Maine, we agree that freedom to speak one's mind should never be silenced. That said, I am looking for what would affect you personally if same sex marriage was law....not some Mass Resistance web site. I really am interested to here it...
Peter, could you elaborate on that? Why did you marry (if you feel comfortable answering)?]
Earl check your facts. Stavros started the name calling. Review post 61 where he calls me a bigot...and Post 69 which says:
Had you and your ilk written the civil rights act of 1964 it would have only applied to blacks. You would have let those of Asian and Hispanic decent continue to be discriminated against until they too rose up and became popular enough to finally defend. Luckily, there people were more fair minded both 50 and 150 years ago.
Stavros has a right to his opinion...that said, he can dish out slams equally. If you are going to name call...don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you in the butt.
Charlotte: Maine, we agree that freedom to speak one's mind should never be silenced
I am concerned with the double standard displayed by those with differing opinions: http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/06/16/the_cisco_kid
I wonder what the outcome would have been if The "fired" worker had been a same sex marriage supporter?
Earl - contrary to your assertions, I am an equal-opportunity believer when it comes to dishing out doses of "Wooden Spoon." Name-calling and abusive language are the best way to drive a thread to the conversational bottom, and it's against AMG policy.
I have reprimanded people on all sides of this issue, and others. I will continue to do so, as I see fit.
The short answer is because the wife said we were...But the reality is we wanted to build a life together and the inlaws wanted an excuse to have a big party.
My point about equality/ marriage is this..For true 'equal rights'- any 2 people who want to get married should be allowed too. That means ANY 2 people.
If same sex marriage advocates truly a pushing for eqaul rights, than it's siblings getting married, parents and children getting married. Anything short of any 2 people isn't equal rights, but an attempt to change the social norms of today.
Peter - we could extend your reasoning to opposite-sex marriages, too. We could say, for instance, that If any two [u]opposite-gender[/u] people want to get married, they should be able to do so. Father/daughter, brother/sister, mother/son.
Earl check your facts. Stavros started the name calling. Review post 61 where he calls me a bigot...
Was it name calling, or a statement of fact? You have shown your bigotry time and time again on this site. Now, trying to lose the bigot label, you are trying to portray the "I am a victim here" image. IMHO, it not going to work. You are who you are.
On a side note, I used to have the opinion that whatever two adult wanted to do, more power to them. You changed my mind Charlotte.
Naran, two same sex people can get married. There are many churches that will marry them. They just cannot get the government license. If it were all about love and committiment like Charlotte claims, a government license would be a non issue.
I was listening to the Jerry Doyle show the other day, he said that one state that had approved gay marriage said that benefits would no longer be available to couples unless they got married. Did they get married? No, they moved.
Gay marriage is all about forcing society to accept and embrace their lifestyle. To normalize it.
You are correct.
However, until we allow any 2 people to marry we will never have equal rights.
"how will it effect you personally, I'm not interested in some Mass Resistance site..".....
Never seen a more self centered question, and that's really the issue at hand.
It's effected 10,000's personally, in a terrible way. A state wide adoption agency was closed down because the Catholic church would not change their views to accodomate the homosexual activists. Businesses have been sued out of existence because they would not support the "civil rights" of homosexual 'marriages" once they were given those legal protections. It's all about forcing others to accomodate and accept what they consider, becuase of religious and moral beliefs, perversion.
When you will not speak up for someone else, they will eventually come for you, so yes, it effects people, PERSONALLY!
They want to live together, have it at. They want a "blessing" of their "union?" There's Unitarian "churches" who would do it. They want legal guarentees, meet with a lawyer and draft them. Stop shoving it down everyone elses throat.
Any number of people should be allowed to married if it is about equality, whether you agree with them or not. Once the definition of marriage is changed to favor one special group at the exclusion of others the fallacy of the equality argument is out the window. One would think they would be happy with civil unions, but it is the word marriage they want, not equality.
Islander, same sex people can get married. They just can't get the government recognition. If it were all about love and commitment like Charlotte claims, a government license would be a non issue. They wouldn't care.
Robert, I agree
Charlotte, if it is all about love and comittment, like you claim, then why don't you get married? What is stopping you? If a piece of paper issued by a government entity is stopping you, I would greatly question your love and comittment. Get married, show the world it is all about love and comittment, then fight for the bennies!
Robert, we've had the same conversation on AMG countless times. As has consistently been pointed out, there are real-life, monetary and security benefits to having a government-recognized marriage that aren't possible with a solely religious ceremony.
