World War 3

[Nerous]

1. it can be contested. Only way around it is to divorce your family... and that is just expensive

2. bad wording, my bad. What i meant was, that my love for David is considered a sickness, and is torn apart everyday by most politicians.

3. Rape is not funny, but neither is being beaten to death because i choose to love a man.

4. Let them. Why should I be the one that has to "take one for the team?" Giving us civil unions is treating us like second class citizens. I have every right to be married just like heterosexuals.

Most people think we are just whiners, but this is about more then just the name of our union. Black people didn't just settle on having "cleaner" sections of the bus did they? No, why should we settle?

My love for David is probably stronger then most heterosexual relationships, and we dont' fuck around on each other or swing (like many str8 couples do).

It all comes down to i deserve all rights that you guys are entitled to.

edit: i can't type

[Yo]

Civil marriage is recognized by civil authority.

Religious Marriage is recognized by civil authority and bound by religious practice.

Religious marriage would cover all those bound by religious practice: Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever.

Civil marriage would cover same sex marriage and marriages unbound by religion.

Civil marriage is NOT a second-rate union. It is just a marriage unbound by religion.

But that doesn't matter at all, because those are just 2 different names for the same thing. One is a Gala Apple. One is a Fuji Apple. Both are Apples.
Both apples deserve the same bonuses from the government.
It doesn't matter about religious binding, the government's recognition should only need to be "is recognized by civil authority..."


If you are looking for another direction...and want a religious marriage:
The problem with the current laws is those bindings of religious practice. Your problem is going to be getting a religion to bind you while that religion doesn't have a stance against same sex marriage if you want a religious marriage. You can't tell the government you want religious marriage, your beef is with the religious leaders.
The best bet for a gay religious marriage would be to create/find your own religion that supports homosexuality.
You can't force the churches/synagogues/temples to marry you and bind your marriage religiously.

If you think civil union is a second-rate marriage, that's your own negative interpretation.

It is an alternative to the fact that those religions won't bind you, so you have to have a civil authority to bind you.

[Nerous]

a man and woman who get married by a Justice of the Peace is put under the term "Marriage." It is not a civil union... it is marriage. As it is, we have a amendment which names marriage between a man and a woman. Actual descrimation in the constituition.

It is also, as you put it, not a seperation of church and state. Getting married in a church is no less meaningless then by a Justice of the Peace, but if i am not mistaken a civil union does not reward the tax right offs.

You have the right to practice your religion, but religions that would actually allow marriage between to people of the same-sex cannot practice that, because it is put into the law.

I believe that word is meaningful. Why should we have to have it called something else? Call me selfish, but i have always been the one to "take it for the team" and i am tired of it. I have the right. I want to be able to "Marry" David.

[Ves]

Isn't it currently legal to get married in some states/citys. I know we don't hear about where they are allowing it much anymore since topics like WW3 have come up. Just tell Dal to stop working for one weekend (good luck) and go get married.(I hope you or him has poped the question, if not he is going to read this topic and be like )

[Kabol]

Bah, way to derail my topic with an equally deserving topic. Now my thread is entitled "World War 3" and goes on and on about gays...

Anyway, I find it interesting what gays feel they are entitled to, especially given the fairly clear definitions of "man and woman" that exist. I am pretty sure that was intentional and reflects the attitude of the majority of the people in this country.

That majority is made up of two types of people. The first type considers gay marraige an outright abomination and are the conservatives you see on the TV lambasting gay marraige. The second type, which I feel is the true majority, don't really care and, of which, I am a card carrying member.

Now, you may wonder, if people don't care, why is it a problem? Well, I can only speak for myself here, and I truly don't care. If they allowed gay marraige, I would still get up, eat breakfast, go to work, etc. If they ban gay marraige, I would do the exact same thing. If a congressman or president has a nice fiscal/foreign policy, he gets my vote. Whether he opposes or supports gay marraige doesn't matter to me. The same goes for abortion.

Really, this is why the Republicans are winning. I think they accurately target issues that a majority people care about, while Democrats, for some reason, focus on issues that don't swing votes. The Democrats are very lucky that they have the Iraqi War doing their job for them.

Oh, and to address the other arguments:

Citing the high divorce rate is a weak argument. You are equating gay marraige with low moral values.

For tax breaks, I would argue that a man/man relationship has the potential to pull in a higher income that a man/woman relationship. Females have a much stronger argument for economical grievances that gays. Those tax breaks help cover that disparity as well as the anticipation of supporting a family. I assure you, tax cuts for dependants do not net you a profit.

