gay marriage

Go ahead. Talk about it.

what do you think about gay marriage?

1. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. (and there should be a Constitutional amendment to that effect.)
0
No votes
2. Marriage should be between any two consenting adults.
7
39%
3. Limited marriage rights should be granted to gays. (insurance, inheritance, medical consent.)
1
6%
4. The State should stay out of marital issues altogether, and it should be a private contractual matter.
10
56%
 
Total votes: 18

User avatar
Lightning Rod
Posts: 5211
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Location: between my ears
Contact:

gay marriage

Post by Lightning Rod » August 16th, 2004, 6:57 pm

The first Studio Eight Poll:

how do you feel about gay marriage?


1. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. (and there should be a Constitutional amendment to that effect.)

2. Marriage should be between any two consenting adults.

3. Limited marriage rights should be granted to gays. (insurance, inheritance, medical consent.)

4. The State should stay out of marital issues altogether, and it should be a private contractual matter.
"These words don't make me a poet, these Eyes make me a poet."

The Poet's Eye

Oz
Posts: 2
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 7:34 pm

Post by Oz » August 16th, 2004, 7:14 pm

I think they should be able to have all the legal bonuses and bindings as a straight couple as far as the government is concerned. But you can't force a religious institution to marry them.

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7301
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

re: gay marriage

Post by mnaz » August 16th, 2004, 7:50 pm

I say (2),

but (3) might also be acceptable.



(and (4) seems a little off-topic)

User avatar
alienpoet
Posts: 122
Joined: August 16th, 2004, 8:12 pm
Location: deep in the digs
Contact:

Post by alienpoet » August 16th, 2004, 8:16 pm

Why should it be the state's business anyway...they stick their noses in everything -that's my opinion. :!: :!:
read me, but don't play me backwards

dakota alien-sky raphael

User avatar
magicmystery
Posts: 33
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 9:56 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

A Canadian Point of View

Post by magicmystery » August 17th, 2004, 1:09 am

Here in Canada, gay couples are free to marry each other. I truly believe that this is a big step in the right direction. (now they just have to make changes to the divorce laws to update the wording) In the last election, we almost lost that battle to a right-winged biggot who had to keep most of his party's representatives mouths shut with gags lest the whole bunch of them spewed their true feelings of disgust and narrowminded points of view..... and spoil his plans in Parliament.

The whole idea behind the founding principles of the United States of America was that people would no longer be governed by a particular church and the rules that it set up. Now, some governing bodies ~~you all know who they are~~ pronouncing California like Cauliflower and Nuclear like Nukular....LOL Why should a bunch of anal retentive machismos dictate what the rest of us do with ours!?!? Further to this point, if the Government is going to legislate Judeo-Christian teachings out of its schools then it has no right to invoke them or use them as standards by which we live and love, including marriage.

The last time I checked, whether you are gay or straight, you all pay taxes, are allowed to vote, and therefore we should all have every right and freedom as well as responsibility that is a product of Marriage...

Some religious institutions will balk at the idea of conducting a ceremony that goes against their particular doctrine but not every "church" has such a narrow vision. The happy couple need only to ask themselves whether or not they want to be associated with a denomination that denounces their love as unnatural and abhorent... and even sinful.

Who is anyone to judge the reality and deepness of a love that they are not privy to? What gives any court the right to decide the degree worthness of a couple to enter into the most intimate of contracts?

Sherry Gardner
[url=http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com][img]http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com/nghtmoontn.gif[/img]
[img]http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com/ntransbirdtn.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
Glorious Amok
Posts: 551
Joined: August 16th, 2004, 7:25 am
Location: in the best of both worlds
Contact:

Post by Glorious Amok » August 17th, 2004, 7:13 pm

i have a question about the "limited federal funds" thing.

is what you're saying, that if me and my lesbian wife were raising 4 kids and you and your straight wife had just 1, you would get tax breaks and we would not...?

this makes me ask ... what ever happened to raising healthy communities? and the children are the future and all that? our incomes would not only be stretched out over more kids, but our government would give us nothing in return for raising 4 future consumers? my kids would not grow up as healthy as your kids without that government support. kiss your hockey teams goodbye, kids. and ballet classes and guitar lessons and little league, etc. the government says only the kids of straight parents should be allowed perks like those.

and when the kids grow up, what kind of attitude and trust are they going to have in their government? not to mention the jealousy and inferiorty they'd have repressed all their lives toward their hetero-bred colleagues.

tax breaks for children have got to be calculated per child, don't they? i don't see how they could set up a law based on the assumption of tendencies.

but like i said before, i'm bowing out of debates. this was just a question. here i go now...
"YOUR way is your only way." - jack kerouac

User avatar
magicmystery
Posts: 33
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 9:56 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Limited Federal Funding!?!?

Post by magicmystery » August 17th, 2004, 8:29 pm

Limited Federal Funding!?!?

Glorious.... I don't know where you read that but I am horrified at the implications that has to it. Isn't it just another way of legislating prejudice??? It forces persons of a certain sexual disposition into a classification of second class citizen. As a progressive society, we have put into place institutions and legal step ladders to allow the more unfortunate, discriminated against portions of our society a step up from a hopeless life of disadvantage.