At one time, Dan Billings posted a list of such rights and benefits, including certain taxation, inheritance, pension and medical issues.
There is nothing "unworthy" about life partners wanting the same protection and benefits that are offered to opposite-sex married couples under state and Federal law.
There are plenty of heterosexual couples who marry in part because of those rights and benefits.
Could these legal issues be addressed with civil unions? It is the word marriage they are after.
I can see where they want to be married - for some, it's about the commitment aspect. Just like heterosexual couples.
All of these things with the exception of taxation can be addressed without recognizing same sex marriage. In the states that have decided to recognize same sex marriage, why is there no dramatic increase in marriages?
PS, I refuse to use the term, legalizing same sex marriage, because it is not illegal.
I can see where they want to be married - for some, it's about the commitment aspect.
Then what is stopping them from getting married?
Robert - like I wrote above, we've had the exact same discussions and debates on AMG, for years. Same recipe + same ingredients = same result. I don't see anyone's mind or position, or statements (either side) changing on this issue.
Just want to say that I am FOR same-sex marriages.
Not having read all the previous posts...I'd like to offer this:
1. Marriage certificates of legal dimensions to be issued by the State.
2. Marriage of Spiritual dimensions to be performed by churches within their denominational standards.
Actually Charlotte at post 55 you accused me of wanting to marry my sister.
In post 61 I pointed out your position is bigoted.
Bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Last time I checked 55 comes before 61.
I can dish it out too. So next time you accuse someone of wanting to marry their sister don't be surprised when you get it back.
But then again I was big enough to apologize and try to move on. You continue to take no responsibility for your insulting tone and continue to try and goad people down it.
Same recipe + same ingredients = same result.
Then why do the gays keep pushing for different results?
Maine, I still would love to hear how same sex civil marriages would personally harm you. In addition, after reading your link and other links on Mr. Turek, I agree with you. I do not support his termination. His personal beliefs did not interfere with his job.
Peter I guess I see a big difference between two consenting gay/lesbian adults and those who might wish to marry their mother. That said, I did agree with one thing you said. You said you married your wife to "build a life together"...that is the same with many gay/lesbian couples.
Naran...right on. Can't add anything...you nailed it.
Civil unions vs. civil marriage. Here is just one link of information...
let's review. Post 53 you said this:
If this was about equality and choice the law would allow for polygamy and relatives to be married as well.
Then in my post (53) I said this in response to your statement:
If you want to support polygamy or want to marry your sister...start your own referendum. Two (not immediate family members) loving committed adults...what is so hard to understand?
What that means is not "you" marrying your sister...but hypothetically anyone wanting to do either, start their own referendum. Why lump this with the gay couples that want the same as their heterosexual peers. These gay/lesbian couples don't want to marry their relatives, or to marry multiple partners...They want to have a civil marriage with the partner they love.
I wasn't attacking you..I don't even know if you have a sister.
Maine, I still would love to hear how same sex civil marriages would personally harm you.
I would still like to hear why you won't get married.
Actually Naran, my position has changed on this issue. If it were about fairness and equality I would support it.
To me, this fight is about whether or not gays should have special treatment. If it were about adults who love each other being treated the same there would be no ban on relatives and no restrictions on polygamy.
As I see it there are 4 camps on this.
Group 1 that wants to exploit gays and attack Christians by pushing this issue and gaining political power and money through it.
Group 2 who wants to defend gays right to marry because it makes them feel like they are battling an injustice.
Group 3 who wants to defend Christians' right to their beliefs because it makes them feel like they are battling an injustice.
Group 4 that wants to exploit Christians and attack gays by pushing this issue and gaining political power and money through it.
As I see it its just one more social issue being used to divide our country. The only difference is this time its clearly the liberals who are advancing the wedge.
Stavros, what about group 5?
Group 5, people who just want to be left alone to their own beliefs. People who are tired of people who identify themselves using sexual preference.
Who cares what ones sexual preferences are. I don't need to know it. I don't need to be told it is normal. Please, leave me alone.
It is not going to end with gay marriage. Gays will find something else to fight about.
fair enough, Robert. I agree with that.
I tend to think those people would support it if it were open to all consenting adults and not just a chosen few.
If you want to support polygamy or want to marry your sister...start your own referendum.
So, it's not about equality for all, then - only some are equal.
FWIW In Maine, cousins can marry provided they are of a certain age (beyond child rearing age) and/or have genetic counselling.
Catch up with past episodes of The Advance Team >>