0
StreetScooby

What is it about gay marriage?

Recommended Posts

Quote


"Gay marriage" - concerns include separation and divorce. I have a close friend who had a 4 year relationship... and when it ended, he was devastated. That population isn't KNOWN for long term relationships. But in reality, that problem exists with ANY marriage.



I must admit that I have somewhat mixed emotions on this topic. I personally have friends who are gay, responsible adults, and just want to live a life of peace with their chosen partner. I have no problem with that, and truly wish them well.

I am not concerned that my children would see these responsible adults living their life happily.

On the other hand, I lived in San Francisco for 3 years during the start of the AIDS crisis. Alot of gays at that time were all about how many sexual partners you could have, and it proved to be a very unhealthy life style. I personally did find it repulsive, but I'm also repulsed with heterosexuals that have the same attitude (...especially so with men who have no regard as to whether they've produced children during their jaunts).

At this point in time, if you're gay, you're probably born that way, IMO. As long as you're a responsible adult, I hope you're happy.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voting is good. But voting on somebody elses liberty, a liberty that does not affect the well being of another, is wrong. If someone wants a gay/lesbian marriage, let them. Who do people think they are as to decide the life of someone else? It's not that big of a deal. I am not for gay/lesbianism but it's not my call; if they're happy then let it be




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Marriage has little to do with a religion and everything to do with relationship commitment.
In the eyes of the law it should not matter whether the relationship constitutes XX-XY or XX-XX or XY-XY genetic composites



Marriage is really just a property contract. It has predefined rights and beneftis which are obtained through state sanction. Nothing more, nothing less. All the stuff about religion or relationship commitment can be achieved absent state sanction and are not inherent in the legal status.

Personally I am for doing away with state sanctioned marriage. Let couples make their own contractual relationship agreements. That's probably unrealistic but I'm willing to let gays be as miserable as the rest of the married people.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Twice in one week now that one of our prominent righties has confused the Constitution with the Decleration, and with the exact same passage, too!



Those two documents are deeply connected.



But most definitely not interchangeable.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Twice in one week now that one of our prominent righties has confused the Constitution with the Decleration, and with the exact same passage, too!



Those two documents are deeply connected.


Yes, they are.

But there is a huge difference between the D of I and the Constitutuion.

The best analogy I can come up with is a business "Misson Statement" and the bylaws which govern how the corporation operates.

And the "inalienable rights" are guaranteed by our creator, not named. There's a big difference there.

To the best of my knowledge, the only things directly named by the creator were the 10 Commandments. (or 15 if you believe Mel Brooks:)YouTube).
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


It's not catching and it's not like they're going to 'out-breed' you. Relax.



However, to adolescents, it is exciting and tempting. Once experimentation becomes habit the individual believes they were born that way.



Its "exciting and tempting"? If you think its exciting and tempting.. you're probably gay. Don't beat yourself up over it though. Modern civil society doesn't care, feel free to join us some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Man, talk about an entertaining thread.

Many scream that our laws and Constitution stop the many from taking "rights" from the few. As it has not been brought up yet I thought it was time.

But, it also works the other way. It also stops the few from taking rights from the many.



The constitution prevents the government from infringing on the rights of the people.

Borrowing some language from the end of Lincoln's speech some years later, we can think of this as a limit on "government by the people", in which case it's protecting the few from the overwhelming vote of the many (minorities from majorities.) Or you can think of it as a limit on "government of the people", in which case it's protecting the many from the unilateral decree of the few (the governed from those in power.)

Majorities, however, don't need protection from minorities. That's what pitchforks and torches are for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Twice in one week now that one of our prominent righties has confused the Constitution with the Decleration, and with the exact same passage, too!


Those two documents are deeply connected.



In approximately the same way one divorce is connected to the next marriage. That is to say, only that one of the parties involved gets to be involved in both.

A "Dear John (or in this case George)" letter is not really connected to the next business contract you make.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished my benefits election for next year and the "penalty" for not being in a federally legally recognized marriage (although being legally married in MA) is about $2,500 to $3,000. This includes paying the "imputed" tax on health care benefits for my other half and not being able to put aside pre-tax dollars into an FSA account for him....and if I die no Social Security benefits go to him and property is not transferred tax free nor is other jointly owned assets.

