QUOTE
Jun 26, 2012 6:00 AM GMT
California Senate Bill Defines Marriage as a Civil Contract Onlyhttp://news.yahoo.com/california-senate-bill-defines-marriage-civil-contract-only-193900606.html
FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules
California Senate Bill Defines Marriage as a Civil Contract Only
-
http://news.yahoo.com/california-senate-bill-defines-marriage-civil-contract-only-193900606.html -
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 6:26 AM GMTTake gay out of marriage and have Civil Unions, there's the compromise.
-
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 6:56 AM GMT
tru_blu_auzzie saidTake gay out of marriage and have Civil Unions, there's the compromise.
Compromise?
There is no compromise when it comes to equality. Separate but equal is not equal.
-
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 7:33 AM GMTIf they want to compromise with the religious fuckwads, they should explain to them that there is not one single place in the bible where the govt got involved with marriage, therefore ALL marriage - regardless of the genders - should be civil contracts.
-
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 10:21 AM GMT
paulflexes saidIf they want to compromise with the religious fuckwads, they should explain to them that there is not one single place in the bible where the govt got involved with marriage, therefore ALL marriage - regardless of the genders - should be civil contracts.
This.
And is this what the bill actually says, or is it trying to pull some "separate but-not-really-equal" wool over our eyes? -
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 12:03 PM GMTSee again this proves the point that this issue is not an equality issue and that It has and will continue to be a losing battle. A strait man cannot marry a man just the same as a gay man cannot marry a man. It has always been that way.
With this bill what they are quite obviously doing is accepting the loss of the gay marriage fight. When, not if, the supreme court throws out the gay marriage initiative there will be no ground to stand on. Gay marriage will become nationally illegal as it has always been. SO now California will seek to change the foundation of marriage rather than induce the word "gay" into it.
The inconsistencies with this political and social movement is simply tiring. The arguments change and the validation becomes of a liberally emotional reaction rather than intellectual and productive solutions.
The foundation of this country and the production of the institution of marriage proposes the continuation of this nation simply by promoting healthy, positive and non deviant behaviors. Marriage is the religious sanction that promotes the healthiest and most successful option for continuing a strong, stable society. To provide a loving and caring home for a family and strengthen their relationship through each other.
There is nothing wrong with Marriage and no need to change it. However, before you go nuts, there is a STRONG flaw with the current outlook on marriage. However, people are the problem not the structure. We have become selfish beings bent on satisfying our own needs rather than using common sense and humility to find happiness. (There is many more flaws to human nature but lets get back to this topic.)
My opinion is that we leave marriage alone and stop being liberally butthurt, so to speak, and expose the real problems with homosexual suppression. Regardless of orientation, if I am in a hospital I have every right to have whoever the heck I want come visit me. If I want to live together with someone why should we not be able to have the same last names on the mortgage, and why the heck should I not be able to cover whoever I want on my health insurance....IM PAYING FOR IT. Thanks Obama for false advertising and yet another lie.
We say that we seek equality through marriage and yet marriage is the LEAST limiting of our rights rather it simply just doesn't exist. At least its blunt and strait forward: You cannot get married. I would rather make a new ceremonious function call it something homo and get the rights I want out of it.
I am gay, yes, and I know that. But I also know how the political system our country is founded on. Although the players have become corrupt and fallible the foundation still promotes the healthiest and most promising of government structures. Let's not try and kill it shall we. -
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 1:43 PM GMT
Sfdubleu saidSee again this proves the point that this issue is not an equality issue and that It has and will continue to be a losing battle. A strait man cannot marry a man just the same as a gay man cannot marry a man. It has always been that way.
Well, Im going to be the most 'conservative' asshole on this forum and tell you that "yes, I am gay and I know what legal system this country was founded on". I spent the majority of my adult life defending it. You can take your 'political system' and shove it up your ass!
With this bill what they are quite obviously doing is accepting the loss of the gay marriage fight. When, not if, the supreme court throws out the gay marriage initiative there will be no ground to stand on. Gay marriage will become nationally illegal as it has always been. SO now California will seek to change the foundation of marriage rather than induce the word "gay" into it.