To force this position on anyone of us due to someone's hysterical, fear-based, and religiously influenced point of view is tantamount to re-introducing slavery. Economically, to disadvantage one portion of society over another is very much like creating a slave class who may have only a limited exposure to the types of education and programs, contacts and attitudes that create an entreprenurial advantage and a spirit of hope.

The most horrifying part of it is that no one does this accidently. The "right-wing" agenda has always been to separate themselves from everyone else by money and advantage and to keep power exclusive to themselves and only those who think like they do. The only thing they haven't done openly yet is take the white sheets and pointed hoods out of their closets!
[url=http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com][img]http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com/nghtmoontn.gif[/img]
[img]http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com/ntransbirdtn.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
Jack Daniels
Posts: 12
Joined: August 17th, 2004, 4:01 am
Location: West London, UK.

Post by Jack Daniels » August 18th, 2004, 3:15 pm

I am a gay male, however, I am not in total support for church gay marriage. I am, however, in full support for civil partnerships and equal rights.

Jamie.

User avatar
Glorious Amok
Posts: 551
Joined: August 16th, 2004, 7:25 am
Location: in the best of both worlds
Contact:

Post by Glorious Amok » August 18th, 2004, 3:41 pm

HEAR mutha lovin' HEAR! magicmystery, you've just hit so many nails on the head, i'm considering asking you to put in my new hardword floors.

i hear you too, JD. i didn't have a church marriage myself, but at least nobody told me i couldn't even if i wanted to.
"YOUR way is your only way." - jack kerouac

hester_prynne

Post by hester_prynne » August 18th, 2004, 4:25 pm

I think anybody who wants to get married should go ahead and do so whether they are gay or not, if they love one another and want to be married so be it. Who am I or who is anyone to try and stop something like that. If I have a problem with something like that, I think it's time for doing some of my own deep introspection.

The thing about this issue for me that makes it difficult is that I don't really believe in marriage anymore, after two failed ones and after taking incredible hits from the endings of both....man the divorces wiped me out both emotionally and financially.

If I ever fall in love again, I'd like to avoid the entanglements and duties that government approved marriage requires, and just love that person, until I don't anymore, or they don't anymore, and then part as friends, if we must part. I don't see legal marriage as conducive to that.

But hell, have at it, if you want and blessed be!
Heck, i'll even sing a song at yere weddin!
:D
H

User avatar
~K
Posts: 312
Joined: August 17th, 2004, 10:32 pm

!

Post by ~K » August 19th, 2004, 5:15 am

Well, my thoughts are all a jumble. I believe in equality so I must say same sex marriage should be allowed. But when I delve further into the issue it seems wrong that single people are penalized for not getting married. Marriage should be about love not the church and not health insurance. Anyone should be able to put anyone else on their insurance. Perhaps the only people that should get "breaks" are the ones with dependents. (But that's what WIC is for right?)

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

Gay married couples

Post by Zlatko Waterman » August 19th, 2004, 8:47 am

Dear LR:


Gay couples should enjoy all the civil rights and emotional freedom straight couples possess.

The social "contract" in marriage is largely forged to procure financial benefits and protections.

The emotional fabric of gay romance and marriage is identical to that of straight people, with the added benefit that gay couples don't procreate and further muck up the planet.

Look at the awful result of a straight couple's union:

Martha and GW Bush produced . . .

Oh well. You know about that abomination.

Maybe DUB-SON would have fared better if he'd had a little injection of "homosexuality" himself. Perhaps he would have spared a few tractor drivers, line dancers and mural painters from execution in Texas.

Zlatko

User avatar
Lightning Rod
Posts: 5211
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Location: between my ears
Contact:

.

Post by Lightning Rod » August 19th, 2004, 12:49 pm

Z-ko,

You won't think I'm gay or anything if I say to you, "It's great to see your grizzled face around here."

(I thought Gdub's mom was named Barbara)

lr
"These words don't make me a poet, these Eyes make me a poet."

The Poet's Eye

User avatar
Jack Daniels
Posts: 12
Joined: August 17th, 2004, 4:01 am
Location: West London, UK.

Post by Jack Daniels » August 19th, 2004, 1:02 pm

I'm reminded of a tv comedy I watched a few months ago and the lead character (who was happily married for twent years) said;

'Of course I support gay marriage. Why can't they be as miserable as the rest of us?'

Jamie.

User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

the dish ran away . . .

Post by Zlatko Waterman » August 19th, 2004, 4:32 pm

Dear LR:


The association that must have caused my error was this:

1. Association far too free:

"Martha" ( read DUB II's persecution of Martha Stewart)

AND

2. " the dish ran away with the spoon" ( Martha's trade)


It just shows you how dangerous it is to totter on the edge of 60 like me . . .

3. Read: Humpty-Dumpty

( about tottering on the edge-- ask mtmynd-- he's in the same 60-zone . . .)

My pleasure to grizzle whereever I can, my comrade.

"Disabling smilies" where-e'er I go, I am,

Your,


--Z

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests