Gay Marriage

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by mustardjohn
Maybe we could argue this from the other side for a while. If gay marriage in a legal sense is not important and dosen't affect anyone, why would someone want to have it? Normally, people want things that do matter, legally.

And lets don't argue the moral or emotional side of this lets stick to the legal side. So why would some one want to make someting that does not affect them or is not important to others legal. There must be a legal reason. What would it be?

Recognizing same-sex relationships as a legal marrige would open up the distinct possibility of the hypothetically now-legally married gay 'couple' sharing health insurance benefits (as a 'spouse'), bereavement leave, life insurance, annuity and pension rights, housing rights (such as rent-control apartments), adoption and inheritance rights. federal income tax and veterans' benefits as well as accumulated frequent-flier points, I would assume. Of course, same-sex couples could also be divorced with alimony and child custody issues following, just as with hetrosexual marriages.

The real goal for homosexuals isn't to be legally married (few have taken advantage of the opportunity in Vermont) but for forced social as well as legal acceptance of homosexuality on a hetrosexual populace via unelected judges making law from the bench with no input from those it's imposed on. The 97 -98% hetrosexual population tolerates homosexuality and homosexuals as individuals with the same rights as anyone else but generally is repulsed by it once you get past the platitudes about 'love' and realize exactly what it is gays do 'in the privacy of their own home' not to mention the much lesser privacy of men's rooms, bathhouses and bus stations. Homosexuality adds big health risks to a persons life and while being 'married' would add many financial and social benefits to their lives, civil unions could do the same - but most gays don't want that. They want the 'marriage' label and by receiving it, de facto recognition of what they do as 'normal' and accepted by society. I get that but it does nothing for the 98% of us who are not homosexual and don't believe that 'marriage' means in any way two guys sodomizing each other and looking for a kid to adopt because they can't make one and yet want to play daddy.

There are legal advantages to marriage but few hetrosexuals marry for financial benefits and, contrary to what some think, there is no 'right' to marry. It's simply recognized as the legal joining of two people, a man and a woman, in matrimony. After all the smoke and shouting is over, that crystal clear fact remains what every culture and every people have always known and acted on. Unfortunately, years of gay-friendly propaganda and a need to do what they think is PC and socially acceptable (as well as gain PC brownie points for sneering at assumed 'bigots' who disagree with them) many folks refuse to admit the simple logic of this and continue to champion 'gay marriage'. They go from pure emotionism to fantasy to nasty, anti-religion insults in their defense of this absurd concept all because they think it has no consequence and: "won't affect me one iota". They're mistaken but that never stopped anyone when their proclaimed 'open-mindedness' appears to be cost-free and makes them feel all warm and tingley for 'supporting' something they really are repulsed by in it's physical manifestation.

I have no doubt that this debate is far from over no matter what eventually happens in Massachusetts.

[srv1]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
[B]Originally posted by srv1 :



Consider my messages to you as a learning experience that will help you be better informed on current issues.

Yes the almight Jim has spoken. Listen to he, shall he show no mercy on ones soul The only thing I learned from you is not to be like you.

Yes, James, I am. I have some liberal friends who know I'm conservative in my politics (and a Christian) but they don't discuss these issues with me. We usually talk about cars, instead. I don't go around broadcasting my opinions on same-sex marriage or telling people about my spiritual beliefs unless I'm asked or I'm already part of a conversation where the subject comes up. I'm sure that when people talk about their religion and how glad they are to be a Christian or say they'll vote for Bush in November you, the open-minded guy that we all know you are (because you tell us so) just smile and remain 'open minded' about it. Yes, I'm sure you do.

Yes the word "liberal":

" lib·er·al Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

I assume you were hinting I was also liberal? Yes I am. Refreshing your memory on the definition since you keep throwing that word out like it is a bad omen. Yeah, yeah you know the defintion but don't quite seem to grasp it. Being liberal is not a bad thing. I know you never said that as well.

