Gay marriage, why is this even an issue?

[August]

Originally Posted by tycho102

Seems to me the solution is fairly straight-foward:

1. Amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

2. Strike the word "marriage" out of all current laws and governmental forms. Replace it with "Civil Union".

3. Get "married" at your local church. Wear a ring if you'd like. Get your kids Baptized if that suits you.

4. Apply for a "Civil Union" at your local judiciary branch office. Know that your Civil Union means that you are now legally responsible for whatever children you have with your Civil Union Partner.

5. Have gay sex in the confines of your own castle, not the local coffee shop's bathroom glory-hole.

6. Profit!

Not really:

1. The amendment is to clarify what constitutes a marriage, it is not a direct ban.

2. There is no justifiable reason to do this.

3. We can do that anyways regardless of the government position.

4. You're financially responsible for your children regardless of your matrimonial status.

5. Public sex is disgusting regardless of flavor.

6. Whose profit? Certainly not the general public who would now have to fund gay divorce proceedings and gay marriage tax breaks and shelters.

[Umfuld]

have the potential to have them in the future, either by intent or mistake, so you're wrong.

Right. So switch it to a man who has had his testicles cut off by a tragic lawn mower accident. Or anyway in which a man and woman cannont have a child due to medical reasons.
And answer the question in that way.

Or just refuse to again, because it dismisses the entire point.


And you are wrong about the dictionary. Yes, it simply lists the legal definition. If gays are allowed to marry, guess what, the dictionary isn't going to keep the old definition as some sort of politcal statement.

Good lord.

Are you seriously implying that gays are responsible for womens sufferage and freeing the slaves?

I'm implying that it's foolish to whine about people who are trying to change things and act like the status que has always been great and never needed changing.

Duh, get it?

[August]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

Right. So switch it to a man who has had his testicles cut off by a tragic lawn mower accident. Or anyway in which a man and woman cannont have a child due to medical reasons.
And answer the question in that way.

Or just refuse to again, because it dismisses the entire point.

And you are wrong about the dictionary. Yes, it simply lists the legal definition. If gays are allowed to marry, guess what, the dictionary isn't going to keep the old definition as some sort of politcal statement.

Good lord.


I'm implying that it's foolish to whine about people who are trying to change things and act like the status que has always been great and never needed changing.

Duh, get it?

Yeah i get it. You're reduced to imagining obscure testicle accidents in a desperate attempt to make your flawed point.

However, regardless of your own "gimme, gimme" childish arguments, the status quO on the definition of the word marriage is fine as is and doesn't need changing. Come up with some really valid reasons for changing it and just maybe people will listen to you, but change for changes own sake is not one of them.

As for the dictionary, you could redefine any word to mean something it doesn't but that wouldn't make it accurate or proper to do so. Changing the definition of a word just to make a political statement, which is what you, not me, are demanding, would be as ridiculous as asking what the definition of "is" is.

[Enigma]

Im an American. And I beleive that if this country wants to wag its finger at the world, call its self the leader of Democracy, spout off about freedom and liberty until the cows come home, then It need to practice what it preaches. Gay Americans are Americans. Thats it. Given that fact, they should in no way be barred from engaging in marraige, here in the "Land of the Free".

As far as the issue itself goes, not allowing gays to marry violates at least two constitutional amendments (First and Fourteenth). Personally, I find barring gays from marriage, or anyone from any right for that matter, to be repulsive. If some conservative churches won't allow it, fine, I could care less, but they have no right to impress their will in regards to who can and cannot exercise certain rights on fellow citizens.

Amen.

[Gizzmoe]

[Umfuld]

So you too refuse to answer a simply yes or no question, but still try to pretend you have a valid argument. So I can pretty much skip over whatever you post in the future then? Okay.


Here's your valid argument: There are people who want to get married who aren't allowed to for no reason other than simply bigotry.

How's that killer?

And no offense, but about the dictionary thing, there aren't 'Definition Fairies' floating around deciding what words mean. They mean what humans say they mean. And in this case it's simply the LEGAL defininition of a word. And whether it's this year or the year 3006, when the law is changed to end this discrimination, the dictionarie's difinition will be changed.
I mean good lord! Are you kidding me? Why did I come here?

Are you kidding?!!

[August]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

So you too refuse to answer a simply yes or no question, but still try to pretend you have a valid argument. So I can pretty much skip over whatever you post in the future then? Okay.


Here's your valid argument: There are people who want to get married who aren't allowed to for no reason other than simply bigotry.

How's that killer?

And no offense, but about the dictionary thing, there aren't 'Definition Fairies' floating around deciding what words mean. They mean what humans say they mean. And in this case it's simply the LEGAL defininition of a word. And whether it's this year or the year 3006, when the law is changed to end this discrimination, the dictionarie's difinition will be changed.
I mean good lord! Are you kidding me? Why did I come here?

Are you kidding?!!

I have no problem with you ignoring me Pal. There's even a forum feature i believe that will help you do just that.

As for your latest gasp, you're right, they DO mean what humans say they mean, including the legal definition but since the public overwhelmingly DON'T want the meaning to change to accomodate a few activist nuts don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

[XabbaRus]

In the UK we already have the civil unions and I think they work just fine. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women. It's terminology. At the end of teh day what matters is whether the couple involved have recognition of the union in law and protection. A civil union does just that, the great thing is it can be used by heterosexuals too....

However I agree with most of the people on this, I don't give a damn what someones arientation is as long as they aren't arseholes and it doesn't involve children, animals or brutality.

