# Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court!



## SlideStop

I couldn't be happier. This little blurb is off a facebook basically saying what today and tomorrow can bring for same-sex couples... *it's about **** time!*. 

Tuesday and Wednesday are the beginning of what may be the single most important cases to come before the United States Supreme Court in our lifetime.

_On Tuesday, the court hears the opening arguments challenging California's Proposition 8. It centers on the principle that all Americans deserve the right to marry the one they love, and that that freedom should not be denied based on sexual orientation.

On Wednesday, the court hears arguments on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies those lawfully-married same-sex couples in the states which allow same-sex marriage from receiving the more than 1,138 federal rights, benefits and protections based on marital status. These include access to Social Security and tax benefits, family and medical leave, immigration rights, federal health coverage and much more. _


Think of what could be next? ::Crosses fingers:: Maybe federal recognition of same-sex marriages, in place of state by state marriage laws? :-o


----------



## wausuaw

... Im still just astounded that people think they have a right to dictate who can love or marry who and that it's such a big issue to begin with. So long as you aren't hurting anyone else, who cares? For all I care someone could marry their pet goldfish (figuratively speaking, of course, for all the literal people...)


----------



## bsms

In the past, marriage laws were supposed to protect women and children from uncaring men. Don't know if that ever worked that way. However, one would be hard pressed to find a society in the last 5,000 years that actively promoted marriage between homosexuals.

This is technically not a homosexual marriage case at all. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court is going to require all states to start holding homosexual marriages - although no power grab is beyond possibility with the Supreme Court. This is about letting people in a state decide to ban homosexual marriages in that state - a 'right' that has been automatic since 1776. The idea that the US Constitution REQUIRES homosexual marriage is pretty ludicrous.

In any case, here are the oral arguments for anyone interested:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf

68 pages of text.


----------



## Muppetgirl

I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal......:shock: I don't get it:?

But I'm a floater, I can see most things from most angles:wink:


----------



## bsms

Marriage as a religious ceremony is up to the religion. Marriage as a civil ceremony probably depends on what government is trying to promote. Prior to around 1960, when women had extremely restricted employment opportunities, having strict civil contracts as a part of marriage probably provided badly needed protection to the women, and to kids as well.

In a world of no fault divorce, I'm more inclined to think government should get out of the marriage business. When single, I resented paying more in taxes than a married man.

OTOH, I'm not sure I'm ready for polygamy to make a comeback either...:?


----------



## Poseidon

Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## Allison Finch

Get real....marriage is FAR more than a religious ideal. It is a contract, whether religious or secular. It give LEGAL protections of property, health/medical rights and child legal status. There is a LOT on trial here.

I have a student and very good friend who is in a LONGterm same sex relationship where two children have been produced. They are fabulous children with two loving parents. When NC passed their constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, they effectively labeled these children as [email protected], which I find horrible. Her partner has no legal status where the family/children are concerned.

How does their having a contractual protection hurt anyone?


----------



## wausuaw

> I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal...... I don't get it


Marriage has become intertwined with government, which is where the problem lies. I think any religion has the right to make their own rules, for sure. To each their own. But, married couples get rights, tax breaks, etc, etc etc.... That regular couples don't get. If it were STRICTLY religious, then by means, leave it between the religious folks to deal with.


----------



## Allison Finch

Poseidon said:


> Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


:lol:

I sure wish i would go that way.


----------



## Joe4d

Yawn,,, I dont care much one way or the other, and certainly dont rank it as a lifetime event. The court is so politicized right and wrong doesnt really matter anyway.
Freedom should be about doing whatever you want unless it really hurts someone else. I fail to see how two dudes getting married hurts me. If you dont like gay marriage, dont have one. If you think gay marriage is a sin, well thats their problem now isnt it. If your right they go to hell, oh well to bad so sad, again how does that affect me ? Seems the media, the gay groups, politicians, and religious groups are all caught up in arguing about whether it is right or wrong. And that is very sad. The argument should be whether or not it hurts someone else. If it doesnt then the government has no business prohibiting it. If it does then please explain it to me.


----------



## BaileyJo

IMO, it will eventually be legalized. It's just a matter of time. I know it is a simplistic way to look at it but history has proven itself that eventually, things change.

I find the most interesting piece of this is considering whether or not homosexuality is a 'sin'. Your religion is not my religion, my God is not your God. How is it that you can force your sin or your God upon me? I have a totally different relationship with God than anyone else does. My relationship is my own and my sin is my own. 

Honestly, we don't even know for sure if there is a hell. Do we??


----------



## bsms

Actually, as a legal matter, the argument should be "Does the US Constitution require it?" And that answer is obviously no. But in modern America, it will be decided by a popular vote held of 9 judges living a rarefied life rather than expecting Congress to pass laws, or allowing the states to do as they see fit. Remember - there is nothing STOPPING a state from allowing homosexual marriages. A number already do. In California, Prop 8 could be overturned by a Prop 209, if the voters wish.

"Her partner has no legal status where the family/children are concerned."

That could be dealt with by a contract. Ever hear of a power of attorney?

"When NC passed their constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, they effectively labeled these children as [email protected], which I find horrible."

I've known a number of single moms, none of whose kids were suffering stigmatization as '*******s'. So why is it different for your friends? And if you had Muslim friends, should they be allowed polygamous marriages, in accordance with their religion, and overturning the laws of the USA?


----------



## Joe4d

I guess my problem is, as soon as you say a state "Allows" something than it isnt a freedom or right. 
Im betting the Court is gonna say this is a state issue. and throw out the DOM act.


----------



## bsms

DOMA affects federal law ONLY. Federal law cannot be defined by state law.


----------



## bsms

Just a reminder about this case, borrowing a good summary from Wiki:

_"Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).

United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal."_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

The ruling was in FEDERAL court. It used the US Constitution to effectively require homosexual marriages, since the ruling said a ban on homosexual marriage violated the US Constitution. If returned to the states, then Prop 8 stands. But if the 9th Circuit ruling is affirmed by the US Supreme Court, then states will effectively be required to permit homosexual marriage.

I believe DOMA will be argued tomorrow. It is the federal law defining what marriage means when used in federal law.

Pro or con, the news reporting on this has been confusing, IMHO. Or maybe I'm just not very smart...


----------



## Joe4d

Improper grammar on my part. 
Gay marriage state issue. (period) (New sentence separate thought) DOM unconstitutional. Thats what I meant they have two cases.


----------



## SlideStop

Sorry, I'm EXTREMELY eager to respond but I'm stuck in class right not. Don't think if ditched this post.  

Fact of the matter is marriage extends WAY BEYOND religion. It IS intertwined into out government, hence the 1000+ benefit denied to same sex couples. Why should I have to hire an attorney for something automatically handed to others. Especially for people who marry NOT because they love each but for benefits people are trying so hard to fight for.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

^^ Does your state allow civil unions?


----------



## SlideStop

bsms said:


> ^^ Does your state allow civil unions?


My state allows gay marriage 

"civil unions" are like the separate but equal movement. It's not equal. I don't see.any straight people getting civil unions. Even non religious get actual marriages.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nvr2many

What gets me is, the government will say oh it is against the teachings of the bible and God, but at the same time has taken God out of everything! Gah!


----------



## Allison Finch

What about the CONSTITUTIONAL right to a "pursuit of happiness......."


----------



## SlideStop

nvr2many said:


> What gets me is, the government will say oh it is against the teachings of the bible and God, but at the same time has taken God out of everything! Gah!


I think this is the most frustrating thing. Sure, your RELIGION says homosexuality is bad (i totally don't believe that God doesn't like gay people, I think this is something taken to literally or out of context.
It was a dramatically different world back then!) but that doesn't mean your faith based beliefs have to be the standard for the country. For example, there are plenty of people who are still racist, doesn't mean we should institute any deportation to native lands. That would outrage people! Then why not send white people back to where they came from? White people are no more "special" or "entitled" then black, Asian, or Spanish people. Just like there is no superior religion or culture. So why do we have a superior sexuality? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

BaileyJo said:


> IMO, it will eventually be legalized. It's just a matter of time. I know it is a simplistic way to look at it but history has proven itself that eventually, things change.
> 
> I find the most interesting piece of this is considering whether or not homosexuality is a 'sin'. Your religion is not my religion, my God is not your God. How is it that you can force your sin or your God upon me? I have a totally different relationship with God than anyone else does. My relationship is my own and my sin is my own.
> 
> Honestly, we don't even know for sure if there is a hell. Do we??


In my eyes no God (meaning higher being, not one particular) is going to judge people biased on who they love. People will be judge on their moral behavior. My sexuality has nothing to do with being a good person or not. It doesn't prevent me from working hard, helping others and giving my time. I would say I'm of pretty high, or at lease good, moral standing.

I highly doubt Jesus would be out there trying to oppress groups of people. He was a healer, a teacher and a roll model for good character. I'm sure he is face palming up in heaven at the mere thought of people the the westboro community church doing things like saying the Sandy Hook shootings were because of CTs approval on gay marriage... Really? _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joe4d

and hence my point. Gods view, or whether you think it is good or bad isnt relevant. I cant speak for God, I do know it isnt my place to judge others for actions that dont affect me.
I think gays should have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. WHy should they get off so easy ?


----------



## RivendellNative

I suppose this could be considered hijacking, just jumping in and throwing my thoughts around, but I just need to get a few things out.

The first thing I would like to say is that I'm 15 years old, and a Christian. And no, I'm not religious; I'm a faithful servant of Christ who devoted my life to Him and vowed to serve Him and live my life to glorify Him. I go by no rules, no regulations, except for living the way God wants me to. I think it's quite sad how so many people think Christians are "homosexual haters" who would pay anything to see every homosexual be condemned to hell. I'm not one of these people. In fact, I know a lot of Christians who aren't.

The thing is, God doesn't hate homosexuals. He loves them. He loves them as much as He loves me, as much as He loves you, as much as He loves every murderer or thief or prostitute. He even loves the people who despise Him. Because God is love. The thing that many people don't understand is that God hates the sin that homosexuals commit, not the homosexuals themselves. He loves murderers, but he hates the crime they've done. 

I personally do not support gay marriage, but that won't stop me from respecting the opinions of other people who do. I can't start a fight just because I think gay marriage is wrong and I certainly wouldn't ever try to change anyone's opinion. And as a Christian, I'm going to acknowledge my downfalls. So many people think that Christians are high-and-mighty arrogant snobs who take a look at you and automatically assume you're a huge sinner. The truth is, I'm a huge sinner too. I sin just as much as everyone else in the world, just in different ways than others. Because not everyone is the same. 

I just saw the posts on here about God and "religion" and I just wanted you all to see how I see things. And it doesn't matter if you support gay marriage, it doesn't matter if you had a kid when you were 16, it doesn't matter if you spent half your life in jail. God loves and forgives. *God is love.*

-Kennedi


----------



## BaileyJo

RivendellNative said:


> The thing that many people don't understand is that God hates the sin that homosexuals commit, not the homosexuals themselves. He loves murderers, but he hates the crime they've done.


I always have such a hard time understanding how people even presume to know what God does or does not like. And comparing homosexuality to murder is just wrong and way out of context. 

BTW, my God does not hate the sin of homosexuals.


----------



## bsms

nvr2many said:


> What gets me is, the government will say oh it is against the teachings of the bible and God, but at the same time has taken God out of everything! Gah!


Really? Where in the oral arguments today did anyone say, "The Bible condemns homosexuality, therefor, we must ban it!"? I must have missed that argument.


----------



## SlideStop

This is where the lines get fuzzy... Are we banning/not giving people the right to marry because of RELIGIOUS reasons? Because this is not and should not be a religious issue any more then eat meat during lent is! 

These are human rights, treating fellow humans as "lesser" is not right in our eyes. Can anyone really say woman shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or black people should have to drink from separate water fountains?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> What about the CONSTITUTIONAL right to a "pursuit of happiness......."


Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?

Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.


----------



## BaileyJo

bsms said:


> Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?
> 
> Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.


You're comparing apples to oranges with pedophiles and bank robbers. Why don't we just exploit children and innocent people because gays are having an adult relationship between two consenting people? Doesn't make sense.


----------



## bsms

SlideStop said:


> ...I highly doubt Jesus would be out there trying to oppress groups of people. He was a healer, a teacher and a roll model for good character...


_
“Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you utter frauds! For you pay your tithe on mint and aniseed and cummin, and neglect the things which carry far more weight in the Law—justice, mercy and good faith. These are the things you should have observed—without neglecting the others. You call yourselves leaders, and yet you can’t see an inch before your noses, for you filter out the mosquito and swallow the camel. _
_“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, while the inside is full of greed and self-indulgence. Can’t you see, Pharisee? First wash the inside of a cup, and then you can clean the outside._
_ 
“Alas for you, you hypocritical scribes and Pharisees! You are like white-washed tombs, which look fine on the outside but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all kinds of rottenness. For you appear like good men on the outside—but inside you are a mass of pretence and wickedness. __

“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees!"_ - Matthew 25

Sounds kind of oppressive to me! Or at a minimum, kind of rude!

However, since this thread is about the LAW, I'd defy anyone to show me where the oral arguments today discussed Jesus, or hell, or a requirement to believe in Christianity.

As a CONSTITUTIONAL matter, where does it give homosexuals a GUARANTEED right to marriage, or discuss marriage at all? It seems to me, it is most likely covered in the 10th Amendment:*"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."*​


----------



## SlideStop

bsms said:


> Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?
> 
> Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.


Just like the bible, you can't take that saying literally. Obviously it has to be within reason, so no murderers can't murder and people can't molest children. That's saying entitles you to life of doing what makes you happy. You want to be a farmer, farm. Want a big house, buy a big house. Want 15 kids, have 15 kids. Plus you need to understand the PERIOD this was coming from. If you were born a poor farmer you would most likely stay a poor farmer. If you were born a wealth business man you would stay a wealth business man. That saying or "right" was created to tell the people of broke and struggling America they your not stuck being a poor person, if you have a dream of being a wealth man go for it! Pretty much what this country was founded on, people leaving oppression seeking a better life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

BaileyJo said:


> You're comparing apples to oranges with pedophiles and bank robbers. Why don't we just exploit children and innocent people because gays are having an adult relationship between two consenting people? Doesn't make sense.


Why not 3 people? Or four?

Given that homosexuality was illegal until the 60s, in what meaningful sense does the US Constitution require states to allow homosexuals to marry? As Scalia put it:

_JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -* as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -
*
JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then -*

MR. OLSON: Because the case that's before you -*

JUSTICE SCALIA: -- if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf
_
As a matter of law, when did we as a society make a decision that homosexuality is good and must be encouraged? When did we, as a society, make a collective decision to allow homosexual marriage?

A number of states HAVE done so, and have done so legally. Others have not. But when did the US Constitution change? And who changed it? And how?

If a majority of people decide they want homosexuals to be able to marry, then change the law - as a number of states have done. I will accept majority rule. What I don't accept is that the Constitution changes every time Justice Kennedy farts...


----------



## Joe4d

I think the constitutional arguments are stemming from the 14th's equal protection clause.
However ruling its a states issue is a pretty good dodge the question political reponse. One that I would default to on most matters. But as pointed out, right and wrong doesnt really matter to this court. All about politics.


----------



## BaileyJo

bsms said:


> _“Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you utter frauds! For you pay your tithe on mint and aniseed and cummin, and neglect the things which carry far more weight in the Law—justice, mercy and good faith. These are the things you should have observed—without neglecting the others. You call yourselves leaders, and yet you can’t see an inch before your noses, for you filter out the mosquito and swallow the camel. _
> _“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, while the inside is full of greed and self-indulgence. Can’t you see, Pharisee? First wash the inside of a cup, and then you can clean the outside._
> 
> _“Alas for you, you hypocritical scribes and Pharisees! You are like white-washed tombs, which look fine on the outside but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all kinds of rottenness. For you appear like good men on the outside—but inside you are a mass of pretence and wickedness. _
> 
> _“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees!"_ - Matthew 25
> 
> Sounds kind of oppressive to me! Or at a minimum, kind of rude!


Matthew wrote in a crude fashion. That was his style. Jesus was actually written in four different perceptions by four very different people. If you want the kinder, more gentlier Jesus, read John. 


Anyway, this passage is saying how the Pharisees put on a display on the outside thinking they are perfect while in fact, inside they are imperfect. They condemn those around them when what they should be doing is turning their attention to themselves and not look at themselves being above everyone else. This is how I translate this verse. 


This very same passage also says to me as heterosexuals who claim to be the only ones who know how to marry - when in fact, what is the divorce rate again??


----------



## BaileyJo

bsms said:


> Why not 3 people? Or four?


I'm not arguing over your group marriage. That is a banana and doesn't belong in my argument. But when you throw pedophiles and bank robbers in with gays, that won't fly in my book. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Like it or not, it will change. Otherwise we would still have slavery, still not allow women to vote or own property, (possibly not even be allowed to wear pants) have segregation, not allow people of two different races to marry, not have a Black President, on and on..... 

Change is coming people.


----------



## PurpleMonkeyWrench

bsms said:


> Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?
> 
> Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.


very good post with a great point.


----------



## bsms

BaileyJo said:


> I'm not arguing over your group marriage. That is a banana and doesn't belong in my argument. But when you throw pedophiles and bank robbers in with gays, that won't fly in my book. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Like it or not, it will change. Otherwise we would still have slavery, still not allow women to vote or own property, (possibly not even be allowed to wear pants) have segregation, not allow people of two different races to marry, not have a Black President, on and on.....
> 
> Change is coming people.


The reason we have a democratic republic is to allow change in accordance with popular demand. It may well be that homosexual marriage will be allowed by more and more states...but that isn't a constitutional matter. When long-standing rules are changed by a majority vote on a court, instead of from the legislature or initiatives, you end up with bitter battle lines. And if 'equal protection' requires allowing homosexuals to marry, then it would also require polygamy, polyandry, require a uniform age for marriage eligibility, etc.

Five justices may decide they want homosexual marriage, and then make up an excuse and say it is in the Constitution. Personally, I reject that as an acceptable way to make laws.


----------



## nvr2many

Muppetgirl said:


> I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal......:shock: I don't get it:?
> 
> But I'm a floater, I can see most things from most angles:wink:





bsms said:


> Really? Where in the oral arguments today did anyone say, "The Bible condemns homosexuality, therefor, we must ban it!"? I must have missed that argument.


Was commenting on what Muppet said on the first page... Not to start anything either way. :shock:


----------



## Muppetgirl

nvr2many said:


> Was commenting on what Muppet said on the first page... Not to start anything either way. :shock:


Oh blah....I wasn't starting anything either.......I've just heard a lot of rantings from religious relatives about this subject, and that was THEIR view, not mine, they believe marriage is a biblical principal only to be undertaken by man and woman who are equally yoked.....(seriously my MIL nearly laid an egg when she discovered I was not what she hoped....but what DIL is?:shock ....like I say, I'm a great big sinner and plan to stay that way, because no ones perfect. If TWO HUMAN BEINGS wish to marry, then let them do it.....all sins are created equal, if homosexuals are going to be sent to hell for having relations, then I will be right there with them dancing on coals for any number of 'sins' I've committed.


----------



## nvr2many

Muppetgirl said:


> Oh blah....I wasn't starting anything either.......I've just heard a lot of rantings from religious relatives about this subject, and that was THEIR view, not mine, they believe marriage is a biblical principal only to be undertaken by man and woman who are equally yoked.....(seriously my MIL nearly laid an egg when she discovered I was not what she hoped....but what DIL is?:shock ....like I say, I'm a great big sinner and plan to stay that way, because no ones perfect. If TWO HUMAN BEINGS wish to marry, then let them do it.....all sins are created equal, if homosexuals are going to be sent to hell for having relations, then I will be right there with them dancing on coals for any number of 'sins' I've committed.


OH, I knew you weren't. I totally agree with you!!!


----------



## Missy May

I don't see how religion has a monopoly on marriage.  One is not required to be of any particular faith to get married in the US. 

And, one is not required to be anything other than an adult to enter into a legal and binding partnership that gives them every legal right to property, hospital visits, etc., that marriage would. The ONLY thing marriage would "allow" that cannot be obtained by any other binding contract between two people is spousal benefits. This is not limited to gays. No two heterosexuals of the same sex can marry - _either_. So the "can't access spousal benefit" thing is NOT "unequal" treatment. 

So, to me the question isn't why should it matter if gays can marry...it is why does it matter to gays (reportedly 3.5 is percent of the population) that they can't???

And, the second there was a new pope, the immediate response was people sure hoped he was pro-gay marriage. Hello? For whose sake? Gays in Iran? Or, did they mean for the sake of anti-christian folks living in predominately christian countries?? There is no end to this "we demand" from gays dominating the airwaves. Meanwhile the national debt is beyond out of control, and there are plenty of "real places" that rather draconian treatment of gays IS actually dictated by religion (e.g., Iran), yet not a PEEP about it.

As far as "people should be allowed to marry the one they love" - really? Even if it involves incest?


----------



## SouthernTrails

.

Not saying I am for it. Just curious.....

In the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" why cannot a man have two wives or a woman have two husbands?

As long as it is a committed relationship, it should be OK, correct?

.


----------



## SlideStop

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> .
> 
> Not saying I am for it. Just curious.....
> 
> In the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" why cannot a man have two wives or a woman have two husbands?
> 
> As long as it is a committed relationship, it should be OK, correct?
> 
> .


Just to play devils advocate......... why not? Sure, marriage has traditionally been between two, but three (or more) could be beneficial. Two people out making money, someone home with the kids. These "ways of life" are nothing new, only taboo for OUR culture. Plenty of animals live this way and I'm sure humans didn't always live by the pair mentality. I'm not for, but not against it either. 

Honestly, I feel like the argument of "Well if we allow gays to marry then people can marry their dogs, cousins (another cultural taboo), and children". We are talking about _two consenting adults_. Not a dog who doesn't can't understand the higher concept of what it is to me in a committed, romantic relationship, not a child who can't give consent, and not two people who will produce children with various genetic mutations.

It's like coming at horse slaughter with the idea of "Wow, if they allow horse slaughter I bet dogs and cats are next!!!". I doubt in 1000 years dogs or cats will EVER be slaughtered. Why, because there will be such a HUGE out cry. It's not within out cultural norms, just like incest, having sex with children and marry your cousins violate or sense of what is right. 

Also, I don't see ANY out cry from ANYONE in that area. Why? Because it's wrong, not just wrong for religious reasons, just morally wrong by any standard in the United states. Untillpeople start fighting for those rights I DOUBT we will have to worry about them.


----------



## SlideStop

PurpleMonkeyWrench said:


> very good post with a great point.



Here's your response...





> Originally Posted by bsms
> Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?
> 
> Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.



My response: *Just like the bible, you can't take that saying literally. Obviously it has to be within reason, so no murderers can't murder and people can't molest children. That's saying entitles you to life of doing what makes you happy. You want to be a farmer, farm. Want a big house, buy a big house. Want 15 kids, have 15 kids. Plus you need to understand the PERIOD this was coming from. If you were born a poor farmer you would most likely stay a poor farmer. If you were born a wealth business man you would stay a wealth business man. That saying or "right" was created to tell the people of broke and struggling America they your not stuck being a poor person, if you have a dream of being a wealth man go for it! Pretty much what this country was founded on, people leaving oppression seeking a better life.*


----------



## bsms

MY point was simply that the "pursuit of happiness" (from the Declaration of Independence) is hardly a constitutional mandate requiring homosexual marriage. All laws interfere with someone's happiness.

Nor do I think much of the "if they love each other" argument. If a married man comes to love another woman, I think he has an obligation to his WIFE and KIDS to work on his marriage, rather than dump her and them and "follow his heart". That is why marriage became a contract to begin with - to protect women and kids, and support a family that builds a society.

My brother teaches in Tucson. Almost none of his kids come from a traditional two-parent home, living with the father who helped create them. It seems to me our society has already degraded marriage to the point that we, as a society, don't believe in traditional marriage at all. But judging from the results in schools where most kids come from non-traditional marriage homes versus those with a large percentage of original, two parent homes...that comes with a high price to society.

I would argue we should be trying to reverse the trend, and put more emphasis on 'traditional marriage' - but I also think that part of the culture war is long gone, and my side lost. I think there will be a price to pay, and America will inevitably pay it.


----------



## SlideStop

Missy May said:


> I don't see how religion has a monopoly on marriage. One is not required to be of any particular faith to get married in the US.
> 
> And, one is not required to be anything other than an adult to enter into a legal and binding partnership that gives them every legal right to property, hospital visits, etc., that marriage would. The ONLY thing marriage would "allow" that cannot be obtained by any other binding contract between two people is spousal benefits. This is not limited to gays. No two heterosexuals of the same sex can marry - _either_. So the "can't access spousal benefit" thing is NOT "unequal" treatment.
> 
> So, to me the question isn't why should it matter if gays can marry...it is why does it matter to gays (reportedly 3.5 is percent of the population) that they can't???


Marriage and religion are intertwined. It's one of the biggest reasons preventing it. Why do people think its wrong? Because their religion tells them so. Not for nothing, religion has also taught people we were the dependence of two people and the earth is the center of earth. Oh, these are old principles? So is the thought*of homosexuality as a disease. 

If gays are not "unequal" then can we "demote" heterosexual marriage to the same standing as "gay marriage"? There are BENEFITS to being legally married. Obviously this website does not outline them all, but it gives a good broad overview http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson

How would YOU feel is you were denied visitation to your dying spouse or couldn't get time off for bereavement? If you couldn't cover your children with insurance? And there are hundreds of other reasons marriage benefits a person. And many people marry just to reap these benefits. 

3.5% is still equivalent to 4 million people, gay people are not a small cult. That doesn't include people who are in denial, afraid to come out for fear of ostracized and the discrimination and hate gay people are up against. Hell, I knew my whole life but I didn't know what a lesbian was until 8th grade and I have a very "real world" upbringing. There is a researcher who estimates the homosexual to heterosexual ratio at 1 to 10.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

SlideStop said:


> ...I doubt in 1000 years dogs or cats will EVER be slaughtered. Why, because there will be such a HUGE out cry. It's not within out cultural norms, just like incest, having sex with children and marry your cousins violate or sense of what is right...


I'm old enough to see how "cultural norms" have changed in the last 20, 30 and 40 years. The culture of tolerance uber alles is a culture that rejects cultural norms. It would be a serious mistake to think you can predict cultural norms in America 20 years from now...let alone 1000!

Incest and marrying cousins is already allowed, even 'traditional', in some parts of the world. Indeed, those things are actually more 'traditional', in the sense of having been done regularly during the last 5,000 years, than homosexual marriage is. If you think marrying your cousin is taboo in America, wait 20 years. Every argument being used for homosexual marriage can also apply to marrying cousins, marrying multiple women and men, and marrying adult children. _"In 1991, when the relationship started, Allen was 56 and Previn was approximately 19. Asked whether their age difference was conducive to "a healthy, equal relationship," Allen said equality is not necessarily a requirement in a relationship and "*The heart wants what it wants*. There's no logic to those things. *You meet someone and you fall in love and that's that*."_​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen#Soon-Yi_Previn


----------



## Muppetgirl

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> .
> 
> Not saying I am for it. Just curious.....
> 
> In the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" why cannot a man have two wives or a woman have two husbands?
> 
> As long as it is a committed relationship, it should be OK, correct?
> 
> .


Actually some very strong communities have been created through the multiple spouse way of life. I'm not for it, kind of seems creepy, but that is how I was raised, ie. man does not take more than one wife....
Warren Geoffs (Jeffs?) found out eventually that having more than one wife just doesn't get you in good standing with the law....he must be seething that gays would be potentially getting the option to marry and he couldn't have his 20 wives and 100 offspring. Again taking biblical principals to a whole new extreme.


----------



## SlideStop

bsms said:


> MY point was simply that the "pursuit of happiness" (from the Declaration of Independence) is hardly a constitutional mandate requiring homosexual marriage. All laws interfere with someone's happiness.
> 
> Nor do I think much of the "if they love each other" argument. If a married man comes to love another woman, I think he has an obligation to his WIFE and KIDS to work on his marriage, rather than dump her and them and "follow his heart". That is why marriage became a contract to begin with - to protect women and kids, and support a family that builds a society.
> 
> My brother teaches in Tucson. Almost none of his kids come from a traditional two-parent home, living with the father who helped create them. It seems to me our society has already degraded marriage to the point that we, as a society, don't believe in traditional marriage at all. But judging from the results in schools where most kids come from non-traditional marriage homes versus those with a large percentage of original, two parent homes...that comes with a high price to society.
> 
> I would argue we should be trying to reverse the trend, and put more emphasis on 'traditional marriage' - but I also think that part of the culture war is long gone, and my side lost. I think there will be a price to pay, and America will inevitably pay it.


Marriage is to do exactly what you said, SUPPORT FAMILY. That's what these movements are about! You have an obligation to your family, gay or straight, if your raising children your obligation is to your partner and kids! Disallowing equality prevents this from happening. How are you supposed to support your family if you can't provide them with insurance? Get time off for having a baby? Take time off for family leave (serious illness, etc)? Get child support incase one partner leaves? Your employer comes back with "well, by law, that's not your family". And by law, right now, it is very difficult to act as a family even though you are emotionally just a connected as a "legal" family. 

How can we hold such high value to "traditional" marriage when you have a divorce rate of 50%, that doesnt include people who cannot afford divorce and are separated. Then you have the likes of people like Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian who marry for money & fame. Or people like my girlfriends aunt who married a man so he can gain citizenship in this country. It's all over the place and its disgraceful! Now I think THAT is insulting to values and benefits marriage. Not two humans who love each other who just so happen to be homosexual.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

^^ We partially agree. I think traditional marriage HAS been abandoned already by America, as seen in the high divorce rates, high rates of births outside of marriage, etc. My BIL asked a class of 30 who had both of their original parents living with them, and only 1 kid raised his hand. Admittedly, he works in what is considered a rough school. That number would have been around 15-20 in the school district where I live, which may be part of why this school district gets very high scores with very low spending/pupil.

And if we are going to devalue marriage as far as we have, then I have no heartburn with having government sponsor 'civil unions' and get entirely out of the 'marriage' business. Leave marriage as a religious choice for those who want it, IAW their particular religion.

I think that will ultimately result in a lot of problems for society, but I also think that boat has sailed & ain't coming back, so to speak.

And of course, one of the reasons no society has endorsed gay marriage is that for most of our history, there was no such thing as homosexuals having kids...the plumbing wasn't right.

But I will continue to believe that, as a matter of law, it is pretty hard to argue that the US Constitution REQUIRES homosexual marriage. If it had, it would never have been ratified...


----------



## Joe4d

The COnstitution doesn't prohibit it either. we live in a nation of freedom, where we do anything we want unless specifically prohibited. Our laws are not a long list of what you "Can" do.


----------



## SlideStop

bsms said:


> ^^ We partially agree. I think traditional marriage HAS been abandoned already by America, as seen in the high divorce rates, high rates of births outside of marriage, etc. My BIL asked a class of 30 who had both of their original parents living with them, and only 1 kid raised his hand. Admittedly, he works in what is considered a rough school. That number would have been around 15-20 in the school district where I live, which may be part of why this school district gets very high scores with very low spending/pupil.
> 
> And if we are going to devalue marriage as far as we have, then I have no heartburn with having government sponsor 'civil unions' and get entirely out of the 'marriage' business. Leave marriage as a religious choice for those who want it, IAW their particular religion.
> 
> I think that will ultimately result in a lot of problems for society, but I also think that boat has sailed & ain't coming back, so to speak.
> 
> And of course, one of the reasons no society has endorsed gay marriage is that for most of our history, there was no such thing as homosexuals having kids...the plumbing wasn't right.
> 
> But I will continue to believe that, as a matter of law, it is pretty hard to argue that the US Constitution REQUIRES homosexual marriage. If it had, it would never have been ratified...


That's the problem. No one says that marriage has to be recognized by the church, only that a marriage between a same-sex couple be equal in the eyes of that government/law. No one says we need to resurrect the founding fathers to change the constitution.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

SlideStop said:


> ...No one says we need to resurrect the founding fathers to change the constitution.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course not. All you need to do to change the Constitution is amend it.

But you cannot insert "Effective March 2013, this Constitution requires all states and entities to recognize homosexual marriages" without an amendment. The Constitution simply does not mention marriage. It sets no rules for it. Thus it is a matter left to the states.

Remember, as an example, not all citizens have the right to vote. For many years, women did not. That was changed with an amendment. Prior to the amendment, each state could allow women to vote, or not. Most states do not allow felons to vote, but a state could. Most states have a small residency requirement for voting - you cannot move to Texas and vote the next day.

The judge in the Prop 8 case amended the US Constitution on his own. He created a right for homosexuals to marry where the Constitution is silent. That is wrong. That is not how a democracy or democratic republic should work. And the disturbing thing about the oral arguments was that it sounded more like a congressional debate - "Is this a good idea? Do we want it?" - rather than a discussion of what the Constitution says (or doesn't say). The US Supreme Court is not an elected legislative body. It isn't their role to say if X is a good idea or bad idea. Their only legitimate role is to apply the Constitution...something they almost never do. :evil:


----------



## Missy May

SlideStop said:


> Marriage and religion are intertwined. It's one of the biggest reasons preventing it. Why do people think its wrong? Because their religion tells them so. Not for nothing, religion has also taught people we were the dependence of two people and the earth is the center of earth. Oh, these are old principles? So is the thought*of homosexuality as a disease.
> 
> If gays are not "unequal" then can we "demote" heterosexual marriage to the same standing as "gay marriage"? There are BENEFITS to being legally married. Obviously this website does not outline them all, but it gives a good broad overview Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids | Freedom to Marry
> 
> How would YOU feel is you were denied visitation to your dying spouse or couldn't get time off for bereavement? If you couldn't cover your children with insurance? And there are hundreds of other reasons marriage benefits a person. And many people marry just to reap these benefits.
> 
> 3.5% is still equivalent to 4 million people, gay people are not a small cult. That doesn't include people who are in denial, afraid to come out for fear of ostracized and the discrimination and hate gay people are up against. Hell, I knew my whole life but I didn't know what a lesbian was until 8th grade and I have a very "real world" upbringing. There is a researcher who estimates the homosexual to heterosexual ratio at 1 to 10.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Like I said, one can enter a legally binding contract that allows one visitation rights, problem solved. I am not sure why gay people have children, but lets just say the did - both biological parents are responsible for the child's welfare, _regardless_ of sexual preference (i.e., EQUAL treatment). And, if a gay person produces a child, which status were they at the time of conception? Were they wanting gay rights at the time, too? Are their children not allowed to attend school, or ride the bus...along side those of single parents that have no benefits, and can't obtain them by marrying their same sex friend, aunt or uncle?

Then there is "marriage" itself. With a legally binding contract a gay couple "legal obligations" are no different than a married couple. So, we get to the "ceremony" of it....which anyone can organize...or is it the _religious_ ceremonial part that they also want b/c religion is so evil? It is well established a legal "union" by legal contract won't satisfy their desire to be "legally bound" to someone. So, the "love" part is a non-argument, since all it boils down to is financial/medical benefits.

Atheism isn't synonomous w pro-gay marriage. However, religious groups organize against gay marraige and gay groups organize in favor of it. Which group's freedoms should we eliminate? Freedoms, by definition, are not limited to only those you agree with or to a given religion. 

A far greater percentage of the population would like the national debt addressed and federal spending reined in for the benefit of everyone's children and grandchildren, not just those w a particular sexual preference. So,_ if_ we lived in a democracy, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Faceman

Missy May said:


> Then there is "marriage" itself. With a legally binding contract a gay couple "legal obligations" are no different than a married couple. So, we get to the "ceremony" of it....which anyone can organize...or is it the _religious_ ceremonial part that they also want b/c religion is so evil? It is well established a legal "union" by legal contract won't satisfy their desire to be "legally bound" to someone. So, the "love" part is a non-argument, since all it boils down to is financial/medical benefits.
> 
> Atheism isn't synonomous w pro-gay marriage. However, religious groups organize against gay marraige and gay groups organize in favor of it. Which group's freedoms should we eliminate? Freedoms, by definition, are not limited to only those you agree with or to a given religion.


I agree. I don't personally know anyone that wants to deny "rights" to homosexuals. However, that does not mean that homosexuals have to dilute or destroy the meaning of marriage. "Rights" can be obtained through civil unions - there is no need to intrude upon an established tradition.

You can call a horse a duck if you so choose, but it still doesn't have webbed feet and wings - and never will.

Because marriage is not addressed in the Constitution, I see only one path for the Supreme Court - mandating equal "rights" for homosexual couples, which most of us agree with and support. However as to the issue of marriage, I fail to see where the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction, and any marriage mandate would be an infringement upon states rights, most or all of which have age of consent laws in place, which provides a vehicle through which to address the issue.

As far as a Constitutional Amendment pertaining to homosexual marriage, you have to be kidding...such an Amendment would have zero chance of being ratified to begin with, to say nothing of being inappropriate...


----------



## wausuaw

I would be perfectly happy if marriage was separated completely to be only ceremonious, and make "civil unions" the same for any couple, regardless of sexual orientation- making the traditional side and the legal side of things separated. 

As it is, civil unions do NOT give you the same rights as a married couple (which is why I am against civil unions as they currently stand, they are not equal). The problem is simply the WORD- marriage. Marriage for most people is in a ceremonious/religious context, and people interpret it that way, rather than how it is applied, legally, regardless of religious context or tradition. 

For me, because I take tradition and such into account and I believe in fully separating church and state, I have chosen in my life to NOT get married, because I respect the traditional ceremony (I respect other people's beliefs, period, and have great respect for tradition and such, whether or not I fallow it), and I am personally not affiliated with those beliefs- regardless of what gender my partner is. (FYI, he's a dude, I'm a chick) 

If civil unions became equal and the standard for all, while marriage is left out of legal dealings and left to ceremony, I would consider civil union for me and leave marriage for those who embrace it as it is traditionally. But, that's just my thoughts. 

BTW, kudos, folks, for keeping it civil! I know it's a hot debate for people, and mud slinging can come quickly.


----------



## Faceman

wausuaw said:


> I would be perfectly happy if marriage was separated completely to be only ceremonious, and make "civil unions" the same for any couple, regardless of sexual orientation- making the traditional side and the legal side of things separated.
> 
> As it is, civil unions do NOT give you the same rights as a married couple (which is why I am against civil unions as they currently stand, they are not equal). The problem is simply the WORD- marriage. Marriage for most people is in a ceremonious/religious context, and people interpret it that way, rather than how it is applied, legally, regardless of religious context or tradition.
> 
> For me, because I take tradition and such into account and I believe in fully separating church and state, I have chosen in my life to NOT get married, because I respect the traditional ceremony (I respect other people's beliefs, period, and have great respect for tradition and such, whether or not I fallow it), and I am personally not affiliated with those beliefs- regardless of what gender my partner is. (FYI, he's a dude, I'm a chick)
> 
> If civil unions became equal and the standard for all, while marriage is left out of legal dealings and left to ceremony, I would consider civil union for me and leave marriage for those who embrace it as it is traditionally. But, that's just my thoughts.
> 
> BTW, kudos, folks, for keeping it civil! I know it's a hot debate for people, and mud slinging can come quickly.


Although I am in a different situation - married, I couldn't have said it better myself. 

It is perfectly reasonable to provide the same rights and privileges to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples have, yet still preserve the tradition of marriage for those to whom it has a greater meaning than a mere "legal contract". People that insist on incorporating "marriage" into homosexual unions are, in my opinion, unreasonable...just as unreasonable as a person that would oppose any form of legal civil union al all for homosexuals...


----------



## Joe4d

how does a homosexual marriage change the meaning of someone elses marriage ?
Seems like the bible thumpers should be more concerned with banning divorce.


----------



## Saddlebag

If one carefully reads Paul's epistles to the Plillipians, his reference to same sex being a sin, was sex that was forced upon the same sex was a sin. The Romans had long recognized homosexuality and accepted it as a normal part of society. That is not forced sex. Forced sex often occurs when soldiers rape male prisoners who are heterosexual. That is the sin Paul refers to. Unfortunately, a number of religions read it that Paul condemned homosexuality.


----------



## SouthernTrails

Saddlebag said:


> If one carefully reads Paul's epistles to the Plillipians, his reference to same sex being a sin, was sex that was forced upon the same sex was a sin. The Romans had long recognized homosexuality and accepted it as a normal part of society. That is not forced sex. Forced sex often occurs when soldiers rape male prisoners who are heterosexual. That is the sin Paul refers to. Unfortunately, a number of religions read it that Paul condemned homosexuality.


So Philippians overrides Leviticus in the Christian Bible?

Leviticus is found in the Koran, the Christian Bible and the Torah.

Homosexuality is spoken against in all 3 religions, it is not just a Christian thing..........

But is this not about States Right, Voters Right and what the Supreme Court will do?

If my State asked for a Vote to legalize same sex marriage, I would vote yes.

But then again, it is not my job to tell another state how to live their lives or vote.

just my 2 cents 

.


----------



## bsms

Saddlebag said:


> If one carefully reads Paul's epistles to the Plillipians, his reference to same sex being a sin, was sex that was forced upon the same sex was a sin. The Romans had long recognized homosexuality and accepted it as a normal part of society. That is not forced sex. Forced sex often occurs when soldiers rape male prisoners who are heterosexual. That is the sin Paul refers to. Unfortunately, a number of religions read it that Paul condemned homosexuality.


Ummm...I think Paul made it pretty clear. Although I honestly don't know where in Philippians he discussed homosexuality. :shock: Guess I missed it.

I guess I also missed where Paul was writing as a Roman lawyer, rather than claiming to be an Apostle of the God of the Jews.

But then, I also missed the discussion about Paul and his beliefs in the oral arguments made yesterday. Was it discussed today? What questions were asked, or answered, based on the Bible? Did Justice Scalia spray holy water on someone? Or did they debate the meaning of Romans Chapter 1? When did a discussion of the Bible take place in the Supreme Court?


----------



## Joe4d

and what does it have to do with the price of bread in china ? Whether or not something is a religious wrong should have ZERO to do with law.
Jews and Muslims forbid eating pork. DOnt see them trying to ban bacon.

Again Explain to me, how gay marriage hurts me , or infringes on my rights.


----------



## bsms

Joe4d said:


> ...Again Explain to me, how gay marriage hurts me , or infringes on my rights.


Voters can make their own decision, and already have in a number of states. Allowing a judge to declare that all states must recognize homosexual marriage, because he found it in the evolving, living, breathing Constitution DOES harm you. When a contract can mean anything, it means nothing - which is already about what the Constitution means in US law.

As an example, consider equine liability laws. Arizona has one, but the courts have felt free to drive some pretty big holes in it. I know a number of people who have read it and even posted it, but it doesn't mean what they think it means anymore. I've reached the point that I don't allow friends in the corral with my horses, or allow them to lead my horses or ride them. I allow family to do so, but even that is a bit hazardous when courts can redefine things in a way I cannot predict. I don't think it is possible to write a liability release in Arizona that is worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell, if hell exists.

Homosexual marriage is not addressed in the US Constitution. Based on a rational reading of the Constitution, that means it is up to the states. But that didn't stop a homosexual judge from deciding that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right promised in the Constitution. Many judges hold the view that they have the right and obligation to MAKE law to correct any wrongs they perceive. I find that scary.


----------



## Missy May

Religion doesn't have anything to do w the law. Of course, in the US it can't help but be a product of western culture, which in turn can't help but have been influenced by Christianity. The law does not prohibit people from practicing their religion, either. Just like it does not prevent Gays from attacking religion. But, no - religious beliefs and the law are not one in the same_ in the US._ Gays would have a REAL point in Iran, though...not sure why they don't hop on that band wagon.


----------



## BaileyJo

Missy May said:


> Religion doesn't have anything to do w the law. Of course, in the US it can't help but be a product of western culture, which in turn can't help but have been influenced by Christianity. The law does not prohibit people from practicing their religion, either. Just like it does not prevent Gays from attacking religion. But, no - religious beliefs and the law are not one in the same_ in the US._ Gays would have a REAL point in Iran, though...not sure why they don't hop on that band wagon.


Gays have a real point here in the US. 

My guess is that you are very far removed from gays. You don't know anyone who is gay, don't have a daughter, or son, or father or mother, sister or brother who is gay. You speak as if we are so much different from you. We are not. Who are you anyway to tell me how to feel, how to love and what band wagon to get on? We want the same thing as you do. In the end, truly, we want to be happy and be owed what is ours. I have paid my taxes, contributed to society and led a good life. If you have someone that you know and cared about who has struggled with this, you would not tell them get on some Iran band wagon. 

This case ultimately comes back to an 83 year old woman who spent 40 years with her partner, built a life together, may have paid more taxes than you, was married in the eyes of her state and then when her partner (life-long partner) dies, has to pay over $363,000 in inheritance tax. Probably on the same money that she helped put away for retirement. 

Why do I, as a born American, have to defend anything to you or anyone else? What I do does _not_ effect you. When it does, we will meet on the street and I will sit down and you can explain how my life has effected yours.


----------



## bsms

^^ This case ultimately comes back to a homosexual judge finding a guaranteed right to homosexual marriage in the US Constitution. He made up the law to make it what he wants.

NO ONE is guaranteed the right to marry. Underage - which varies from one state to the next? You cannot marry. Polygamist? Tough. And the US COnstitution doesn't require states to license anyone to marry...


----------



## Faceman

BaileyJo said:


> Gays have a real point here in the US.
> 
> My guess is that you are very far removed from gays. You don't know anyone who is gay, don't have a daughter, or son, or father or mother, sister or brother who is gay. You speak as if we are so much different from you. We are not. Who are you anyway to tell me how to feel, how to love and what band wagon to get on? We want the same thing as you do. In the end, truly, we want to be happy and be owed what is ours. I have paid my taxes, contributed to society and led a good life. If you have someone that you know and cared about who has struggled with this, you would not tell them get on some Iran band wagon.


I hope you feel better after your rant. It is just that attitude that creates a backlash among many heterosexuals.

You have no idea who Missy May knows or doesn't know - or me, or anyone else that you don't know personally. I know lots of homosexuals, have a homosexual Uncle, and a homosexual nephew that lives on the next land parcel to mine. So what? That doesn't affect my opinions one way or another. It is irrelevant. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage, and always will. You evidently don't read all the posts - it has been made rather clear that very few, if any, people want to deny homosexuals anything, or look at them any differently than anyone else - none of which has a dang thing to do with marriage. To be redundant, you can obtain the same rights as anyone else with a civil union. There is no need to intrude on the tradition of marriage. 

I have listened to arguments and debates on this issue for many years now, and have yet to hear one viable reason for homosexuals to use the vehicle of marriage to accomplish what they want. From a legal perspective, there is no innate difference between a civil union and a marriage. If there is in your state, then do something about it. It is a states right issue, not a Supreme Court issue.

I strongly suspect that if homosexuals would keep their hands off marriage and go for civil unions which provide total equality of rights, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because just about everyone would sign on to that...


----------



## Allison Finch

Marriage and civil unions DON'T offer the same protections. Civil unions are a state granted right. Most states do NOT give the same rights to civil unions as they do to marriages.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether, or not, the* Federal Govt*. will recognize same sex marriage. That is a whole new can of worms.

There are approx 1100 *FEDERAL *benefits that married couple qualify for. No amount of state recognition will grant access to these benefits. No civil unions will qualify same sex couples/families for these FEDERAL benefits.