Allowing adults to legally have sex with 10 year olds wouldn't affect me, either, but I would still oppose it.

It wouldn't? I have a hard time believing that being your a father. It bothers me and I have no children.

What you obviously fail to understand (in your self-centered world) James, is that some things are too important to ignore simply on the basis of how it personally affects me. Some day, you'll understand that. Well, one hopes.

Some day maybe you will learn to read between the lines. You seemed the most feared by it going by what you wrote and how you responded about it. You say you debate, but all I see is an argue. I am not going to deny it, neither should you. This does bring this discussion to a personal level. Freedom is for everybody. If we(Americans) are going to emphasize it we should be equal about it, but you don't want to hear any of that PC non-sense do you? All I am saying Jim is we(Americans) shouldn't be hypocrites of what we wrote years ago, either we stand by it or this nation will fall apart which is what it is doing today. I actually agree with some aspects of what you say on this subject of gay marriage. I think it is "wrong" for the most part and disgusting but if we can't stand behind what is written and what we live by, then why have laws at all?

Contrary to your uninformed blustering, CDC statistics show that homosexuals represent the majority of AIDS patients (50% - out of less than 3% of the total population) so of course health insurance rates will most certainly go up as same-sex couples are given health coverage by law. Although the death rate for AIDS has dropped considerably, the drugs needed to sustain good health for a person with AIDS cost big bucks and the treatments literally never end. Homosexuals also are the biggest carriers (and spreaders) of STD's with around 75% of homosexuals having some form of STD, primarily syphilis (60%). Homosexuals are also one of largest groups of Hepatitis 'B' ('gay bowel syndrome') carriers and have other intestinal diseases not normal to most hetrosexuals. On the other hand, the average age at death for homosexual men is 42 while an average hetrosexual married man in America lives to be 75. Homosexuals can propagandize all they want but the cold, hard statistics don't lie and prove that actions still have consequences.

I would assume that health insurance would increase as well, being that gays have the highest rate of AIDS. I also think they should pay more. I know what your thinking, he just wrote how we should be "equal" above yet he wants gays to pay more for health insurance. Well let me give you an analogy. You share an apartment with your friend. You use 70% of the electricity and he uses 30%. Now why should he have to pay more if you are using more? He shouldn't, he should pay his 30%. Insurance for gays is the same way. If they carry 80%(example only) of the AIDS virus, why should the rest of us non-gays have to pay more? So it would be correct to say they pay more;equal.

Before you start calling people 'stupid', you might want to stop believing gay propaganda that tells you AIDS is not a predominantly 'gay' disease and check out a few documented facts, first. Your absurd contention that AIDS is not a 'gay disease' is dead wrong and makes you look 'stupid' for trying to sell that fallacy here. Wise up.

He didn't call you stupid. Its not gay propaganda either. Maybe he was misinformed. Is that possible? It's not a "gay disease". It didn't originate from gays. Gays did spread it cause of a study by the government, hepatitis B vaccine experiments, where in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. They still aren't sure if it was biowarfare or chimps from Africa in which it originated from.

Here is my resources:
INFO 1
INFO 2
INFO 3

Knee-jerk this!

James

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by srv1 :

Yes the almight Jim has spoken. Listen to he, shall he show no mercy on ones soul. The only thing I learned from you is not to be like you.

That's a pity, James. Your illogical and obstinate attitude does you no favors here but you'll probably figure that out, in time. One hopes, anyway.

I assume you were hinting I was also liberal? Yes I am. Refreshing your memory on the definition since you keep throwing that word out like it is a bad omen. Yeah, yeah you know the defintion but don't quite seem to grasp it. Being liberal is not a bad thing. I know you never said that as well.

No James, you're quite mistaken. I hinted that your alleged open-mindedness was somewhat of a fraud. You have definite opinions on politics and religion but pretend that supporting concepts such as 'gay marriage' renders you 'liberal' and 'open-minded'. It doesn't. It simply means that you have an opinion that is the same as many others. Nothing special or 'open-minded' about it. Your liberalism is nothing special and certainly not 'open-minded'.

It wouldn't? I have a hard time believing that being your a father. It bothers me and I have no children.

I said that it wouldn't affectme, not that it wouldn't bother me. Big difference. You really need to learn to differentiate words and meanings better. It was simply a hypothetical example used to make a point.

Some day maybe you will learn to read between the lines. You seemed the most feared by it going by what you wrote and how you responded about it. You say you debate, but all I see is an argue. I am not going to deny it, neither should you. This does bring this discussion to a personal level. Freedom is for everybody. If we(Americans) are going to emphasize it we should be equal about it, but you don't want to hear any of that PC non-sense do you? All I am saying Jim is we(Americans) shouldn't be hypocrites of what we wrote years ago, either we stand by it or this nation will fall apart which is what it is doing today. I actually agree with some aspects of what you say on this subject of gay marriage. I think it is "wrong" for the most part and disgusting but if we can't stand behind what is written and what we live by, then why have laws at all?

You appear to confuse what the word 'discrimination' really means, James, in terms of legality as well as constitutionality. I've posted at great length on the subject on this very thread and I have no intention of re-typing that all over again as you apparently ignore what you don't agree with, anyway. Your contention that by supporting and advocating 'gay marriage' you are somehow upholding some constitutional 'right' for gays is simply a manifestation of the mistaken idea that marriage is a 'right' and that to not redefine what marriage means is somehow 'discrimination' against homosexuals. It is not. That's where you and I clearly differ.

I would assume that health insurance would increase as well, being that gays have the highest rate of AIDS. I also think they should pay more. I know what your thinking, he just wrote how we should be "equal" above yet he wants gays to pay more for health insurance. Well let me give you an analogy. You share an apartment with your friend. You use 70% of the electricity and he uses 30%. Now why should he have to pay more if you are using more? He shouldn't, he should pay his 30%. Insurance for gays is the same way. If they carry 80%(example only) of the AIDS virus, why should the rest of us non-gays have to pay more? So it would be correct to say they pay more;equal.

I agree. Unfortunately, homosexuals would probably challege that assumption in court as 'discrimination'. You see, when you use 'discrimination' as a club to get what you want, as 'gays' are doing with same-sex marriage, you'll keep using it and once 'gay marriage' is legalized, as I expect that it will be, on the basis that to not do so is 'discrimination', it open up a Pandoras Box of problems down the road that no one thinks about or at least wants to talk about, today.

He didn't call you stupid.

I didn't say that he did. I was addressing the fact that bigred90gt termed the contention that links homosexuals and AIDS as 'The BS card' and called it: "the stupidest thing he had ever heard". I disagreed with his opinion.

Its not gay propaganda either.

I disagree. The contention that AIDS is 'everyone's problem' is false and promoted by homosexuals to deflect the fact that they constitute 50% of the AIDS population.

Maybe he was misinformed. Is that possible? It's not a "gay disease". It didn't originate from gays. Gays did spread it cause of a study by the government, hepatitis B vaccine experiments, where in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. They still aren't sure if it was biowarfare or chimps from Africa in which it originated from.

Sorry James, I don't buy it but the actual origin of AIDS is basically irrelevant at this late date. It's a 'gay disease' because - again - homosexuals constitute 50% of the AIDS 'population' in the United States but less than 3% of the total U.S. population. In Africa, hetrosexuals are the primary carriers of AIDS but we were discusssing the United States, not Africa and yes, I think 'bigred90gt' was quite misinformed, to put it politely.

Knee-jerk this!

James

I'd rather not, James. Thanks anyway.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by 82 GT
In all honesty, if people get offended by some of the replies made in these posts then maybe they should think twice before starting a thread like this one.
If you can't handle the personal feelings and opinions which are sometimes outright cruel and unfair then why even bother asking how the rest of us feel...especially a controversial one like gay marriages?
We(all of us) get pisssed off at someone who makes a remark we might not like or agree with and what do we do......start bashing on that person because he/she put their two cents in.
I admit...even I've done it.
That's why I don't start controversial threads like this because I know how cruel the replies can be and quite frankly would be afraid to hear some people's opionions.
My advice to anyone in the future about posting highly debatable subjects like this one is to put your bullet proof vest on befoe you do because this can be a very tough board.

What the hell are you talking about?? I started this thread and I'm not offended. If anyone gets offended by a subject matter then they shouldn't click on the thread(kinda like the person who sent Dan the email). I started this one and the President Bush thread because I was sitting here one night and thought this place was dead and thought it needed something to wake it up. If you don't like controversial threads, don't read them, m'kay?

[82 GT]

Originally posted by RBatson
What the hell are you talking about?? I started this thread and I'm not offended. If anyone gets offended by a subject matter then they shouldn't click on the thread(kinda like the person who sent Dan the email). I started this one and the President Bush thread because I was sitting here one night and thought this place was dead and thought it needed something to wake it up. If you don't like controversial threads, don't read them, m'kay?

My bad...what I should have said was what you just said "Don't click on threads if you can't handle the subject. I shouldn't have said "start threads" I wasn't referring to you. That remark you quoted me on was geared more towards joe4speed and bigred90GT , who seem to be getting all choked up and emotional over some of the comments and harsh words on this thread.

This thread is about dead anyway. Let's talk about something even more controversial like the situation with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners(poor babies...ahhh). I'm going to go start that on.

[paver one]

Unless I missed something somewhere it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve..........

[82 GT]

Originally posted by paver one
Unless I missed something somewhere it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve..........

You did miss something....that's already been said a long time ago.......That was the very first reply made to this thread by Missblondie .
(see page 1)

[induction]

Here it is...
A new law has come into force in Massachusetts, which will allow couples of the same sex to get married.

It is the first American state(Massachusetts) to allow gay weddings, and the issue has divided opinion and politicians across the US.

Earlier this year thousands of homosexual and lesbian couples were married in San Francisco, but the marriages were not legally recognised under Californian law.

Towns and cities across Massachusetts are preparing to process large numbers of applications from gay couples.

Some of the views from this side of the world;
Loads of room for dissection here

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far...




This is great news. People are trying to see beyond their blinkers at last!
Dr Jeethan Bendoor, Hong Kong

Marriage designed on earth sanctified in heaven! Let the faithful keep marriage and the civil union of same sex partners or non believers come up with a different name for their union.
Lesley, London UK

I think that gay marriage is just as much a basic right as being born into a loving and caring house. Gay's pay aprox. 20 % more tax as couples. We pay for schooling children that we mostly do NOT have, if governments choose not to allow Gay person to marry and have even children then there should be a tax break for this. I got married to my partner and husband in Holland in March 2002 , after I knew that he is the man that I do want to share the rest of my life with.
Matthias Peuser, Arnhem, The Netherlands

No. Marriage is about procreation - gay couple can't procreate. Enough said.
Peter, UK

In response to Peter, marriage isn't about procreation. The office of National Statistics showed that more children were born outside of marriage last year than any other year in this country. Get your facts right! As a single hetero atheist, gay marriages won't directly affect me. Good luck to all lesbians and gays in the US getting hitched - you still have a mountain to climb.
Julie, Newcastle, England

Peter, UK: So if marriage is about procreation, should infertile people be barred from marriage? Of course gay people should be allowed to marry, and let the religious right moan and complain all they want, further showing their intolerance.
Pete, Scotland

Marriage is not just about procreation. So no, Peter, that's not enough said.
Alan Driscoll, Colchester, UK

Get real Peter. Marriage is a unification of two people who love each other dearly and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, regardless of their sex. Hopefully most would adopt and give hope and love to some of the millions of orphans out there. Too many 'straight' marriages just end up in divorce these days as people no longer value its sacredness.
Nick, Edinburgh

Seeing that society is generally "falling into the abyss," it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.
Roger, Swindon England

This issue is not about procreation, it's about giving gay couples the same legal status as opposite sex marriages. I'm not gay but I don't have a problem with that. Live and let live I say. Life's too short.
Bob H, Glasgow, UK

Of course marriage is about children. That's why we don't allow sterile people to marry. Or women who are past the menopause. And that's why marriages are legally dissolved if they haven't resulted in children after a certain time. Oh, wait...
Elizabeth, Oxford, UK

Obviously same-sex marriages should be legal. Those who think they shouldn't be, based on homosexuals' inability to have children: should we ban marriage for infertile couples too?
Leah, London

There is no reason why same-sex couples shouldn't be able to bring friends and family together and declare their commitment to each other. It does not affect anyone else, but will bring happiness to the couples involved. Where is the problem?! Probably same-sex couples will take the sanctity of marriage more seriously than some heterosexual couples seem to!
Justine, Stuttgart, Germany

Judging from some of the comments on here, it would appear that I have the right to sue the government for not informing me that marriage was for having children and passing down property and culture. I was under the impression that it was to make a commitment to my partner. Since I have no children and no property, I'm going home tonight and throwing out my husband, it's obvious I don't need him!
Susan, London

Same sex marriages should not be made legal. Marriage is between a man and a women.
Mai Read-Brown, Glasgow, Scotland

I think that the issue is not about marriage itself, it's more about child adoption. If child adoption by gay couples is not a problem then marriage for gays will be a way to pass property and culture down the generations.
Wendy, France

Your sexual orientation should not affect your ability to marry

Mark Wilkinson, Brighton, UK

Of course. Your sexual orientation should not affect your ability to marry. Marriage in these times is predominantly a civil ceremony rather than a religious one, and although some Christian fundamentalists may disagree, you shouldn't suffer discrimination for choosing to love somebody of the same sex.
Mark Wilkinson, Brighton, UK

These people choose a different lifestyle, but still want the benefits of normal partnerships. If you don't want to be part of the club, don't expect the perks.
James, Dorset, UK

As a straight man, who is married, I see no reason why loving couples should not be entitled to celebrate their union by the contract of marriage. It does not devalue my marriage, the ever increasing divorce rate does that. Gay couples have fought for this right for longer than some marriages last. Does that not show their commitment to each other. It is the fundamental right of a human being to marry the person they love.
Stuart, Hampshire UK

Gay marriage should not be made legal because it is unconstitutional and unethical. This type of relationship can shake our Christian foundation.
Tanyi Ntaka, Buea, Cameroon

I think that gay couples should be able to get married, I think a change in the law both here and in America is long overdue. When you put gay couples on a equal standing with straight couples it will be a big move towards equality and social acceptance.
Cat, Cambridge UK


For the advancement of the human race, of course they should be made legal. And anyone who is opposed to this, what difference to your life does it make if two people of the same sex want to commit to one another? None what-so-ever! """Try actually living a life of acceptance instead of blind, ignorant condemnation for a change."""
Andrew, Bristol, UK

Can anyone give a sane reason not to?
Jone Jones, Brighton, UK

I fail to see the point of a same-sex marriage. The institution of marriage is a way to pass property and culture down the generations. If there are to be no children, why bother with marriage? Why not be "partners" for as long as it suits you, until your lives move on?
Dave Brown, Bishop's Stortford, England

I don't see what harm can come about from letting same-sex marriages be legal. We should just be happy for any two people to show their commitment to love each other through marriage.
Nathan, Bournemouth, UK

[Mr 5 0]

Thanks for sharing this but frankly, it's the same exact arguments - pro and con - that have always been offered when 'gay marriage' is being discussed. I see nothing new here, just the same old same old, albeit with a British accent.