What I do get peed of with is those homosexual people who shove it down your throat. In the UK at least (and the rest of the EU) there is legislation that protects and gives equal rights to gays in work, life etc. I have know many gay people and well didn't know until it just came about. I have met a couple who made it their business that you knew they were gay and hell become you lest you forgot.

As for a gay couple adopting, well There are many children who are brought up succesfully without either a mother or a father so I wouldn't say just because a couple are gay they are, by default not ideal parents. The issue is that in this society children will be horendously bullied at some point. Also I think it is a symptom of the "have anything no matter what" culture that exists in the west, at least in the UK, and that extends to people using IVF, which I don't agree with but that's another topic.

I haven't seen anything here that is bigotted, some of it I might not agree with but none of it is homophobic.

[Enigma]

No? go read the very first post again.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Enigma

No? go read the very first post again.

Im sarchastic. I tend to refer to alot of things in a deragatory fashion (Ie, my use of the word "fudgepacker" instead of homosexual.) . I may not agree with what somone does, but i don't beleive they're privacy or any of their rights should be infringed upon simply because i dont agree with them. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, these are, as i recall, our unalienable rights.

[Umfuld]

I don't know you from Adam, Ducimus. But I took your post as somewhat joking. For what it's worth, I think the important part of your post was you saying basically 'it's none of my business.'

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

I took your post as somewhat joking. For what it's worth, I think the important part of your post was you saying basically 'it's none of my business.'

Right on both counts. Joke wise, i I have a darker sense of humor sometimes, but i relish words that speak the truth in all its clarity in reality. Is fun to use words that doesnt cover up or tone done what your talking about in euphamistic language. Its somtimes even more fun to use euphisms that embellish the truth, or fully relay the reality of the subject. Somtimes i have to temper that with the need to be PC, which isnt as much fun, but if i can slip in a word which i feel fully conveys reality of the subject in question, i usually will

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by scandium

I thought it was your government that was attempting to "redefine society" by proposing to amend the constitution?

............. It's actually sad that we have to make amendments to protect society's institutions from selfish adults that want the world defined their way. Marriage has been defined for centuries upon centuries as between a man and woman. Guess what...nutjob activists ain't going to change that. I actually agree with gay civil unions as the compromise. Same benefits without the redefining aspects.

Originally Posted by Umfuld

I know. Those very same people who got women the right to vote. And thought it was wrong to own other people as slaves. The b*st*rds.

They ain't the same people. But what an odd argument. BTW did you know gay people do have the same rights of marriage as I do? But just like me....they can't marry someone of the same sex. Just like me, they can get married if they do it with someone from the opposite sex. And no, they have no right to redefine the concept of marriage to their own liking.

Because marriage and raising a child have nothing to do with one another

I know you don't like definitions and real meanings of words. But according to the marriage definition, it is an institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependance for the purposes of founding and maintaining a family. I know the definition doesn't meet your liking, but it is what it is. No amount of whining is going to change it.

It was a meaningless post. As the law being discussed seeks to change this. The dictionary is just stating what the unjust law says.

Umfeld, I understand you may be a young college guy that is trying to be ideal about the world around you. Of course you know everything, and everyone else who has a different viewpoint is wrong and perhaps bigoted in your own world. I was there at one time myself. I grew up and so will you. I'm now in my mid-thirties, out of college, and kind of value societal norms as a stabilizing factor. And I'm sorry, but gay marriage is not the same as women's suffrage or slavery.

[Umfuld]

Okay Sea Dink. I'm 35 and I didn't graduate Jr. High, nor did I attempt to get a useless GED. I'm retired, and am enjoying my golden years (may they be many many decades.)

I'll ask you. Should a couple, man and a woman, who due to medical reasons simply cannot have a child and have no interest in adopting, be allowed to marry?

Again, if you answer yes, then stop using children as a reason for gays not to get married. It does not make sense, and you look really stupid trying to make this point.

Yes Or No?


It's discrimination. Discrimination seeded by ugly bigotry.


Have fun with that!

And no, they have no right to redefine the concept of marriage to their own liking.

And gosh, I'm pretty sure they do. As the courts will eventually decide.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

Okay Sea Dink. I'm 35 and I didn't graduate Jr. High, nor did I attempt to get a useless GED. I'm retired, and am enjoying my golden years (may they be many many decades.)

I'll ask you. Should a couple, man and a woman, who due to medical reasons simply cannot have a child and have no interest in adopting, be allowed to marry?

Again, if you answer yes, then stop using children as a reason for gays not to get married. It does not make sense, and you look really stupid trying to make this point.

Yes Or No?


It's discrimination. Discrimination seeded by ugly bigotry.


Have fun with that!


And gosh, I'm pretty sure they do. As the courts will eventually decide.

I apologize for the error in your age. Actually, I'm college educated. But no need for useless insults. Honestly, I thought you were in your early 20's. I wish you a happy retirment, sir.

As far as your question, what's the point? It has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue or redefining cultural norms to accomodate the wishes of activists. As of now, men and women can marry without having kids, even though founding and maintaining families is an important part.

Bigotry?!?! Again?!?! Some people neve learn.

And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for courts to decide the issue. GW's appointing more and more judges that know their role as interpreters of law rather than makers of law. The problem is the courts that don't know their role. And the nightmare is finally ending...at least here in the USA. Liberal activists just don;t control the courts like they used to.