[Yo]

They were doing same sex marriages in California Ves, but Swartzenegger vetoed the bill.

Nero, that is why I call it Civil Marriage.

[Nerous]

Citing the high divorce rate is a weak argument. You are equating gay marraige with low moral values.

no i am not... think about it. Heteros believe that marriage is sacred, yet so many STRAIGHT people are getting divorced. I am saying that both sides are alike. You have open relationships, swingers, people who get married just to get married, and you have people who truely loves the other person and wants that next step.

If marriage was a sacred as they said it was, the divorce rate wouldn't be so horrible. Plus, gay relationships are much better and last alot longer then half of the marriages.

Look at the other countries where it is legal, and you will see that the diviorce rate has actually lowered. Me and dal are as close to heteros as you come. We don't swing, we dont' have a open relationship. We are quite moral just like "some" of the marriages out there.

[Hezin]

Bah, way to derail my topic with an equally deserving topic. Now my thread is entitled "World War 3" and goes on and on about gays...

Duh...this is how most OoH threads go.


I tend not to get involved in politcal discussions cause I tend to have hacksawed views on things and my beliefs tend to be alittle odd but...here we go.

I don't believe it's WW3... yet but it definatly has the capability to do so. Ben you stated that it's only centralized in a small area...thats how both the previous WW's started then began to encompass more and more ground. The US is wayyyy to deep now to be able to play Switzerland(as if we would ever be neutral with the cowboy in the whiteshed) so whatever goes down we're going to be in the thick of it, and also have a large target painted on us. It' may not come, but don't be surprised.

As on the gay marriage note, can we not drop this shit. Most gay marriages don't result in childbirth, which at this moment there is way to much of in the US, so this is a bonus. Gay relationships are just as moral/amoral as straight ones. My previous church( /shudder) the pastors brother, married by the way, fucking the deacons wife proves this shit. If you two want to pound each other in the ass with a ring on your fingers, why should the govt have a say in it.

[Kabol]

Citing the high divorce rate is a weak argument. You are equating gay marraige with low moral values.

no i am not... think about it. Heteros believe that marriage is sacred, yet so many STRAIGHT people are getting divorced. I am saying that both sides are alike. You have open relationships, swingers, people who get married just to get married, and you have people who truely loves the other person and wants that next step.

It still sounds like you are saying the low morals (desanctification of marraige) of hetero's are a justification for allowing gay marraige. To clarify my original point: if the divorce rate was low, would you no longer support gay marraige?

Ben you stated that it's only centralized in a small area...thats how both the previous WW's started then began to encompass more and more ground.

All wars begin that way. The difference between a World War and a normal war is the players. Who is on the side of the Middle East that would fight against us? I don't see anyone. Plenty of countries don't agree with the U.S., but none of them agree with the Middle Eastern dictators enough to go war with us over it.

North Korea, on the other hand, has an enemy in Japan. They have allies in Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan. The North Koreans want the attention of the U.S. and we are poised to become their enemy as well. I see much bigger players and potential for global conflict here than in the Middle East.

he US is wayyyy to deep now to be able to play Switzerland(as if we would ever be neutral with the cowboy in the whiteshed) so whatever goes down we're going to be in the thick of it, and also have a large target painted on us. It' may not come, but don't be surprised.

This pretty much comes with the territory of being the world's only superpower, a fact many forget. People are quick to point out how we haven't resolved the Middle East conflict or solidifed democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. They forget that we toppled two governments as if it was nothing. We could have pulled out within months (weeks?) of the start of each campaign with minimal losses and those old regimes would be no less gone.

Instead, we are sticking around to try and make sure a different but equally tyranical and unfriendly regime doesn't take their place. No one (well, almost no one I guess) thought it would be easy.

If you two want to pound each other in the ass with a ring on your fingers, why should the govt have a say in it.

The government doesn't have a say in that AFAIK, other than a few archaic anti-sodomy laws on state books. But you can't exactly say "Government, stay out of my bedroom" one moment and then "Government, give me tax cuts and equal beneficiary rights" the next, without sounding hypocritical.

Honestly, I am surprised the biggest complaint in this thread hasn't been about spousal coverage for health insurance. The fact of its absense furthers my belief that gay couples (male ones anyway) have far less financial concerns than straight ones. IE no need for tax breaks given the potential income of two males.

