Gay Marriage.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 20 · Next
Author Message
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1229608 - Posted: 9 May 2012, 17:18:48 UTC

President Barry is about to speak on said subject.

His thoughts are as he said on the subject are "evolving" but to get eleced he said he did not accept it.

Thoughts on both or either?

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32632
Credit: 14,503,870
RAC: 13,623
United Kingdom
Message 1229629 - Posted: 9 May 2012, 18:05:59 UTC

In the UK, Lynne Featherstone is the Home Office Minister for Equalities, and as such, has championed legislation to allow equal civil marriage for same-sex couples, which the Government is committed to introducing by 2015. It was however noticeable that it was omitted from the Queens Speech in Parliament today, and put on the back burner.

We are are considerably more liberally minded now than 20 years ago, and from what I can see, most people seem to think that same gender relationships are now socially acceptable, and if people wish to enter into such an arrangement, then good luck to them. However, there are others that say fair enough, but don't let's encourage it for lords sake.

I have met Lynne and she is intelligent, personable, good at her job, and totally committed to this brief. But I think she will not have an easy ride on this as it is seen in some quarters as a vote loser.



Message 1229640 - Posted: 9 May 2012, 18:27:13 UTC

Marriage between two men or two women is fine by me. Gay People should have all the Rights and Privileges as Man and Woman together.

In anything, A Man or Woman Gay or Not Gay, should not matter. All Should Be Same Same.

People are People. No matter how They Swang.

When I lived in Long Beach, Kali a long time ago, and would walk the streets due to not having a car, many a time a Gay Guy would stop and offer me a ride. Sometimes I took it. And they would offer something else. I didn't partake, but if I had to do it over again, I would have. I don't See The Diff now. Man Sex, Woman Sex. All Good.

DanglingDullNanDo
____________


Profile Blurf
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 06
Posts: 7641
Credit: 7,066,359
RAC: 1,845
United States
Message 1229679 - Posted: 9 May 2012, 19:36:32 UTC

I have no problem with anyone wanting to marry anybody else. It's not our business.
____________


Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13179
Credit: 7,925,978
RAC: 14,882
United States
Message 1229685 - Posted: 9 May 2012, 20:07:35 UTC

How much tax $ does a ban on gay marriage bring in? Is this the only way a tea will allow tax, on something tea hates?

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13179
Credit: 7,925,978
RAC: 14,882
United States
Message 1229772 - Posted: 9 May 2012, 22:57:17 UTC - in response to Message 1229755.

Sweet Mother of God!

You mean God has a mother? Who's the Daddy?

____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,367
RAC: 754
United States
Message 1229819 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 0:40:38 UTC - in response to Message 1229772.

Sweet Mother of God!

You mean God has a mother? Who's the Daddy?


God. Mary and the immaculate conception and all that nonsense. Rather bizarrely Roman Catholics (and a few others) believe Mary was a virgin until the day she died, and suggest that the references to Jesus' siblings are merely honorifics, like monks referring to each other as brother this, brother that, or some other nonsense to obscure the rather clear references to the children of Joseph and Mary.

Quite why people believe the bible would only refer to 4 people in this way and not the disciples is beyond me. Oh yeah, that whole faith thing...

As for the thread's subject, I must admit to having trouble understanding the objections. Perhaps someone could detail what they are?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1229824 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 0:50:54 UTC - in response to Message 1229819.

Sweet Mother of God!

You mean God has a mother? Who's the Daddy?


God. Mary and the immaculate conception and all that nonsense. Rather bizarrely Roman Catholics (and a few others) believe Mary was a virgin until the day she died, and suggest that the references to Jesus' siblings are merely honorifics, like monks referring to each other as brother this, brother that, or some other nonsense to obscure the rather clear references to the children of Joseph and Mary.

Quite why people believe the bible would only refer to 4 people in this way and not the disciples is beyond me. Oh yeah, that whole faith thing...

As for the thread's subject, I must admit to having trouble understanding the objections. Perhaps someone could detail what they are?

We also know nothing of Joseph before he married Mary. I'd assume he had other children.
Also the Jesus sibling thing is again taken in modern context as we see it. The people mentioned could be any near relative of similar age to Jesus.

I also like to make a point that many christian faithful call each other brother and sister. This doesn't mean they really are.

____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,367
RAC: 754
United States
Message 1229831 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 1:04:37 UTC - in response to Message 1229824.

Sweet Mother of God!

You mean God has a mother? Who's the Daddy?


God. Mary and the immaculate conception and all that nonsense. Rather bizarrely Roman Catholics (and a few others) believe Mary was a virgin until the day she died, and suggest that the references to Jesus' siblings are merely honorifics, like monks referring to each other as brother this, brother that, or some other nonsense to obscure the rather clear references to the children of Joseph and Mary.

Quite why people believe the bible would only refer to 4 people in this way and not the disciples is beyond me. Oh yeah, that whole faith thing...

As for the thread's subject, I must admit to having trouble understanding the objections. Perhaps someone could detail what they are?

We also know nothing of Joseph before he married Mary. I'd assume he had other children.
Also the Jesus sibling thing is again taken in modern context as we see it. The people mentioned could be any near relative of similar age to Jesus.

I also like to make a point that many christian faithful call each other brother and sister. This doesn't mean they really are.


All true, though why are 4 people picked out to be labeled this way? Sure they could be what today would be half-brothers or step-brothers, though in that case why would one of them (James) be specifically referred to as "the Lord's brother"? Most puzzling, and quite off topic :-).
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1229859 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 3:09:30 UTC - in response to Message 1229831.

I recall hearing about this very argument. The answer is Hebrew at the time didn't define brother, half brother, or cousin. Its all the same to them. They are all close male relatives. What we chose to assume from modern interpretation is all on us.

As far as gay marriage. Who cares. Maybe a couple guys will do better at marriage than I do.
The whole can of worms we open is the adoption of children or birth of children with Lesbians. In a divorce, who is the parent, who gets the kids, etc.

I see the current young adult generation being much more tolerant of gays lesbians etc. I have to assume that this was our tax dollars at work in schools. It's not something we discussed at home.

Quite honestly I make the mistake of assuming everyone is straight. Big mistake. Like a guy with a woman if you get them talking its great. Assuming someone is straight and just talking....well lets just say some gay men over assume the same way I do with women.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,802,120
RAC: 265
United States
Message 1229869 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 3:25:01 UTC - in response to Message 1229640.
Last modified: 10 May 2012, 3:27:50 UTC

Marriage between two men or two women is fine by me. Gay People should have all the Rights and Privileges as Man and Woman together.

In anything, A Man or Woman Gay or Not Gay, should not matter. All Should Be Same Same.

People are People. No matter how They Swang....


WOW!

Dull, for a change, we are in 110% agreement.

I had to read this 3 times to make sure I wasn't mistaken.
+1 dull.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1229917 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 5:46:33 UTC
Last modified: 10 May 2012, 5:47:19 UTC

Kafkatrapping...

I don't hate Gay people. I don't agree with the life style they have 'chosen' for themselves.

They cannot claim that they are being discriminated against. We have rule of law for a reason. In that law at the federal level we have the 14 and 15 amendments. For both it isn't a life choice we are talking about. In both cases you are born this way and have no control over this matter.

Kafkatrapping...


If you want wiggle room, go to the state and ask. However, remember that if 2/3rds of the states tell you no then at the federal level you have no wiggle room.

In California the most liberial state in the Union voted for prop 8. This was the consensus of the people. However, this was not allowed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took a vote of the people themselves and said it was unconstitutional. The Hollywood elite backed the effort in cash and didn't have a hard time finding Judges who would Rule from the Bench in place of ruling on established law, first and foremost---precedent.


Indeed, Kafkatrapping...

Bubba Winkerbean
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 65,863,970
RAC: 346,586
Message 1229993 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 13:34:36 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 13:16:48 UTC

--

Message 1229997 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 13:49:51 UTC
Last modified: 10 May 2012, 14:10:38 UTC

WOW!

Dull, for a change, we are in 110% agreement.


I'm Voting For MEH, and Believe Me it Makes Me Puke to do so. I CAN'T STAND their Social/Cultural Views, but, Zombies(Dem/Libs) make Me Cringe for So Many Reasons More.

Jimmy Da Peanut; Slick Willie; GoreBal Change; Pitiful; and ALL the Rest. Blech Blech Blech.

I'd like to see All of Them have Sex with an Intern, Under The Bus.

BusDriverDullNanDo
____________


bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,367
RAC: 754
United States
Message 1229999 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 13:54:44 UTC - in response to Message 1229917.

Kafkatrapping...

I don't hate Gay people. I don't agree with the life style they have 'chosen' for themselves.

They cannot claim that they are being discriminated against. We have rule of law for a reason. In that law at the federal level we have the 14 and 15 amendments. For both it isn't a life choice we are talking about. In both cases you are born this way and have no control over this matter.


If the law says something it can't be discrimination? Is this your view? If so are willing to defend it?

Kafkatrapping...


If you want wiggle room, go to the state and ask. However, remember that if 2/3rds of the states tell you no then at the federal level you have no wiggle room.

In California the most liberial state in the Union voted for prop 8. This was the consensus of the people. However, this was not allowed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took a vote of the people themselves and said it was unconstitutional. The Hollywood elite backed the effort in cash and didn't have a hard time finding Judges who would Rule from the Bench in place of ruling on established law, first and foremost---precedent.


Indeed, Kafkatrapping...


What in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was not based on precedent?

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,802,120
RAC: 265
United States
Message 1230027 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 15:31:43 UTC - in response to Message 1229993.
Last modified: 10 May 2012, 15:40:28 UTC

President Obama was against gay marriage when he got elected. Now he just announced that he backs gay marriage, however, he *believes* it should be left to the states.

Couple of issues I have here...

1) I don't care what people do behind closed doors. Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman. The LGBTs want to be able to get "married" to have all the legal rights and privileges of being "married." There are perfectly legitimate ways to "have" all the legal rights and privileges of being married with out being "married." They have been offered "civil unions" and have rejected that. I don't believe they want to have all the legal rights and priveleges of being married. I believe they just want to further deteriorate the traditions of the US and of Christianity.

2) President Obama just stated he *believes* it should be left to the states. (and of course his little parrot Joe Biden just said the same thing.) Believes? Well, there ya go. Proof he's ignoring the laws of his office (AKA the US CONSTITUTION) and blatantly acting more and more like a dictator. I don't like this.



When will someone admit that there is certain terminology in the constitution which no longer applies to the times?

And how does it affect you, Guy, whether two individuals of the same sex are Married, or as (apparently) you'd prefer just have a civil union? What effect does two people of the same sex being married, have on your life...
(I.D. or anyone can feel free to answer here as well)
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13179
Credit: 7,925,978
RAC: 14,882
United States
Message 1230028 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 15:33:23 UTC

We can solve this debate today. Willing to do it?

As of today forward churches do marriage, which will not be recognized by government. Government does civil unions, which will not be recognized by church.

Problem solved.

____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,802,120
RAC: 265
United States
Message 1230031 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 15:37:06 UTC - in response to Message 1230028.

We can solve this debate today. Willing to do it?

As of today forward churches do marriage, which will not be recognized by government. Government does civil unions, which will not be recognized by church.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately, marriage is as much of a legal institution, as it is religious. As a matter of fact, I'd argue in my case that marriage would have nothing to do my religion, and instead is for the purposes of two people joining, UNDER LAW.

Because marriage is neither tied specifically to religion, or law, you can't solve the issue in that manner.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,367
RAC: 754
United States
Message 1230038 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 15:50:58 UTC - in response to Message 1230031.

We can solve this debate today. Willing to do it?

As of today forward churches do marriage, which will not be recognized by government. Government does civil unions, which will not be recognized by church.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately, marriage is as much of a legal institution, as it is religious. As a matter of fact, I'd argue in my case that marriage would have nothing to do my religion, and instead is for the purposes of two people joining, UNDER LAW.

Because marriage is neither tied specifically to religion, or law, you can't solve the issue in that manner.


Sure you can, marriage becomes a purely religious exercise, and a marriage certificate would become meaningless in civil law; for taxes, wills, insurance, and everything else in the non-purely religious world, a civil union is the means to show assets are shared, etc. Those ordained to perform marriages could also be certified to perform civil unions, so both could be conducted simultaneously.

Lawyers would love it ;-)
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,367
RAC: 754
United States
Message 1230043 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 16:00:08 UTC - in response to Message 1229993.

President Obama was against gay marriage when he got elected. Now he just announced that he backs gay marriage, however, he *believes* it should be left to the states.

Couple of issues I have here...

1) I don't care what people do behind closed doors. Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman. The LGBTs want to be able to get "married" to have all the legal rights and privileges of being "married." There are perfectly legitimate ways to "have" all the legal rights and privileges of being married with out being "married." They have been offered "civil unions" and have rejected that. I don't believe they want to have all the legal rights and priveleges of being married. I believe they just want to further deteriorate the traditions of the US and of Christianity.


If a church wishes to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, why should state law prohibit it?

What value has a tradition other than serve as a means to continue doing the same thing as before without having to think about its worth?

2) President Obama just stated he *believes* it should be left to the states. (and of course his little parrot Joe Biden just said the same thing.) Believes? Well, there ya go. Proof he's ignoring the laws of his office (AKA the US CONSTITUTION) and blatantly acting more and more like a dictator. I don't like this.


Obama believes it should be left to the states compared to? Perhaps an amendment to the USC? Why would proposing such an amendment be considered a dictatorial action?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 20 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.

Copyright © 2014 University of California