So....if all marriage "rights", especially at the Federal level, get applied to civil unions then I guess the legalization of gay marriage would be less of a big deal. To me it doesn't matter what it is called....as long as the law treats them the same. For those that think current civil union laws provide the same benefits of marriage are sadly mistaken.

$3,000 would be about 120 jumps [:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I just finished my benefits election for next year and the "penalty" for not being in a federally legally recognized marriage (although being legally married in MA) is about $2,500 to $3,000. This includes paying the "imputed" tax on health care benefits for my other half and not being able to put aside pre-tax dollars into an FSA account for him....and if I die no Social Security benefits go to him and property is not transferred tax free nor is other jointly owned assets.



Thanks for the insight.
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Man, talk about an entertaining thread.

Many scream that our laws and Constitution stop the many from taking "rights" from the few. As it has not been brought up yet I thought it was time.

But, it also works the other way. It also stops the few from taking rights from the many.



The constitution prevents the government from infringing on the rights of the people.

Borrowing some language from the end of Lincoln's speech some years later, we can think of this as a limit on "government by the people", in which case it's protecting the few from the overwhelming vote of the many (minorities from majorities.) Or you can think of it as a limit on "government of the people", in which case it's protecting the many from the unilateral decree of the few (the governed from those in power.)

Majorities, however, don't need protection from minorities. That's what pitchforks and torches are for.



Bullshit, minorities have been using the courts to force their shit donw our throats for years

And gay's rights have not been denied
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Bullshit, minorities have been using the courts to force their shit donw our
>throats for years

Agreed. Desegregation, civil rights, and interracial marriage have all been "shoved down our throats" - and we are better off for that.

>And gay's rights have not been denied

There's a good example just a few posts above yours of someone who has been denied the same rights heterosexuals have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


It's not catching and it's not like they're going to 'out-breed' you. Relax.



However, to adolescents, it is exciting and tempting. Once experimentation becomes habit the individual believes they were born that way.



Its "exciting and tempting"? If you think its exciting and tempting.. you're probably gay. Don't beat yourself up over it though. Modern civil society doesn't care, feel free to join us some day.



It's fascinating to me. The most outspoken, deeply evangelical proselytizing born again christian I know is very obviously using christianity to hide from himself. He might be gay, he might be transgendered, but he's definitely fucked up from trying to deny it.

The hypocrisy is surprisingly not shocking.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Besides the biblical aspect, what concerns do people have about gay marriage?



It's not how humans are designed to progress as a race, two men or women can't reproduce w/o the opposite sex.
Personally I don't give a shit if your staright or gay, I preffer not to see two dudes PDA... I still can't get my head around that, but to each his own.
Oh and I am totally bais btw cause two girls togather can be beautiful:D

Besides gay behavior has been around a looong time and is accepted/ unaccepted all throughout history.

Peace and happiness to all!! whatever floats your boat
Travis Roy Foundation. At very least its a tax write off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It's not how humans are designed to progress as a race, two men
>or women can't reproduce w/o the opposite sex.

True. Although I know several people who have had children either through IVF or adoption. I'm glad they were able to marry so they could raise their children in the environment they wanted - even if they couldn't reproduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Ron, if one of your grandchildren came to you one day and said, "Granpa, I love you, but there's something you should know; I'm gay."

How much less would you love them?



I wouldn't love them less but I would certainly talk to them about problems associated with fornication and sexual addiction. It would be the same if one of them told me they were experimenting with meth. You can get away with it for awhile but in the end it is a killer. In both cases it is a personal decision based on natural desire. As John Wayne is credited with saying, "Life is tough. It is a lot tougher if you're stupid."



Wow... really? Like.... REALLY??? You are so misinformed and that it makes my stomach turn. So what you are saying is being gay is a sexual addiction? From medicine.net:

The term "sexual addiction" is used to describe the behavior of a person who has an unusually intense sex drive or an obsession with sex. Sex and the thought of sex tend to dominate the sex addict's thinking, making it difficult to work or engage in healthy personal relationships.

