gay marriage
- Lightning Rod
- Posts: 5211
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
- Location: between my ears
- Contact:
gay marriage
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.
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.
re: gay marriage
I say (2),
but (3) might also be acceptable.
(and (4) seems a little off-topic)
but (3) might also be acceptable.
(and (4) seems a little off-topic)
- magicmystery
- Posts: 33
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 9:56 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Contact:
A Canadian Point of View
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
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]
[img]http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com/ntransbirdtn.gif[/img][/url]
- Glorious Amok
- Posts: 551
- Joined: August 16th, 2004, 7:25 am
- Location: in the best of both worlds
- Contact:
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...
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
- magicmystery
- Posts: 33
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 9:56 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Contact:
Limited Federal Funding!?!?
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!
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]
[img]http://ca.geocities.com/sherrygardner@rogers.com/ntransbirdtn.gif[/img][/url]
- Jack Daniels
- Posts: 12
- Joined: August 17th, 2004, 4:01 am
- Location: West London, UK.
- Glorious Amok
- Posts: 551
- Joined: August 16th, 2004, 7:25 am
- Location: in the best of both worlds
- Contact:
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.
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
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!
H
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!
H
!
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?
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
- Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
Gay married couples
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
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
- Lightning Rod
- Posts: 5211
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
- Location: between my ears
- Contact:
.
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
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
- Jack Daniels
- Posts: 12
- Joined: August 17th, 2004, 4:01 am
- Location: West London, UK.
- Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
the dish ran away . . .
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
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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests