this idea.

If there's a politician or military figure who thinks that legalizing same-sex marriages/unions/whatever means less offspring for the military, he or she is not thinking logically.

I'm assuming anyone that would hold this belief actually believes that gays, not gay marriage, dont produce offspring (resources for the miliary). If gays don't have biological offspring then legalizing their relationships doesn't affect the supposed non-existent birth rate among gays. If 0 kids are being born from non-legalized gay relationships, 0 kids will still be born if the relationships are made legal. Right?

[ August 01, 2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: darrow ]

JMNYC

08-01-2003, 02:49 PM

TAC, I wasn't shooting the messenger at all. I agree 100% with your points!

Bobby - although it's obviously not going to change your mind - who is sleeping with whom is completely irrelevant here.

The Catholic church defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. So tell me, if you were hit by a car and couldn't have kids, would your marriage meet that definition? What if your wife couldn't have kids or your sperm count was low? Well, according to the church's definition, you should never be allowed to marry either. Wake up - you've been conditioned to believe things that just aren't true, and your generalizations about what the majority of people want are founded on what exactly? Ignorance.

Whom I partner with should not have any extra benefits - I agree - but whom you partner with shouldn't either. As the system stands right now, people who are in opposite-sex marriages have benefits over those who aren't. That's wrong.

sr hadden

08-01-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
If its offensive to the majority of the population, then get a clue and stop trying to make every except your choice of lifestyle. Now because you choose to have sex with a person of the same gender you deserve special rights for that. Gimmie a break yeah, are you black ?? stop being black man.. the majority of people isn't , get a clue, like you know, get a clue, the majority rules YEAH

pfft, actually, you're just stupid.. calling marriage 'special rights' ...

[ August 01, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: sr hadden ]

JMNYC

08-01-2003, 03:20 PM

John 4 is the Bible chapter that twice says: "God is love."

So then, if God is Love, and if my partner and I share love for one another - how then, can people rationalize reducing us to a lower class of citizen, unworthy of society's acceptance? I'll tell you why - because it's all rooted in FEAR.

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear causes pain and torment. The one who is afraid is not yet fully complete in love. We love because God first loved us." John(4:18-19).

Bobby, I hope you eventually learn what love is, too - then, maybe you'll learn to stop judging others and "Look Inside Yourself".

Bobby

08-01-2003, 09:56 PM

Don't even try to quote scripture to fit into your beliefs. But here's a scripture for you all. Romans 6:23

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

I can go on with quoting scripture.

imported_Gman

08-01-2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
Not only is it an offense to every normal person but it is an offense to nature as well. Boy am I glad I'm not normal.

ngeso

08-01-2003, 10:39 PM

Bobby, "you ain't really house."

tell us something: why are you here???

Bobby

08-01-2003, 10:45 PM

I happen to enjoy the mixes.

imported_Gman

08-02-2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Bobby:
I happen to enjoy the mixes. Sorry Bobby but http://deephousepage.com/smilies/lach.gif. You might want to take a stand and boycott all the mixes on this site by those gay DJ's. Just the thought of a normal person like yourself listening to those mixes just gives me the willies.
:D

Bobby

08-02-2003, 08:32 AM

Just because I enjoy some of the music doesn't mean I gotta agree with and except as normal a choice of lifestyle that a certain "element" in this genre wants to force everyone to except. Don't ask don't tell. (Didn't ya man Clinton say something to that effect?) Stop making an issue over your how you like to have sex. Keep it on the down-lo. If it ain't nobody's business stop trying to push it everyone's face making it everyone's business.

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

08-02-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Bobby:
Just because I enjoy some of the music doesn't mean I gotta agree with and except as normal a choice of lifestyle that a certain "element" in this genre wants to force everyone to except. Don't ask don't tell. (Didn't ya man Clinton say something to that effect?) Stop making an issue over your how you like to have sex. Keep it on the down-lo. If it ain't nobody's business stop trying to push it everyone's face making it everyone's business. Bobby, being gay isn't just about having sex, grant it that is one of the classifications of that lifestyle. However the gay population does want to be recognized as functional citizens.

I remember meeting an older gay couple that couldn't understand why it anyone's business what they do. It was between them and God. One of them told me "Honey it's evident that I am not like other men. So why do I have to declare rights and make everyone accept me? It's hard enough being a Black man. My man and I have professional careers, we have been living good for over 30 years, we have wills drawn up, I will have it no other way."

So there are many sides of this issue that will always be in debate and why should we care? What other people do should not effect as long as they do not hurt anyone in the process. Because there are alot of things that non-gay people do that hurt others. As I said before, when this world passes we will all know who has the last say and what sins we are guilty of. We should just make sure we do what we need to do in our lifetimes.

[ August 02, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: DiscoLady ]

Wild i

08-02-2003, 10:16 PM

There is now way I'm reading this entire thread tonight. But just to clarify...

Marriage is a legal contract based on a religious institution of the same name. If it offends your religious to call it marriage, call it domestic partnership.

I have seen and heard of many sanctimonious holy roller who kicked a son or daughter out of their life as "sinners" in the name of religion, come running back to snatch stuff up even before the reading of the will. How "right," or "christian" is that?

Funny how these "haters" (that term never fit so well) quote the Bible to you but forget some of the most important, most direct mandates of the Lord:

Judge not, lest ye shall be judged.

Vengence is Mine, sayeth the Lord.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Learn to hate the sin but love the sinner.

If the fundamentalist was smart, they would encourage domestic partnership because, as I found out after I married, the benefits are often outweighed by the cost.

By the way, if a lesbian marries a gay man, is it still an abomination? After all, it is a man and a woman.

If a man and woman marry, but one of them is physically abusive, should we remove the abuser's marital rights under the law?

If same sex partnerships remain unrecognized under the law, and an offspring's life partner, who was completely loved and accepted into the family, is the only survivor of a couple (in other words, if mom & dad's gay son's lover is last man standing), should that partner be allowed to determine what becomes of the parent's effects, or should that be left to the state?

Today I went to an estate sale. Several strangers were directing the sale of a all a woman's worldly possessions. I'm told the woman is in a nursing home. She was dispatched in such a way that the food remained rotting in her refrigerator. It was heart wrenching really, and I could not stay. But I also could not help but wonder who failed to care for her and why? Had she simply out-lived everyone? Was she childless? Was she cantankerous and mean? Did she turn her back on her gay child, her child who's married out of the religion or race, her child who'd had an abortion? Aren't all these scenarios possible?

If the question is, should domestic partners have rights regardless of sexual orientation in the year 2003 and beyond, the answer is: of course! If the question is, should religions be forced to accept people into their foals who's actions are diametrically opposed to their beliefs, the answer is: of course not!

Personally, I believe all such contracts should be called "domestic partnership" with full legal rights. Let each religion decide its own policy on marriage.

Wild i

08-02-2003, 10:33 PM

Bobby, I don't know you, but I must say I simply do not agree with your opinions about homosexuality. That is my right under the law. By the way, I'm gay. Should my right to disagree with you be abrogated?

TAC, you know I love you, man, but I find your argument weak at best. Julie and I have two sons, now both of legal draft age. Neither of us has ever been married to either boys' father.

Roughly (very roughly) 40-60% of the gay women I know have at least one child. I don't have any idea of what that statistic would be for men. I do know that a lot of the gay men I've known have children whom they do not acknowledge or children who have grown to distnace themselves from their fathers because they are gay (especially gay men with straight sons).

If I were to believe in any conspiracy theory in this regard, it would be the same theory I have about racism, to wit, the top 2% of the world is constantly stirring up the pot so that those of us in the lower 98% don't catch on. I believe that every conceivable race, religion, creed and orientation is represented in that elite group. Therefore, they have no real hate of anyone based on these criteria. Rather it is the classic battle between the "haves" and the "have nots" and the "haves" have a whole bag of dirty tricks.

Bobby

08-03-2003, 10:58 AM

Don't forget Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in '96. Even Billy boy was against it.

darrow

08-03-2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
Don't forget Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in '96. Even Billy boy was against it. oh that's right...Bill Clinton is the litmus test for all moral/ethical behavior. Thanks for the reminder.

corwin

08-03-2003, 02:03 PM

Bobby (and DiscoLady), you seem unusually passionate about this issue. What fuels the fire in your belly?

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

08-03-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by corwin:
Bobby (and DiscoLady), you seem unusually passionate about this issue. What fuels the fire in your belly? I raised the debate to see how others feel about it. I am not some Christian radical telling others what is right and wrong. There is enough going on in my life that I am working on. This is what I was stressing; people that are for gay marriages should not get mad at people that are against it. One or the other cannot/will not agree on the issue. There will always be opposition for everything, what we must do as individuals is maintain ourselves, take a look at what we are doing in our lives and stop trying to force others to believe in what you believe in or accept what they will never come to terms with.

That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread to not turn this into a religious debate because what one person believes the other won't. I simply wanted to know what do most think the impact will be on both gay and straight people that do not want to marry but want the same priviledges that married people have.

Unlike some other Christians, I simply cannot determine ones fate because of what I see them doing, what views they express or how they feel. We to have personal demons/spirits that we are trying to be delivered from that no one sees. (I am not saying that being gay is wrong or right) I do not have a Heaven to put anyone in or a Hell to get them out of. Only God can judge and determine who does right or wrong when the time comes. ;)

[ August 03, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: DiscoLady ]

Bold Soul

08-03-2003, 07:56 PM

Ever notice how there is nothing in the bible about marriage. There are wives, husbands, concubines...but no MARRIAGE.

Marriage is a socio-political institution formed in Europe in the middle ages that was used as a means to retain money, political power and social status in aristocratic circles. Then, not to be eased of its influence, the Christian church canonized the practice and made it law and ritual. In this day and age of individualism and democracy it is fairly obsolete and symbolic at best - therefore any union can be a marriage.

Of course, this is merely my opinion.

corwin

08-03-2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by corwin:
Bobby (and DiscoLady), you seem unusually passionate about this issue. What fuels the fire in your belly? I raised the debate to see how others feel about it. I am not some Christian radical telling others what is right and wrong. There is enough going on in my life that I am working on. This is what I was stressing; people that are for gay marriages should not get mad at people that are against it. One or the other cannot/will not agree on the issue. There will always be opposition for everything, what we must do as individuals is maintain ourselves, take a look at what we are doing in our lives and stop trying to force others to believe in what you believe in or accept what they will never come to terms with.

That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread to not turn this into a religious debate because what one person believes the other won't. I simply wanted to know what do most think the impact will be on both gay and straight people that do not want to marry but want the same priviledges that married people have.

Unlike some other Christians, I simply cannot determine ones fate because of what I see them doing, what views they express or how they feel. We to have personal demons/spirits that we are trying to be delivered from that no one sees. (I am not saying that being gay is wrong or right) I do not have a Heaven to put anyone in or a Hell to get them out of. Only God can judge and determine who does right or wrong when the time comes. ;) [/QUOTE]Thanks for the response, DiscoLady. I appreciate your candor. However, I never suggested you are a radical Christian. In fact, I've deliberately stayed out of most of the recent rash of "homosexual" topics partly because---like religion debates---with a diminished sense of objectivity, people tend to draw conclusions early on. It seems we all can rarely get beyond second base.

There seems to be a growing obsession with homo love in popular culture and on this board which is cool if folks could move beyond voyeuristic interest in homosexuality and remain detached from traditional/conventional notions of family, masculinity and spirituality long enough to understand, or at very least, hear one another. This thread piqued my interest because it seems to be another flapjack on the stack.

Which brings me to this oldie but goody:

http://deephousepage.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=029969;p=2

Your dual positionality and fascination regarding said issue remains baffling.

[ August 03, 2003, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: corwin ]

corwin

08-03-2003, 10:10 PM

Bobby, what's with the picking up your jacks and going home?

(I admit, I stole that line from DiscoGoddess. A true classic!)

corwin

08-04-2003, 09:50 AM

bump

Brut by Faberge

08-04-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by darrow:
If 0 kids are being born from non-legalized gay relationships, 0 kids will still be born if the relationships are made legal. Right? exactly, darrow...who the hell thinks: "oh well they can be legally married now...i'm gonna go be gay since it's all legit!" hilarious! :rolleyes: bottom line: two people who want to raise a family together will do it despite all, just as they have been doing for longer than any of us has been around, and before it was a political issue.

domestic partnership legislation won't affect that...gay parenting legislation may.