Maybe because I am a scientist I forgot how to read since my language is generally is mathematics, but if I am correct I don't see anything, not one thing, that mentions LBGT's in that definition. Sexual addiction effects everybody no matter what their race, religion, color, creed, or sexual orientation. So please don't try to take science and fact and twist it to convince yourself and your family that is why you are concerned with gays because being gay means it's a sex addiction. Sir, it is most definitely not. Please educate yourself before you use that as your foundation.

And you really went as far as to say being gay is a choice just like somebody chooses to do meth? Have you read anything by the APA on this subject? Here, let me enlighten you a little. Here, let science enlighten you a little. Here are some COLD HARD FACTS:

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

IT IS NOT A CHOICE!!!! Do you love your wife or your significant other? Did you wake up when you were a teenager and decide, "Wow. I decide that I am going to love women?" Can you explain to me where that love for your wife comes from? You can't because it's something that comes from deep inside of you. From your biology, genetics, and chemical make up in your brain. You can't help that you love and are attracted to your wife, the opposite sex, just like gay people can not help that they love and are attracted to those of the same sex. Turn the tables here and imagine a world where most people were gay but you loved your wife-- a woman. Everybody starts saying that your love for her was a choice and you made that choice and you choose to be "evil" by loving her. You can sit here and tell me that you consciously made a choice to love her and can switch that feeling off for her at the drop of a hat because you can teach yourself to make the choice to love a man because that part of society was telling you it's the right thing to do?? I seriously don't think so.

And lastly you say that in the end, like meth addiction, it is a killer? I am sorry to burst your bubble but I know PLENTY of LBGT's that live full and happy lives. Actually, some much better, fuller, happier, longer than some of my straight friends!

I like John Wayne, but I'd rather end my rant with this: "Life is tough, but it is a lot tougher if you choose to be ignorant and not educate yourself past your own views in the box you choose to live in and never step out of."

Sorry for the rant.
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Just to spark discussion. Do you think it would be a good idea for homosexuals to be recognized more than socially? For example, is it necessarily a good idea for Obama to get rid of the "Don't ask don't tell" policy?



Don't Ask, Don't Tell is going away. Maybe not today, but my guess would be within the next year. It takes a considerable amount of time to work out some details and get the military switched over in how they do certain things, but it's absolutely going away.

Quote


I personally feel like it would create more problems for homosexuals than solve them. I have no problem with homosexuals, some of my family are, I just feel like being recognized in the work place, opens a can of worms that is "Equal Opportunity" and "Tolerance" dilemmas.



A person's sexual identity or orientation should never be an issue unless you personally plan on fucking them. Done. End of discussion.

Well, in an ideal world anyway.


I understand "don't ask don't tell" is going away, but is it necessarily a good thing? I mean, I look at it like this, being recognized is good, it removes that burden of feeling like you have to hide who you are, but at the same time, this is not an ideal world, and I guarantee the tornado that is "Equal Opportunity" will get a slap in the face the second a straight soldier finds out one of his squad mates is gay and is showering with him.

Now I know, I could care less, I understand just because they are gay doesn't mean they want to fuck everyone, but to the same regard, just because I am a man, doesn't mean I want to fuck every woman I see, but I still can't shower with women. It would be unavoidable, segregated showers and bathrooms in the military, it is unfortunate, but its the Army, and EO is a big deal. So now you ask, well the Army can't tell who is gay and who is not, so what makes them use the other bathrooms etc. Well, I have a feeling, job applications will start to have a check box for sexual orientation, and therefore requiring a pronounced homosexual to abide by rules.

I know this sounds like I hate homosexuals, and I assure you I do not, like I said before some of my family are lesbian, but I am thinking realistically, rationally, being able to openly announce you are gay, will come with consequences, unfortunate ones but it will, so I ask again, is it necessarily a good thing? I mean to go from hiding, to a different form of hiding from what you initially wanted?

Debate begin :P
EDIT TO ADD** I am strictly talking about the military and their very strict EO program.
-Evo
Zoo Crew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I understand "don't ask don't tell" is going away, but is it necessarily a good thing? I mean, I look at it like this, being recognized is good, it removes that burden of feeling like you have to hide who you are, but at the same time, this is not an ideal world, and I guarantee the tornado that is "Equal Opportunity" will get a slap in the face the second a straight soldier finds out one of his squad mates is gay and is showering with him.