[GraaceAndWill]

Really, insurance probably is an issue, at least to the sub-30s or somesuch, an awful lot in the ranks of fabulousness work retail... Shaun would be up shit creek for insurance if I wasn't able to cover him (the hospital I work at allows it, there's a penalty for it, I think I pay about 30-50% more since it's post-tax instead of pre-tax).

There's some odd 1751 or something (it was somewhere between 1200 and 1800, I do remember that!) rights and privledges from being married, some miniscule, some hefty. While taxes is the one people talk about the most, it's not a huge deal as there's no dependants in many cases, but--there are some cases of dependants and for them those tax breaks probably should be there. A lot of the big ones involve death, illness, insurance, inheritance, visiting rights in hospitals (trust me, spiteful hateful families can and will do anything to make your partner's life miserable), and (I believe) things like buying homes and cars to an extent.... something to do with how they look at assets people have... I think you're restricted to them looking at just your stuff when you go to buy a home doesn't matter that you've been partners for 15 years... but I'm not sure exactly.

Now of those 1200+ rights, most of them I'm sure are minor and very rarely matter, but I'm sure every now and then something can come along and make that minor clause somewhere pretty important.

I just think it's absurd how there's supposed to be a seperation of church and state, but there isn't much, in fact more people are trying to force more church into the state. Crazy Christian zealots just trying to force it down everyone whom doesn't believe similarly. Course, it's no different in the middle east I guess, jews, muslims, etc all killing eachother because of beliefs and religion.

[Nerous]

It still sounds like you are saying the low morals (desanctification of marraige) of hetero's are a justification for allowing gay marraige. To clarify my original point: if the divorce rate was low, would you no longer support gay marraige?

No, i am dismissing this damned "Marriage is sacred" shit i keep hearing. Everytime it is brought up they keep going back to the marrige is sacred shit. If it was so sacred hetero's shouldn't be doing the shit they are. If it was so sacred they would think about getting married along time before rushing into it.

That isn't happening, marriage isn't religious anymore. It is a public annoucement of 2 people spending the rest of their lives together. Marraige came around in the old days so men could "brand" their name into their property, and allow them to have sex with another without the penalty of hell.

Just like everything else shit changes over time. And all this traditional christian shit needs to stop. I am just fucking tired of having my love life dissected at every turn. You can't help but turn on a tv anymore without hearing about it. And more often then not it is people berrating it.

[Yo]

That isn't happening, marriage isn't religious anymore. It is a public annoucement of 2 people spending the rest of their lives together.

Feel free to reread my post up top.

Religious Marriage.

Civil Marriage.

I promise you, millions upon millions still marry under religious bonds.

[Payndar Circusdorf]

Here is some nice gallop poll stats: http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=23764

"Four in 10 Republicans Would Not Find McCain an "Acceptable" Nominee"

An equivalent headline is "60% of Republicans are just fine with McCain."

[Payndar Circusdorf]

That was only part of the issue... i am more worried about having a terri Schalvo thing go on if David was ever in that situation. As much as i love him i could never fathom seeing him hooked up to those machines with no hope ahead. I would have no say it what happened to him. His life would be in his families hand, and i would have no legal right to input my opinion.

Which has nothing to do with your homosexuality and everything to do with David's lack of having written a Living Will.

I'm not undermining your overall position, but this one is immediately redeemable without getting married. Just my advice.

You don't have big brother trying to get into your bedroom. I do.

Again not to be pedantic but after Lawrence v. Texas, neither do you.
Sodomy cannot be banned in the United States. [Read the following sentence all the way through, and then re-read it again once you realize I am on your side here: ] Where Big Brother IS trying to get into is the Sanctuary, by dictating what marriages are acceptable and which ones are not. Keep in mind that marriage is a religious sacrament, and by forbidding recognition of certain forms of marriage, the government is picking which religions it prefers over the others.

You guys can go out and hold hands with your gf/wife, while i have to worry about being dragged into a alley and killed becuase i showed affection.

If this is an argument in favor of Hate Crime legislation, I am disappointed. Just sayin'.

I do believe i deserve the right to marry.

I completely agree.

Marriage isn't sacred anymore.

I'm not sure that marriage has ever been sacred, given the adultery rate across human history.

We have every right to be treated as equals.

Equals yes. Interchangeable parts, no. But I feel that way about humans in general, not in a homo/hetero sense.

[Payndar Circusdorf]

Treatise on Gay Marriage

I completely agree.