The inconsistencies with this political and social movement is simply tiring. The arguments change and the validation becomes of a liberally emotional reaction rather than intellectual and productive solutions.
The foundation of this country and the production of the institution of marriage proposes the continuation of this nation simply by promoting healthy, positive and non deviant behaviors. Marriage is the religious sanction that promotes the healthiest and most successful option for continuing a strong, stable society. To provide a loving and caring home for a family and strengthen their relationship through each other.
There is nothing wrong with Marriage and no need to change it. However, before you go nuts, there is a STRONG flaw with the current outlook on marriage. However, people are the problem not the structure. We have become selfish beings bent on satisfying our own needs rather than using common sense and humility to find happiness. (There is many more flaws to human nature but lets get back to this topic.)
My opinion is that we leave marriage alone and stop being liberally butthurt, so to speak, and expose the real problems with homosexual suppression. Regardless of orientation, if I am in a hospital I have every right to have whoever the heck I want come visit me. If I want to live together with someone why should we not be able to have the same last names on the mortgage, and why the heck should I not be able to cover whoever I want on my health insurance....IM PAYING FOR IT. Thanks Obama for false advertising and yet another lie.
We say that we seek equality through marriage and yet marriage is the LEAST limiting of our rights rather it simply just doesn't exist. At least its blunt and strait forward: You cannot get married. I would rather make a new ceremonious function call it something homo and get the rights I want out of it.
I am gay, yes, and I know that. But I also know how the political system our country is founded on. Although the players have become corrupt and fallible the foundation still promotes the healthiest and most promising of government structures. Let's not try and kill it shall we.
The "structure" of legal marriage in this country will have to be destroyed before those 'people' you mention decided to apply the equality phrase found in the 14th amendment.
Until the CHURCH is destroyed ( and god that come soon enough) this war will be fought. You post reeks of theocracy.
-
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:01 PM GMTYou fight yours, I'll fight mine...theocracy is just another belief...I expect you believe in something and all the same I choose to obtain my knowledge from history rather than modern ideology.
-
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:02 PM GMTIf marriage is to be defined from the churches then the churches should not be tax exempt.
-
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:04 PM GMTFor me the word marriage doesn't mean much as long as the my partner has same rights as a married straight couple. So I have no problem with civil union.
Seeing how the marriages are around the world these days, its not something I dream of when I go to bed. -
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:08 PM GMT
Sfdubleu saidYou fight yours, I'll fight mine...theocracy is just another belief...I expect you believe in something and all the same I choose to obtain my knowledge from history rather than modern ideology.
I have news for you child, at the ripe old age of 21 you think you 'know it all' dontcha? Well you've proven here that you have attacked an older member unprovoked, talked shit out of your ass (actually it was colic) and you actually havent a clue as to what you spout..
Your statement quoted in this box makes absolutely no sense whatsoever..
Your 'knowledge' of history? LMAO.. pathetic, simply pathetic
-
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:09 PM GMT
TropicalMark said
Until the CHURCH is destroyed ( and god that come soon enough) this war will be fought. You post reeks of theocracy.
That is not going to happen. Religion is a hugely important factor of millions of lives, and that is not likely going to ever change. That's not to say that there are not some very destructive elements among some religious circles that should be changed. What I find disappointing is that many (fortunately not all) gays are simply not willing to compromise, and therein lies a major problem that will likely keep this an uphill battle for many years to come. -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:12 PM GMT
Dagomir said
Sadly, history may have to repeat itself, and baby steps may be our best solution in the US. I totally support gay marriage though- regardless if we get it in 50 years or 5 weeks.tru_blu_auzzie saidTake gay out of marriage and have Civil Unions, there's the compromise.
Compromise? There is no compromise when it comes to equality. Separate but equal is not equal. -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:16 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ said
TropicalMark said
Until the CHURCH is destroyed ( and god that come soon enough) this war will be fought. You post reeks of theocracy.
