Same Gender Marriage


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Same Gender Marriage

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next
Author Message
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,154,048
RAC: 2,429
United States
Message 1321812 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:20:09 UTC - in response to Message 1321787.

No one said that your children should go hungry

and you are right that every work place is suitable but I doubt that

you are shingling houses or a welder in a ship yard so you already have

made choices I am simply saying to look farther at what they are

It sounds to me like a home business likely would be better for you

and your kids than what you do.

Find something you like that can make enough money get the skills and

do it.
____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8943
Credit: 252,831
RAC: 119
Canada
Message 1321814 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:21:00 UTC - in response to Message 1321800.

And just so you do not think me heartless, I think any company that can should

provide day care and flex time. Study's show repeatedly that this makes for

better happier workers and saves money lost to unplanned days off and overtime.

Any business that is as inflexible as the one you describe should not be able

to find good employees. If you want to fix this vote with your feet and get a

better job. I think from reading your posts below that you are talented enough

to make a better way for your self that includes time for your children, It can't

hurt to look around for one.

Dancer, I think you are making some assumptions about me that are probably confusing. I'll give you some background.

I'm very educated. I have post graduate qualifications and I'm a physics teacher. I am sure you are aware that teachers are constantly expected to pick up the pieces of everyone else's poor child rearing, but our own children are not considered important. They do not have flexible working hours. Schools teach between set times and you are there or else. You are expected to work long hours without extra pay. Attending parents evenings is compulasory. As a colleague of mine used to say "every child matters except your own."

Before I was a teacher I was a civil servant. The working conditions were great and I was given flexible hours and allowed to work from home. Unfortunately when I first started to work there it actually cost me money to work by the time I had paid childcare. It is non sustainable. You can't pay to go to work.

As a single mother you are constantly stuck between a rock and a hard place. You make the best choices you can and you damned from every direction.

Perhaps if someone had forced my the father of my children to help I wouldn't have had to make those choices. How do you force someone to act like a father?
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321819 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:33:50 UTC

No such thing as a marriage license in my Country till after the civil war. It is just another way for the Fed/state to get into your life and pocket.

There wasn't a marriage law till after the civil war because some people didn't want blacks to marry whites. This is also why gay people point to the change in our Constitution as a right for them to marry. This also isn't true, back then no one who was gay dared to ask for marriage. The amendments added after the war was to grant in stone the fact that black people a people just like anyone else.

The case cant be made that gay people are not people, of coarse they are. The case is do they have a marriage, and that is not true. Over 230 years of prescendance is in fact the law already. DOMA can and should be made as an Amendment. The vote is there for it and Prop 8 confirms that FACT.

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,154,048
RAC: 2,429
United States
Message 1321824 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:38:42 UTC - in response to Message 1321802.

Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings.

Unnecessary. The religious marriage ceremonies in which priests perform are already separate from the civil paperwork which defines marriage, legally. Same word ("marriage"), totally different beasts.

=====================================================
A marriage is simply a pubic demonstration of a private decision

two people have already made to each other that the two are one

and will take on all comers who oppose they happiness.

as was stated earlier the demonstration and the paper work is separate.

As to churches preforming same sex marriage's I think they should be allowed but

not compelled.

As to is it ok, If I had a family member that choose to live in a committed

relationship with a same sex partner I would first not want them hurt because

of this and second I would want the same protections afforded married couples

to not have people outside that bond inter-fear with decisions that should

be family decisions. And I would want insurance and other benefits to be the same.

____________

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2335
Credit: 4,947,885
RAC: 10,298
United States
Message 1321826 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:43:49 UTC - in response to Message 1321611.

You would have to find God as the source of love, just like Descartes to understand any of it.

You two would be biased, both posts fall under flame and hate mail. Both were red x'ed. I doubt anything becomes of it, due to the socialistic nature of this site.

ID, you use the term socialist quite frequently. In my studies of economics your usage in the above statement is incongruent. Could you please define what the word means to you.
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321828 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:45:10 UTC - in response to Message 1321653.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 23:45:41 UTC

Quite true. If they want some mumbling by an appointed enlightened one, they can have that. If they want to be able to check the married box on the tax return and have anyone recognize it to be a marriage, they better head to the government and get the license. Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings. After all the church and state should be separate.


After all the church and state should be separate.

Once again you show your lack of knowledge of the Constitution. The wall statement was Jefferson's quote and the socialist left are the ones who stands this up and incorrectly so. YOU MISAPPLY his statement. Jefferson held Anglican Church services right in the Halls of Congress and this fact crushes you weak and futile argument.

The government doesn't sanction marriage, they get in your pocket for the money and that is all. God sanction marriage.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12525
Credit: 6,823,787
RAC: 5,199
United States
Message 1321865 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:40:39 UTC - in response to Message 1321826.

I believe he uses it to mean anyone who disagrees with him.
____________

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2335
Credit: 4,947,885
RAC: 10,298
United States
Message 1321867 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:43:44 UTC - in response to Message 1321865.

I thought socialist was a term used in economics, silly me. I really would like to hear his definition.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12525
Credit: 6,823,787
RAC: 5,199
United States
Message 1321870 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:51:22 UTC - in response to Message 1321828.

Jefferson wrote:
"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,154,048
RAC: 2,429
United States
Message 1321872 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:58:34 UTC - in response to Message 1321828.

If you believe in god that is ok.

If someone else does not believe in god that also is ok.

When you attempt to force your belief in god on another that is not ok.

You believe there is a god and that he, she, or it sanctions marriage, ok.

I believe there is no god or at best it is unknowable, so asking the unknowable

to sanction marriage seems silly to me.

I make no attempt to force you to believe as I but I do expect you to respect

my belief as I respect you's.
____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8943
Credit: 252,831
RAC: 119
Canada
Message 1321919 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 3:14:28 UTC - in response to Message 1321899.



Are you daft man? Gay people wouldn't have children if it wasn't for straight people or talking a straight person into it somehow.

Really?

Gay people are still fertile.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,808,612
RAC: 2,855
United States
Message 1321933 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 3:51:54 UTC - in response to Message 1321919.



Are you daft man? Gay people wouldn't have children if it wasn't for straight people or talking a straight person into it somehow.

Really?

Gay people are still fertile.

Clearly, in ID's world gay men are prohibited from donating sperm to gay women.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,808,612
RAC: 2,855
United States
Message 1321937 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 3:58:40 UTC - in response to Message 1321870.
Last modified: 30 Dec 2012, 3:59:16 UTC

Jefferson wrote:
"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.

Oh dear, it seems a poster here has not realized that your comment was written in the context of the subject at hand, the provisions you referenced relate to marriage status, didn't they?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12525
Credit: 6,823,787
RAC: 5,199
United States
Message 1321956 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 5:54:24 UTC - in response to Message 1321937.

Jefferson wrote:
"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.

Oh dear, it seems a poster here has not realized that your comment was written in the context of the subject at hand, the provisions you referenced relate to marriage status, didn't they?

Of course they do.

But, bobby, I'm a them. And as we all know in some posters world a them can never be correct. So if I were to say the sky is blue, it would have find fault with the statement.

That and the post points out the circular logic some posters here cling to more stridently than any faith.

But his rejection of the IRS must mean he rejects the sixteenth amendment. That makes me wonder if he rejects all amendments such as the first and second. Have we uncovered more circular logic?

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,154,048
RAC: 2,429
United States
Message 1322033 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 9:59:12 UTC - in response to Message 1321870.

Jefferson wrote:
"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.




this is dancers room mate


i know of religions that allow same sex and multiple partner marriages

since there are religions out there tat accept these as valid forms of marriage

any laws preventing them from having a marriage of those forms other then man

with women are unconstitutional by the second amendment of the us constitution

by stating that the only marriage allowed is one man and one women they are

accepting the religious beliefs of those religions that believe that way over

that of ones that don't.
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31709
Credit: 12,905,412
RAC: 39,868
United Kingdom
Message 1322130 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 11:36:51 UTC

I am sure you are aware that teachers are constantly expected to pick up the pieces of everyone else's poor child rearing, but our own children are not considered important.

I can confirm from first hand knowledge, this is sadly true.

Look, this whole thing about same gender relationships or marriage can be whittled down quite a bit to the basics. Traditional figures suggest that 90% of the world is heterosexual, the other 10% are gay. Therefore 90% of the world, or the vast majority, view same gender relationships as un-natural, whatever any religion may teach.

Should gay people have the same legal rights as anyone else? Of course they should, they are still human beings, whatever their personal preferences are. They still pay the same taxes are are subject to the same laws as anyone else.

30 years ago gay people were ostracised from society, and same gender couples went to great lengths to cover up their relationships, especially those in the public eye, such as politicians or show business people. These days we are much more enlightened, and most people have a live and let live attitude to same gender couples co-habiting.

The Marriage bit is controversial because most churches won't do it, whilst most register offices will. If a same gender couple wish to formalise their union then a civil ceremony is possible, but depending upon their religion, a church service probably isn't. If their religion forbids it they wouldn't want to do it anyway.

So to sum up, Society is tolerant, the church isn't, the law should be above any discrimination. We still have a way to go.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31709
Credit: 12,905,412
RAC: 39,868
United Kingdom
Message 1322235 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 16:33:34 UTC

Scotland

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1322277 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 17:53:15 UTC - in response to Message 1322130.
Last modified: 30 Dec 2012, 17:53:41 UTC

... 90% of the world is heterosexual, the other 10% are gay.

True. (At least, it's a close enough approximation for Internet punditry.)

Therefore 90% of the world, or the vast majority, view same gender relationships as un-natural, whatever any religion may teach.

False. Not all heterosexuals are bigots, do not condemn everything which differs from ourselves as "un-natural."
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12525
Credit: 6,823,787
RAC: 5,199
United States
Message 1322299 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 18:17:58 UTC - in response to Message 1322277.

... 90% of the world is heterosexual, the other 10% are gay.

True. (At least, it's a close enough approximation for Internet punditry.)

Therefore 90% of the world, or the vast majority, view same gender relationships as un-natural, whatever any religion may teach.

False. Not all heterosexuals are bigots, do not condemn everything which differs from ourselves as "un-natural."

+1
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31709
Credit: 12,905,412
RAC: 39,868
United Kingdom
Message 1322304 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 18:25:19 UTC

False. Not all heterosexuals are bigots, do not condemn everything which differs from ourselves as "un-natural."

I thought that I had made the point, that I was quite happy with non heterosexuals entering into relationships, whether generally acceptable or not. I am not a bigot, the problem is with the others that are.


Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Same Gender Marriage

Copyright © 2014 University of California