They said the same thing about blacks and whites serving together in the military. It caused some problems for a while but eventually most people realized that it was idiotic. Now they rarely have those problems. The same should happen in this case and anyone who does take their moronic beliefs and turn them into action should be punished to the fullest extent of the military code. They should receive a dishonorable discharge from the military. They don't deserve to represent this country if they can't behave like a responsible member of society.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Well, I have a feeling, job applications will start to have a check box for sexual
>orientation, and therefore requiring a pronounced homosexual to abide by rules.

No problem. They follow the same rules as everyone else.

>being able to openly announce you are gay, will come with consequences. . . .

?? What? Right now it means you get discharged. We're talking about changing it so that it has _fewer_ consequences.

>and I guarantee the tornado that is "Equal Opportunity" will get a slap in the
>face the second a straight soldier finds out one of his squad mates is gay and is
>showering with him.

Why would the rules on what you can do in the shower be any different whether he's straight or gay?

In college I lived in a living group with coed bathrooms. It was a big deal - for about two weeks. Then everyone got over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I understand "don't ask don't tell" is going away, but is it necessarily a good thing? I mean, I look at it like this, being recognized is good, it removes that burden of feeling like you have to hide who you are, but at the same time, this is not an ideal world, and I guarantee the tornado that is "Equal Opportunity" will get a slap in the face the second a straight soldier finds out one of his squad mates is gay and is showering with him.



They said the same thing about blacks and whites serving together in the military. It caused some problems for a while but eventually most people realized that it was idiotic. Now they rarely have those problems. The same should happen in this case and anyone who does take their moronic beliefs and turn them into action should be punished to the fullest extent of the military code. They should receive a dishonorable discharge from the military. They don't deserve to represent this country if they can't behave like a responsible member of society.


Right, that is true, but the black and white issue was not a sexually centered concern. I am assuming you have not served in the military, and have never experienced equal opportunity briefs or classes as a result. The Army is VERY strict when it comes to EO, and when a sexual topic is addressed, I assure you, they do it to the fullest of the UCMJ. Its hard to rule out emotion in a topic like this, and look at it as it is, for what it is. The logic is sound, and it is the logic that will cause these problems and that is, "for the same reason men and women do not share showers in the military, is the same reason homo and hetero sexual people, cannot share showers" ...I mean, I just don't know how to defend against a statement like that, what do you say? I mean, its true, men and women don't share barracks and bathrooms and showers, quite simply to avoid EO complaints and concerns, now if you introduce another aspect of the male female separation, I just can't see it being brushed by and getting universally accepted without a hitch. Do you see what I am saying? Its hard to talk about without sounding like a terrible person, and to avoid letting emotion rule out logic, but its a real concern. [:/]

-Evo
Zoo Crew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>No problem. They follow the same rules as everyone else

Right, except you missed the point of my post, the rules would have to be different.

>>?? What? Right now it means you get discharged. We're talking about changing it so that it has _fewer_ consequences.

Right I agree, and that is why I am asking is it a good idea, would it solve more problems than it would create. Is it a good sacrifice to be able to be open without getting discharged, but as a result be forced to use seperate showers and bathrooms etc..?

>>Why would the rules on what you can do in the shower be any different whether he's straight or gay?

In college I lived in a living group with coed bathrooms. It was a big deal - for about two weeks. Then everyone got over it.

And alot has changed in college, including the sexual assault(both physical and mental) prevention programs, to include, yup you guessed it, segregated showers.
Zoo Crew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Ron, if one of your grandchildren came to you one day and said, "Granpa, I love you, but there's something you should know; I'm gay."

How much less would you love them?



I wouldn't love them less but I would certainly talk to them about problems associated with fornication and sexual addiction. It would be the same if one of them told me they were experimenting with meth. You can get away with it for awhile but in the end it is a killer. In both cases it is a personal decision based on natural desire. As John Wayne is credited with saying, "Life is tough. It is a lot tougher if you're stupid."



What about homosexually implies a sex addiciton. I know plenty of gay couples who have no more sex than the rest of us. Homosexually is about love, partnership and a union of two people who care for one another. Sex addiciton does not equate to homosexuality. You need to get your head out of your ass and educate yourself about homosexuality. But, alas, you probably won't, as ignorance is too bliss, and you have your fixed prejudices about others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0