That is not going to happen. Religion is a hugely important factor of millions of lives, and that is not likely going to ever change. That's not to say that there are not some very destructive elements among some religious circles that should be changed. What I find disappointing is that many (fortunately not all) gays are simply not willing to compromise, and therein lies a major problem that will likely keep this an uphill battle for many years to come.
Funny that you of all people should say this.
Compromise?
There are 1,139 enumerated Federal financial benefits from marriage. You are currently subsidizing a system you are forbidden from taking advantage of. Since you'd be the first to scream about being overtaxed and having your money go to support things that don't involve you, I have to wonder if you even see the inconsistency here.
Compromise. "I'm sorry Mr, Black Person, you're no longer required to sit in the back of the bus, but you can't sit in front either. We do have a nice seat for you right in the middle though," -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:22 PM GMTHere's the definition up here in Canada:
" Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
Religious officials:
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."
End of story; everyone is happy.
What's a little amusing about a few of the posts here is that straights have complete access to non-religious marriage, and take full advantage of that right.
A good example is marrying outside of your faith, and the faiths of you and your fiancee refuse to marry you.
-
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:23 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ said
TropicalMark said
Until the CHURCH is destroyed ( and god that come soon enough) this war will be fought. You post reeks of theocracy.
That is not going to happen. Religion is a hugely important factor of millions of lives, and that is not likely going to ever change. That's not to say that there are not some very destructive elements among some religious circles that should be changed. What I find disappointing is that many (fortunately not all) gays are simply not willing to compromise, and therein lies a major problem that will likely keep this an uphill battle for many years to come.
Not willing to compromise? Really? Most states that have marriage equality already had domestic partnerships or civil unions before they went into allowing same gender people to marry. Only 6 states and DC have gay marriage. Thirteen states have civil unions. I think we have compromised.
With that said, we should never be pushing for less than full marriage. You don't compromise on human rights. Could you imagine, "Blacks will be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus, but only on weekends, not during the week"? Why do we accept and expect less than what other minorities have fought for and demanded? -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:29 PM GMT
CrankyMcBadass said
Funny that you of all people should say this.
Compromise?
There are 1,139 enumerated Federal financial benefits from marriage. You are currently subsidizing a system you are forbidden from taking advantage of. Since you'd be the first to scream about being overtaxed and having your money go to support things that don't involve you, I have to wonder if you even see the inconsistency here.
Compromise. "I'm sorry Mr, Black Person, you're no longer required to sit in the back of the bus, but you can't sit in front either. We do have a nice seat for you right in the middle though,"
But see, this is where many gays disagree with other gays. Those 1,139 enumerated Federal Financial benefits from marriage could be included in a gay "civil union" bill. That shouldn't be compromised on. However, if all it would take to get this would be to compromise on changing (or not changing) "The Definition of Marriage", in my opinion, and I know many gays share this opinion, it would be a compromise worth making. Also, comparing the plight of gays to the plight of black people is like comparing apples and oranges. It's simply not the same thing. "Race" is an entirely different thing than "Sexual Orientation". -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:37 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ said
I think I know what you're saying though, since what it would be doing would be giving people "separate, but equal" status by giving the old "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" trick. I think that's actually pretty reasonable, yet I have said in my last post that I support gay marriage, since the civil union name does bug me a little. It's like coming home and saying "mom, dad- I'm engaged, and we're getting civil united!" That's a mouthful, don't you think? lolCrankyMcBadass said
Funny that you of all people should say this.
Compromise?
There are 1,139 enumerated Federal financial benefits from marriage. You are currently subsidizing a system you are forbidden from taking advantage of. Since you'd be the first to scream about being overtaxed and having your money go to support things that don't involve you, I have to wonder if you even see the inconsistency here.
Compromise. "I'm sorry Mr, Black Person, you're no longer required to sit in the back of the bus, but you can't sit in front either. We do have a nice seat for you right in the middle though,"
But see, this is where many gays disagree with other gays. Those 1,139 enumerated Federal Financial benefits from marriage could be included in a gay "civil union" bill. That shouldn't be compromised on. However, if all it would take to get this would be to compromise on changing (or not changing) "The Definition of Marriage", in my opinion, and I know many gays share this opinion, it would be a compromise worth making. Also, comparing the plight of gays to the plight of black people is like comparing apples and oranges. It's simply not the same thing. "Race" is an entirely different thing than "Sexual Orientation". -
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:38 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ said Also, comparing the plight of gays to the plight of black people is like comparing apples and oranges. It's simply not the same thing. "Race" is an entirely different thing than "Sexual Orientation".
The plight of religious minorities is different than racial minorities. The plight of nationalities is different than sexual orientation. The plight of gender is different than religious minorities.
You are not really suggesting that one minority is more deserving than another, are you? Or that some minorities should accept some less than other minorities? -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:40 PM GMT
"Also, comparing the plight of gays to the plight of black people is like comparing apples and oranges. It's simply not the same thing. "Race" is an entirely different thing than "Sexual Orientation".
That's because you're not understanding the context of the camparison's use in this case. Here, maybe this will help you.
Compare sexual orientation to a person's eye colour. Or ear shape.
Now then, people with ears that stick out cannot get married, but they can have civil unions which are a patch work of unequal nonsense all across the US, illegal even for straights in some states from what I understand.
-
Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profileQUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:40 PM GMTWhat would be the harm in the Govt not involving itself in marriage at all but civil unions, including same sex? Marriage would be a religious ceremony, and the different religions, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. could handle it as they choose.
Not strongly advocating this as I haven't thought through consequences. Really a question. -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:41 PM GMT
Bullwinklemoos saidI think that's actually pretty reasonable, yet I have said in my last post that I support gay marriage, since the civil union name does bug me a little. It's like coming home and saying "mom, dad- I'm engaged, and we're getting civil united!" That's a mouthful, don't you think? lol
I don't really like the term "civil union" either, however I think gays can call it whatever they like really --- it's just technically termed a "civil union" since it is same sex. I don't think this is such a huge compromise to make as long as "civil unions" come with all those coveted "1,139 enumerated Federal Financial benefits from marriage". -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:44 PM GMT
Iceblink said
You are not really suggesting that one minority is more deserving than another, are you? Or that some minorities should accept some less than other minorities?
No I'm not. But what I am saying is that a "minority" based on their sexual preference is not the same thing as one based on race. I do not consider "race" and "sexual identity" to be in the same realm. -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:45 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ said
I suppose it comes with that freedom, since like I said- "a rose by any other name".Bullwinklemoos saidI think that's actually pretty reasonable, yet I have said in my last post that I support gay marriage, since the civil union name does bug me a little. It's like coming home and saying "mom, dad- I'm engaged, and we're getting civil united!" That's a mouthful, don't you think? lol
I don't really like the term "civil union" either, however I think gays can call it whatever they like really --- it's just technically termed a "civil union" since it is same sex. I don't think this is such a huge compromise to make as long as "civil unions" come with all those coveted "1,139 enumerated Federal Financial benefits from marriage". -
QUOTE Jun 26, 2012 2:48 PM GMT
CuriousJockAZ said
Bullwinklemoos saidI think that's actually pretty reasonable, yet I have said in my last post that I support gay marriage, since the civil union name does bug me a little. It's like coming home and saying "mom, dad- I'm engaged, and we're getting civil united!" That's a mouthful, don't you think? lol
I don't really like the term "civil union" either, however I think gays can call it whatever they like really --- it's just technically termed a "civil union" since it is same sex. I don't think this is such a huge compromise to make as long as "civil unions" come with all those coveted "1,139 enumerated Federal Financial benefits from marriage".
Except that civil unions in your county don't. Just looked it up and the language in them is 'most' or 'nearly all' as far as the same rights go in those States that allow civil unions..
Copyright © 2006-2013 RealJock, Inc. All rights reserved