----------



## BaileyJo

Faceman said:


> I hope you feel better after your rant. It is just that attitude that creates a backlash among many heterosexuals.
> 
> You have no idea who Missy May knows or doesn't know - or me, or anyone else that you don't know personally. I know lots of homosexuals, have a homosexual Uncle, and a homosexual nephew that lives on the next land parcel to mine. So what? That doesn't affect my opinions one way or another. It is irrelevant. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage, and always will. You evidently don't read all the posts - it has been made rather clear that very few, if any, people want to deny homosexuals anything, or look at them any differently than anyone else - none of which has a dang thing to do with marriage. To be redundant, you can obtain the same rights as anyone else with a civil union. There is no need to intrude on the tradition of marriage.
> 
> I have listened to arguments and debates on this issue for many years now, and have yet to hear one viable reason for homosexuals to use the vehicle of marriage to accomplish what they want. From a legal perspective, there is no innate difference between a civil union and a marriage. If there is in your state, then do something about it. It is a states right issue, not a Supreme Court issue.
> 
> I strongly suspect that if homosexuals would keep their hands off marriage and go for civil unions which provide total equality of rights, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because just about everyone would sign on to that...


Why is it when I defend myself and post it is a rant? That's funny.

I was referring to Missy May, not you.


----------



## Allison Finch

BaileyJo said:


> Why is it when I defend myself and post it is a rant? That's funny.
> 
> I was referring to Missy May, not you.


 
Don't worry, Those who disagree with some people here all get the same treatment. :wink:


----------



## Missy May

BaileyJo said:


> Gays have a real point here in the US.
> 
> My guess is that you are very far removed from gays. You don't know anyone who is gay, don't have a daughter, or son, or father or mother, sister or brother who is gay. You speak as if we are so much different from you. We are not. Who are you anyway to tell me how to feel, how to love and what band wagon to get on? We want the same thing as you do. In the end, truly, we want to be happy and be owed what is ours. I have paid my taxes, contributed to society and led a good life. If you have someone that you know and cared about who has struggled with this, you would not tell them get on some Iran band wagon.
> 
> This case ultimately comes back to an 83 year old woman who spent 40 years with her partner, built a life together, may have paid more taxes than you, was married in the eyes of her state and then when her partner (life-long partner) dies, has to pay over $363,000 in inheritance tax. Probably on the same money that she helped put away for retirement.
> 
> Why do I, as a born American, have to defend anything to you or anyone else? What I do does _not_ effect you. When it does, we will meet on the street and I will sit down and you can explain how my life has effected yours.


Hmmm. Do you gleen all of this about me b/c I have a different opinion than you concerning the current laws and gay marriage? I have a few friends that I call metro-sexual b/c I am not quite sure what they are, and what their preference _is_ is, in fact, NONE of my business and I don't ask them or _anyone_ what there sexual preference is, do you?

I know an entire family of heterosexuals that were left in years and years of probate and estate turmoil b/c of a_ family member's_ "non will action" before their death. The fact that heterosexual marriage is legal didn't seem to help them out any, go figure. Inheritance tax does not only apply to gay people, and there are multiple laws that allow for methods to prevent or reduce inheritance tax, none of which exclude gay people. If the argument is that gays only want to dictate the one and _only_ way to skin a cat, then to what else should we also apply their dictation of the laws? 

To my knowledge there is only one thing gay people can't do, however, heterosexuals can't do it EITHER...which is marry someone of the same sex. So, the law applies to _everyone_ equally. 

Gays really lose credibility when they put forth the idea that the only "injustices" in this country are those things that affect their specific wants/needs and perspective. Currently, that appears to be benefits. I don't feel both houses, the president and justices should be excluded from obamacare_ laws_. It is far from equal treatment (_law_). Yet, what dominates the news is gays trying to change marriage _laws_ to suit gays_. _There is no question gay groups are well organized. I admire them for that, however, it is they that do not consider _others,_ _not_ the other way around_._ When it came to aids they orgnized to demand faster action. Lets see, faster action? They didn't think the inequitable amount spent (e.g., much greater amount spent on aids per capita vs cancer) was enough and that scienctific research and progress _should_ go faster than "other stuff" based on the fact it affected gays? I could go on and on. But, the idea that this is a poor put upon group just doesn't play in peoria.


----------



## BaileyJo

Allison Finch said:


> The issue before the Supreme Court is whether, or not, the* Federal Govt*. will recognize same sex marriage. That is a whole new can of worms.


Yes!! That is why this woman in the Supreme Court and not the New York state court system!

Like I said, it is going to change. Whether you have an uncle, think there should be civil unions, think I am ranting..... whatever. It's going to change. History repeats itself. 

How would people look now to be defending "no color" at schools or restuarants, carrying pickets signs and holding rallies. Fifty to sixty years ago it was the norm. Can you actually believe that?


----------



## BaileyJo

Missy May said:


> Hmmm. Do you gleen all of this about me b/c I have a different opinion than you concerning the current laws and gay marriage? I have a few friends that I call metro-sexual b/c I am not quite sure what they are, and what their preference _is_ is, in fact, NONE of my business and I don't ask them or _anyone_ what there sexual preference is, do you?


Seriously, you call that knowing a gay person? Not even close.


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> ...The issue before the Supreme Court is whether, or not, the* Federal Govt*. will recognize same sex marriage. That is a whole new can of worms...


Then *WHY* is it before the Supreme Court, and not Congress? Is it because your side thinks they have a better chance persuading 5 justices to make the law than the elected members of Congress? Since when has the purpose of the Supreme Court been to pass new laws?

Why do liberals always want *COURTS* to make up new laws to do what they want? Afraid of democracy? :evil:



BaileyJo said:


> ...How would people look now to be defending "no color" at schools or restuarants, carrying pickets signs and holding rallies. Fifty to sixty years ago it was the norm. Can you actually believe that?


Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress (largely by Republicans, BTW)?


----------



## Missy May

BaileyJo said:


> Seriously, you call that knowing a gay person? Not even close.


_What_ is your point here?


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> Then *WHY* is it before the Supreme Court, and not Congress? Is it because your side thinks they have a better chance persuading 5 justices to make the law than the elected members of Congress? Since when has the purpose of the Supreme Court been to pass new laws?
> 
> Why do liberals always want *COURTS* to make up new laws to do what they want? Afraid of democracy? :evil:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress (largely by Republicans, BTW)?


 
Why is it before the supreme court? 


The Supreme Court of the United States has the ultimate responsibility for settling disputes and interpreting the meaning of *laws.* It also determines what national policy will be when it applies law to specific disputes. 
I would think you knew that.

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

While they probably won't say same sex marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, they CAN say that laws banning it are in violation of the protections implied by the constitution. The same way that slaves were freed, women could vote etc.


----------



## SlideStop

> Religion doesn't have anything to do w the law.


DOMA, The defense of marriage act. Is that not a law that has everything to do with defending marriages? How are we definitely the word marriage here: a traditional religious ceremony wedding a man and woman. What does this mean? There is a LAW defending religious marriages. The law states 

"Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."

Now how can anyone here read the above and say "Just get a civil union!" The LAW clearly states gay people WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE! If civil unions are the same we wouldn't be having this debate. I don't give a rats fart about a religious ceremony quite honestly, I just what the same benefits everyone else gets to share!



> Then there is "marriage" itself. With a legally binding contract a gay couple "legal obligations" are no different than a married couple. So, we get to the "ceremony" of it....which anyone can organize...or is it the religious ceremonial part that they also want b/c religion is so evil? It is well established a legal "union" by legal contract won't satisfy their desire to be "legally bound" to someone. So, the "love" part is a non-argument, since all it boils down to is financial/medical benefits.


For your first point please see the above. Next, obviously no one will be able to force any private religious institution to marry anyone. Period. If you think that this is the reason behind this whole gay marriage thing your SADLY mistaken. 

Not exactly sure where you got gays think religion is evil from....? My girlfriend was raised with religion, my best friend was raised with religion and I know several couples with children who also follow faith. I in no way shape or form think religion is evil. I for one was never raised with religion, not for or not against. As a younger adult I find myself gravitating towards religion. It leaves a bad taste that they nit pick over stupid things, but that's just my opinion. I do like to believe there is a God. A person who will judge me biased on my moral character, not on who I love. 

And yes, it does come down to financial/medical/etc type things. I (will be) working **** hard as an RN to provide for my family. I have no interest in physically having kids and having kids is one of my girlfriends biggest dreams. Guess who's going to be brining in the benefits? Me. Why SHOULDN'T she be covered? Bottom line is love is already there!



Also, what does IRAN of all places have to do with ANYTHING here. They are still working on equal rights for women... Which happened about 100 years ago here. Instead of me looking at Iran why don't you look at Argentina (2010), Belgium (2004), Brazil, Canada, Denmark (happiest people in the world, seriously), Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands (one of the first), Norway, Portugal, south Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Now most of these countries are on OUR level! Not backwards Iran, really??
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

Missy May said:


> _What_ is your point here?


Because I don't think assuming and labeling two men as "metro-sexual" counts as knowing, really knowing, gay people.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JustDressageIt

Metro-sexual =\= gay. 

Good lord. Please play again. 


I am so looking forward to the day when we can look back on this as being as ignorant as prejudice against black people or people of colour.


----------



## SlideStop

Allison Finch said:


> While they probably won't say same sex marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, they CAN say that laws banning it are in violation of the protections implied by the constitution. The same way that slaves were freed, women could vote etc.


A million thank yous here! Repealing DOMA would get rid on the ban on gay marriage, not say any state has to recognize one. To me it's a step in the right direction, especially in the ways of getting ALL the benefits from marriage in states where gay marriage IS legal. Repealing DOMA would put gay marriage back on neural territory. 

For the record the other key argument is that gay people are NOT trying to infiltrate religious marriage. We want to been seen as equal in the eyes of the law. Currently there is no legal union that gives ALL the benefits of marriage. The church, and all other religious sects, are PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS no one can force them to do anything. 