[ August 04, 2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: THX-1138 ]

08-04-2003, 10:01 AM

Mathematically does not compute!

Alanda Marquette from DiscoLadyLand

08-04-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by corwin:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DiscoLady:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by corwin:
Bobby (and DiscoLady), you seem unusually passionate about this issue. What fuels the fire in your belly? I raised the debate to see how others feel about it. I am not some Christian radical telling others what is right and wrong. There is enough going on in my life that I am working on. This is what I was stressing; people that are for gay marriages should not get mad at people that are against it. One or the other cannot/will not agree on the issue. There will always be opposition for everything, what we must do as individuals is maintain ourselves, take a look at what we are doing in our lives and stop trying to force others to believe in what you believe in or accept what they will never come to terms with.

That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread to not turn this into a religious debate because what one person believes the other won't. I simply wanted to know what do most think the impact will be on both gay and straight people that do not want to marry but want the same priviledges that married people have.

Unlike some other Christians, I simply cannot determine ones fate because of what I see them doing, what views they express or how they feel. We to have personal demons/spirits that we are trying to be delivered from that no one sees. (I am not saying that being gay is wrong or right) I do not have a Heaven to put anyone in or a Hell to get them out of. Only God can judge and determine who does right or wrong when the time comes. ;) [/QUOTE]Thanks for the response, DiscoLady. I appreciate your candor. However, I never suggested you are a radical Christian. In fact, I've deliberately stayed out of most of the recent rash of "homosexual" topics partly because---like religion debates---with a diminished sense of objectivity, people tend to draw conclusions early on. It seems we all can rarely get beyond second base.

There seems to be a growing obsession with homo love in popular culture and on this board which is cool if folks could move beyond voyeuristic interest in homosexuality and remain detached from traditional/conventional notions of family, masculinity and spirituality long enough to understand, or at very least, hear one another. This thread piqued my interest because it seems to be another flapjack on the stack.

Which brings me to this oldie but goody:

http://deephousepage.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=029969;p=2

Your dual positionality and fascination regarding said issue remains baffling. [/QUOTE]You see what I've said before isn't any different on how I feel now. The point is we have no right to judge. If you have been paying attention I usually play Devils Advocate. I raise both sides of an argument to get points of view on the subject. Rather if I feel that being gay is a good thing or not it is not part of the debate. People can get very passionate about how they feel on something and their judgement and views are clouded.

I do not have a dual personality, I just know what to say, when to say and how. Once again being gay wasn't the issue, same sex marriages and choices of the gay/straight partners that wish not to become married and still want their relationships valid is the issue.

Thank you for bringing up the old post, that was a very good thread. If you had paid a little more attention to the bottom post I wrote, I also stated that man and woman was made to pro-create, God has given us the freedom of choice. Rather we choose to mate and have children, or have same sex partners we still have that choice. So you've made no point in your statement ;)

[ August 04, 2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: DiscoLady ]

corwin

08-04-2003, 04:03 PM

Discolady, I was going to accuse you of taking my words out of context....then I realized I was misquoted. I wrote "your dual positionality", not "dual personality". These terms have radically different meanings.

Mira, mami:

Don't get angry with Bobby he is just passionate about what he believes in and can't understand why in this day and age how people are making it okay to not be like what the bible teaches.
The point is we have no right to judge.That's dual positionality. Ya dig?

Believe me, I've been paying close attention to this thread. If this is a social issue and not a religious one, why is the word "God" peppered throughout this thread? And if you've hoped to "raise both sides of an argument to get the points of view on the subject", why was your position clearly established in the opening post?

The recent blizzard of gay threads on DHP is not particularly disconcerting. After all, discourse allows us to understand and appreciate one another. But, your obsession with homosexuality is becoming, well, weird. Personally, this (gay marriage) is not an issue I care much about.

Unless I want some play, I have little interest in who's zoomin who.