Gay Marriage

Please stop it! You'll have every gay person on these boards goin' nuts over this. But at least they won't have to deal with unwanted pregnancies, just unwanted soreness up the ol' wazzu.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

But where is the inequality if the government got out of the marriage business and issued only civil unions to both gays and straights?”HM

So you do agree with changing all the laws concerning this in all the states and federally? Why don't you just say so clearly to avoid any further fuss over it.Why can't you leave all the red herrings out of your posts?Just say:"I have some personal hang-up about the word "marriage" so I want to remove ALL legal issues with regards to this word. I am so hung-up on it that I am willing to go to all the huge cost of changing 1,000's of laws and would gladly remove "marriages" from all those couples who are married now and just tell them that they are "civilly unioned" until they get it sorted out with whatever organization they want."Of course, this is certainly NOT the simplest solution at all. And, lol, it doesn't solve your problem at all either.One day after this is done a gay couple will go to a church and get married. They will also sign the legal civil union documents. They will be just as married as anyone else. The word they will use and their church will use will be "married" so you will have cost a huge amount of time and money and done absolutely nothing about your hang-up.

FO, what do you care if some church decides to marry squirrels to raccoons? How about old ladies to their cats? Or how about Chuck to Larry? All of that is entirely OK with me. The only problem I have is with the LAW deciding to marry squirrels to raccoons, old ladies to cats, and Chucks to Larrys.If the government got out of the marriage business there would be no need for discussions like this...and the First Amendment would be upheld.”HM

Nosy, you could be right about everything you say. You take the meaning of "marriage" more liberally than I do. We just don't share opinions on this matter, and neither one of us is a bigot for that. Marriage, to me, is and always will be between a man and a woman. I have not said that gays should not be granted civil unions. Let it be a legal thing for them and leave it there. But why does it need to be a "marriage"? Why, if civil unions do the legal trick?Answer: Because gays want respectability for disrespecting heterosexual traditions. They're in your grill like an alien pod.What has happened here, effectively, is that the gay movement has degraded the meaning of marriage but denying that it is only a heterosexual affair. When heterosexuals say "marriage" is only between a man and woman, but also say it's OK with them is gay get civilly united, I don't see why they are wrong or bad or bigoted or anything. And I don't see how it relates to blacks and their interracial marriages. To me, it's an insult to black people to make such a comparison.”HM

The government can't get out of the "marriage business". Even if they only have civil unions they are still in the marriage business, they just don't call it marriage.You say churches or other religious institutions can "marry" whomever they like. I submit that they cannot. Look at the problems of Warren Jeffs (sp?). He used his position as a religious leader to marry 13 year old girls to 40 year old men. The state and federal governments charged him with a number of crimes but settled for accomplice to statutory rape. He was convicted and sentenced to 10-years in prison because he sanctioned and performed the marriages.
Clearly, if a religious organization marries a couple under the auspices of their belief system, the government doesn't have to recognize that as legal. Hence the government wouldn't have to issue the civil union status to that couple. Now you have a real problem.
Married but not really. No rights as a couple. The spouse can be compelled to testify against the partner under threat of contempt or perjury...among other things.Edited by LinearAq, : bad spelling

Not yet. Not until it is so well understood that it can be "corrected" if one should make that choice. I'm afraid I still suspect that if Chuck and Larry should raise little Bobbie into manhood, then little Bobbie would be more likely to turn out gay. And I have to ask if this is a good thing for little Bobbie. I don't believe there are enough scientific data on this matter to know what really happens to little Bobbie.Interracial marriage is one thing society eventually got used to, but I'm not yet ready to invite Chuck and Larry over to dinner. And I guess that makes me a bigot. However, I'm not yet ready to invite Tom and his three wives over to dinner, or Clarence and his sheep over to dinner, either. That must make me even a bigger bigot.”HM

But why aren't civil unions enough for legal purposes? After that it's cake all the way down. I can't keep up with Rrhain. He's a rocket scientist.”HM

My testicles, working in consort with my hypothalamus and a few other delicate parts, caused my heterosexuality. I'm sure of it. Who are you to say they didn't?But I can't speak for gays with testicles; they seem a little queer to me.”HM

Some people in this thread seem to be striving for a serious discussion. Others seem more interested in being denigrating, demeaning and derogatory, not to mention salacious.I lost patience with gay-issue discussion threads a while back. You'll be civil and constructive in such threads or you'll be suspended. No warnings, at least not from me.--Percy

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Maybe it is homophobic nonsense. But please tell why it is any less heterophobic nonsense to push "gay marriage" in our faces.For a heterosexual person to believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman does not make him or her a homophobic bigot. Otherwise, all those who oppose polygamy are polyphobic bigots. And I suppose there are bestiphobic bigots and incestophibic bigots, too. Where does all this bigotry end?”HM

The First Amendment takes the government out of the consecration business, not the marriage business. "Civil union" is otherwise a synonym (euphemism) for "marriage" to appease the desperately stupid.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Nobody is pushing it into your face, Hoot Mon. Correct...as I have pointed out again and again and again. Having an opinion (even when it's the polar opposite of mine), is NOT what makes you a homophobic bigot. Rather, you are a homophobic bigot because you want to deny homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice (between consenting adults). You want to deny them the rights afforded them by the 9th and 14th amendments. In addition, you keep using childish terminology when discussing the issue. You are completely hypocritical in your nonsensical bull shit about not having a problem with gays...except when they're married...cuz then they're gonna rape the Social Security system. And when I point out your blatant hypocrisy, you completely avoid the issue and instead call me a bigot...(as if the word really has any meaning to you). That is why I, for one, keep calling you a bigot. Hell, Hoot Mon, we cannot even explain to you what bigotry is, so how the hell do you expect us to help you understand where it ends?But here's an idea. Quit trying to deny homosexuals the same rights you have (as described by the 9th and 14th Amendments), and as far as your own homophobic bigotry is concerned...you will have gone a long way towards ending it.

I don't ask for anything more than that.”HM

I'm sorry to have to say this again: They already have the same rights I have. The law doesn't say that a gay men can't marry any woman of his choice, just like any straight man. The law says that any man can marry any woman of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the gay man in that regard. But, of course, the gay man says he ought to be able to "marry" any man of his choice. I disagree. That assertion drops in the bin with all the other strange "marriages" people want to have with multiple wives, beasts, siblings, and ghosts.”HM