Also, has anyone said how allowing gay marriage will effect them on a *personal* level? How does it negatively impact your life? How would this alter the course of your life? Gay people not being able to reproduce has nothing to personally do with you. Being a sin doesn't personally effect you. There are so many reasons I hear, but really none of them are truly detrimental to your personal life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> ...While they probably won't say same sex marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, they CAN say that laws banning it are in violation of the protections implied by the constitution. The same way that slaves were freed, women could vote etc.


You mean, by amending it? That would be the 14th for slavery, and the 19th for women to vote. And BTW, the laws for both of those were changed in many places before the Constitution was amended. Just as some states have decided to support homosexual marriage...

When did the Constitution start having protections that covered gay marriage? What was found there that had been hidden for the last 200+ years? And why isn't this being addressed in CONGRESS, or the other state legislatures?

Why do you need a court to make up a law? Why do you need one judge to find what no judge had found before him for 200+ years? And why do you like living under judicial tyranny, and fear the popular vote?


----------



## bsms

SlideStop said:


> A million thank yous here! Repealing DOMA would get rid on the ban on gay marriage, not say any state has to recognize one...


DOMA defines the meaning of marriage for federal law. Why is Congress not allowed to define the meaning of the words it uses in a law? Hint - they do it all the time!

And actually, there is a section of DOMA that I think is NOT up for review, that says states do not have to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. If overturned, that WOULD force all states to recognize homosexual marriages. And as often is the case, it would be doing it by getting a 5 - 4 vote by unelected judges, rather than doing it in a democratic fashion.


----------



## SlideStop

Sorry bsms it should read " A million thank yous here! Repealing DOMA would get rid on the ban on gay marriage, not say any state has to legalize it..." 

Don't know why I put that, probably because I've been up since 5:15. I'm pretty much over tired at this point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

JustDressageIt said:


> Metro-sexual =\= gay.
> 
> Good lord. Please play again.
> 
> 
> I am so looking forward to the day when we can look back on this as being as ignorant as prejudice against black people or people of colour.


Yes, please play again!

Amen... Hope I'm alive to see it in my lifetime!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

JustDressageIt said:


> Metro-sexual =\= gay.
> 
> Good lord. Please play again.
> 
> 
> I am so looking forward to the day when we can look back on this as being as ignorant as prejudice against black people or people of colour.


I look forward to the day no one is searching for something to twist into a "prejudice" statement so they can act like they need to correct it for the good of society.


----------



## Missy May

SlideStop said:


> DOMA, The defense of marriage act. Is that not a law that has everything to do with defending marriages? How are we definitely the word marriage here: a traditional religious ceremony wedding a man and woman. What does this mean? There is a LAW defending religious marriages. The law states
> 
> "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."
> 
> Now how can anyone here read the above and say "Just get a civil union!" The LAW clearly states gay people WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE! If civil unions are the same we wouldn't be having this debate. I don't give a rats fart about a religious ceremony quite honestly, I just what the same benefits everyone else gets to share!
> 
> 
> 
> For your first point please see the above. Next, obviously no one will be able to force any private religious institution to marry anyone. Period. If you think that this is the reason behind this whole gay marriage thing your SADLY mistaken.
> 
> Not exactly sure where you got gays think religion is evil from....? My girlfriend was raised with religion, my best friend was raised with religion and I know several couples with children who also follow faith. I in no way shape or form think religion is evil. I for one was never raised with religion, not for or not against. As a younger adult I find myself gravitating towards religion. It leaves a bad taste that they nit pick over stupid things, but that's just my opinion. I do like to believe there is a God. A person who will judge me biased on my moral character, not on who I love.
> 
> And yes, it does come down to financial/medical/etc type things. I (will be) working **** hard as an RN to provide for my family. I have no interest in physically having kids and having kids is one of my girlfriends biggest dreams. Guess who's going to be brining in the benefits? Me. Why SHOULDN'T she be covered? Bottom line is love is already there!
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what does IRAN of all places have to do with ANYTHING here. They are still working on equal rights for women... Which happened about 100 years ago here. Instead of me looking at Iran why don't you look at Argentina (2010), Belgium (2004), Brazil, Canada, Denmark (happiest people in the world, seriously), Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands (one of the first), Norway, Portugal, south Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Now most of these countries are on OUR level! Not backwards Iran, really??
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


OMG, so if someone is married by the justice of the peace - no state recognizes their marriage?? Marriage laws do not require a religious ceremony, nor is _any_ religious affiliation of _any_ sort required to get married. If you think that is not the case, _you_ are sadly mistaking.

I didn't say all gays think religion is evil. But, if that is how you would like to read it, _have at it_. However, if you trouble yourself to read the thread you might notice that some seem to think that religion dictates the laws. 

Since you didn't get the comparison w Iran, I will expand. Iran's laws concerning gays are 100% religious based. The US's are _*not*_. If someone wants to make the argument that marriage laws shouldn't be based on religious teachings in the US - they have NO argument b/c the church does not pass laws, and no religious affiliation of any kind is required to get married! _However_, if one feels they have no reason to live unless they can argue that the church shouldn't dictate marraige laws, they are IN LUCK...b/c, again...Iran's laws concerning gays are 100% religious based and are in fact dictated by "the church". In that country, it would be ill advised for gays to openly demand laws be changed and to be treated differently. That is what gay marriage is - demanding to be treated differently. Like I said before, no couple of the same sex can get married, _regardless_ of sexual preference..it _is_ equal treatment and equal treatment is the law. 

I never implied or stated I thought that gays wanted gay marriage so they could be married in the church of their choice, and if you think I did _you_ are sadly mistaken. There is little point in making straw man arguments. 

I said it boiled down to benefits, and you seem to have gotten that in addition to your straw man argument. If your friend had a child, why wouldn't the father be responsible for medical? That is the law. By whatever method, it isn't as if there is no married couple that can't afford children and choose not to have them, or do and struggle b/c they have no benefits.

I find it rather interesting that the culture of every country you named as "on our level" is either a direct result of western civilization, or was heavily influenced by it. And, the place you call "backward" is not (not now). Not to mention it is terribly prejudice of you to call them backward.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> Don't worry, Those who disagree with some people here all get the same treatment. :wink:


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...:rofl:


----------



## SlideStop

When compared to our culture, yes, they are backwards. Every thing over there is run pretty much OPPOSITE of the way they are here. Like you said, their laws are biased on religion, I would hardly call them a free nation and they are is no such thing as democracy there. All facts. So how is that prejudice (a preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience) ? It's no more prejudice then you forming an opinion of about gay people biased on your experience with two men you labeled as metro-sexual. 

First off, she is my G I R L F R I E N D, not a friend. I'm in love with her, we sleep in the same bed, we have sex together, we are in a monogamous relationship, we support each other, I'd trust her with my life, and we want to have a family together! She is by no means only my "friend" and more then your husband/wife is just your FRIEND. 

If we choose to have kids NO the father WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE. Ever hear of adoption or a sperm bank? I'm pretty sure they just don't fork over the life long medical benefits card after signing the consent paper work. By whatever means I'm bringing children into the world I am responsible! Sure, single parents struggle all over the world, but where not single parents. We ARE a couple. Financial status of every couple is important, gay or straight. There will be struggling parents REGARDLESS of sexuality. So why should I not even have a CHANCE at providing medical/financial/other benefits to my kids? Because other people are struggling as parents too? Hate to be insensitive, or prejudice, or whatever (and I WAS one of those kids in a house like this) but of you make a poor choice (divorce, having kids when you can't afford it, etc) then you have to live with the consequences (no medical ins, or causing "struggle"). Gay people don't even have that RIGHT to obtain that stability, so WHY deny them biased on the premise that there are lots of struggling parents?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

Missy May said:


> I look forward to the day no one is searching for something to twist into a "prejudice" statement....


Like the "prejudice" Iran statement you cleared up for me? See you can be the change too! ;o)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

Missy May said:


> OMG, so if someone is married by the justice of the peace - no state recognizes their marriage?? Marriage laws do not require a religious ceremony, nor is _any_ religious affiliation of _any_ sort required to get married.


No, no ever state recognizes the marriage. What were most concerned about is gaining benefits (not marriage) from the federal government in states where*it is legal. Here is the wiki link to DOMA, which prevents that: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA

I think the general consensus here is that this is a state issue and those who many not be pro gay marriage, in the traditional sense, are pro something equivalent to it WITH the government perks.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

SlideStop said:


> ...If we choose to have kids NO the father WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE. Ever hear of adoption or a sperm bank?


And that is a big part of the problem with homosexual marriages in society. Society (not religion) created marriage. Folks were getting married before Abraham left Ur. The purpose was to create a unit optimized for raising kids.

Two mommies or two daddies doesn't give the family role models, and never will. The butch lesbian will never be a man. The effeminate guy will never be a woman. Neither is providing the optimum role model for the kids. There may be stallions who want to stick their penises into the bums of geldings or other stallions, but that isn't exactly optimum stallion behavior.

No, homosexual parents will not turn their kids into homosexuals, but neither are they providing the multi-sexual family role models possible in a heterosexual marriage. And while we're on the subject - as bad as the break-up rate and cheating rates are in heterosexual marriages, it is worse in homosexual couples.

The role of marriage is not religious. It isn't about the Bible. Marriages existed and were encouraged long before Moses put pen to paper (or whatever he used). Marriages exist in places where no one has ever heard of Jesus. It isn't a religious construct, but a societal one, meant to optimize the raising of children and (somewhat later) providing support for women as well. And I've never met a guy who WANTED to be raised by two mommies, or two daddies. Maybe the people I've met and know well enough to talk about issues with are not representative...

Will you be able to overcome the challenge? Maybe. Some do. But societies base their constructs on what works in the thousands and millions, not on what some individuals manage. At a minimum, with a federalist construct, it is possible to have states allow homosexual marriage and then see what happens before every state commits to it. As the Supreme Court noted in arguments, this is new ground. You don't toss out 5,000 years of history on a whim, or on 5-10 years of data.

Given that few homosexuals marry, even where it is legal, the overall harm to society probably won't be huge. But there is also no reason for society to ENCOURAGE it. Raising kids is hard enough without adding additional challenges to the task.


----------



## BaileyJo

bsms said:


> Two mommies or two daddies doesn't give the family role models, and never will.* The butch lesbian will never be a man.* The effeminate guy will never be a woman. Neither is providing the optimum role model for the kids. There may be stallions who want to stick their penises into the bums of geldings or other stallions, but that isn't exactly optimum stallion behavior.


Ugh!!! This is about the most uninformed paragraph in this thread. I can't even argue with this kind of thought process. Truly atrocious and so laughable. Just about the most closed minded/judgemental statement out there. 

By the way, neither my partner, nor I am butch. You would not know I was gay unless I told you. Second, neither one of us ever want to be a man.


----------



## SlideStop

The funny thing is children believe what YOU instil on them. If you tell them the middle east are a bunch of terrorist, they are going to grow up believing that. If you tell them black people shouldn't marry white people, they believe that. Now, if a child is asked of course he won't want that. Just like he probably won't want to moms or dads because they simply DON'T KNOW. It's different from what they see around them. I'm sure if you ask them if they want to grow up in a single parent house hold they would also say no, but I don't see that as any reason for preventing someone from having kids. Ask kids who have grown up in foster care, I bet they would be/have been happy to have ANY family love them.

While were on the topic of single parent families there are PLENTY of parents raising opposite sex children with little to no contact with the parent of the same sex. Now what exactly is the true ADVANTAGE of being raised by a same sex family member? Can a woman not enjoy/teach sports? Can a man not braid hair? What EXACTLY are kids missing out on? 

What is a good role model made of? A GOOD person, regardless of gender! Someone who is loving, kind, hard working, honest, trustworthy, fights (reasonably!) for what they believe in. Someone with integrity! Why can a women instill these to her son, and father in his daughter. One of the biggest "needs" for have opposite sex parents it to reinforce stereotypical gender roles, and that really isn't necessary. 

If you think you need opposite sex parents to raise your kids with your values, by all means go right a head. But no one should be telling me (or anyone else) what is right for our family. There are several studies out, from reputable sources, that show there are not adverse effects from being raised by same sex parents. In fact there are a few positive aspects, including increase acceptance of anyone "different" then they are.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag

Since same sex marriage is legal in Canada, is it recognised as legal if a ss couple from the US marries here then returns to the US? In Canada it had a lot to do with a ss spouse having the same legal rights as a hetero couple - pension plans, company benefits, etc. There was cosiderable controversy at first but that has all died down. I look at it this way, if other people would mind their own business none of this would be an issue.


----------



## SlideStop

Saddlebag said:


> Since same sex marriage is legal in Canada, is it recognised as legal if a ss couple from the US marries here then returns to the US? In Canada it had a lot to do with a ss spouse having the same legal rights as a hetero couple - pension plans, company benefits, etc. There was cosiderable controversy at first but that has all died down. I look at it this way, if other people would mind their own business none of this would be an issue.


Are we talking about destination weddings? Lol. Or being married under Canadian law? I would assume no, there are only 9 states that will recognize same sex marriage and that is ONLY on the state level. I can't get married in NY, when my marriage or legal union, then go move out to Montana and have them honor the marriage. So I would doubt they would recognise a Canadian same sex marriage. 

I agree, people should "mind their own business". Obamacare effects everyone, by all mean rip it a new one. I know I miss that $50 a paycheck. My raise is pretty much null and void. Actually I think I'm making less then I was after my raise.

Me, and Bailey Jo, wanting to file a joint tax return and not wanting to pay estate if our significant other passes away does not effect you. 

Alas, this is America and we are free to speak our minds regardless of what comes out of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

SlideStop said:


> When compared to our culture, yes, they are backwards. Every thing over there is run pretty much OPPOSITE of the way they are here. Like you said, their laws are biased on religion, I would hardly call them a free nation and they are is no such thing as democracy there. All facts. So how is that prejudice (a preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience) ? It's no more prejudice then you forming an opinion of about gay people biased on your experience with two men you labeled as metro-sexual.
> 
> First off, she is my G I R L F R I E N D, not a friend. I'm in love with her, we sleep in the same bed, we have sex together, we are in a monogamous relationship, we support each other, I'd trust her with my life, and we want to have a family together! She is by no means only my "friend" and more then your husband/wife is just your FRIEND.
> 
> If we choose to have kids NO the father WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE. Ever hear of adoption or a sperm bank? I'm pretty sure they just don't fork over the life long medical benefits card after signing the consent paper work. By whatever means I'm bringing children into the world I am responsible! Sure, single parents struggle all over the world, but where not single parents. We ARE a couple. Financial status of every couple is important, gay or straight. There will be struggling parents REGARDLESS of sexuality. So why should I not even have a CHANCE at providing medical/financial/other benefits to my kids? Because other people are struggling as parents too? Hate to be insensitive, or prejudice, or whatever (and I WAS one of those kids in a house like this) but of you make a poor choice (divorce, having kids when you can't afford it, etc) then you have to live with the consequences (no medical ins, or causing "struggle"). Gay people don't even have that RIGHT to obtain that stability, so WHY deny them biased on the premise that there are lots of struggling parents?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Okay, that was just a little bit more information about your arrangement than I think I needed.

The only group of people of which I am aware that ever had a democracy were the Hopi Indian...and I don't believe there is any evidence that they did not practice marraige, or that they allowed gay marraige. 

I am not sure why you believe that I formed my opinion on gay _marriage_ on the basis of anyone I have ever known or now know. And it makes any sort of civil exchange pointless when one presents fiction about another's personal opinion as "fact". Unlike Iran, the expression of our opinion is one of those "forward thinking" freedoms we enjoy that is not limited by who we do or do not know in reality or by accusation.

Much of how the powers to be in Iran govern does not appear to be based on what the majority of its citizens would prefer, or what is best for them. Niether does the demand for gay marraige in the US. Like I said above, it is only benefits and what benefits gays that matter to gays demanding marriage, and you have made it quite clear that you are no exception. The law currently treats everyone the same, no man can marry another man regardless of their sexual preference, color, age, etc.,. Same for a woman. The potential fiscal consequences alone of allowing same sex marriages is of no importance to those in favor of it. Or, would you insist that gay marriage only apply to gays (unequal treatment)? This country did not always offer government or employer "benefits", _yet_, people always practiced marriage which was more difficult to enforce then (prior to government or employer benefits) than a civil union, or any other legally binding contract two people might enter into, is _today. _


----------



## BaileyJo

I don't get why we keep going back to Iran. We are not in Iran. Btw, saying the majority rules is slowly going out the window as more and more people support gay marriage. That's an old crutch that people continue to use to defend their positions.

All I know is that when I make a committment to someone, whether it is a man or a woman, I want the same rights that are allowed anyone else. Whether you think I should be married in the eyes of God, or not, it makes no difference. I don't take up a heterosexuals place at the alter. When I do get married, it will not be in the eyes of your God anyway. It will be in the eyes of my own. 

Also, I make it important that I ask if you know any gay people. I mean, really know them and have befriended them. This is important because what it does is opens your mind to their stuggles and how they live their lives. You know their children, you know their jobs and how they save for retirement and build a house and life together. It is not so distant for you.

Until you really know a situation, both sides, can you make a decision. Dare I say that even an Uncle or a nephew is too distant as many are not that close. Do you know their partners? Do you know their struggles? You can claim to know someone who is gay, but until you really know someone and their lives day by day, you can't form any kind of real educated opinion. Except for, I don't like it because the Bible says it isn't so.


----------



## bsms

SlideStop said:


> ...Can a woman not enjoy/teach sports? Can a man not braid hair? What EXACTLY are kids missing out on?
> 
> What is a good role model made of? A GOOD person, regardless of gender! Someone who is loving, kind, hard working, honest, trustworthy, fights (reasonably!) for what they believe in. Someone with integrity! Why can a women instill these to her son, and father in his daughter...


Well, if there is no difference between being a man and woman, you are right. Lots of folks, including me, believe there ARE differences. Natural differences. And it is easier to teach those differences with a man & woman working together in a stable family. That is the OPTIMUM. Not the only way to raise kids, but the optimum.

That is why societies that have never heard of the Bible or that existed before Moses had marriage. Raising the next generation is tough. For thousands of years, societies have concluded it is best done by man & woman, although some have had man & women. Virtually none have had man & man, or woman & woman. Societies that practiced homosexuality openly still kept the family as man/woman.

Without any reference to religion, marriage has been held in high regard because of what it can do for the next generation. It is not unreasonable to suggest approaching the idea of homosexual marriage with caution. Based on what I've seen in families around me over my life, I don't think easy divorce and applauding single parents has worked out well for society.

Cohabiting is open to anyone of any sex and in any numbers. Society doesn't prevent anyone from cohabiting. "Marriage" has been held in higher regard because, when it works, it works very well. 

You can say there are studies that show homosexual parenting works fine. I can show other studies that say the opposite. Given the bias most researchers on BOTH sides bring, having some genuine data reported reasonably is probably a false hope. Even the proponents of mandatory homosexual marriage admitted to the court that the science was inconclusive. Given that homosexual activity was illegal 50 years ago, and that homosexual marriage wasn't thought about by the vast majority of folks 25 years ago, we probably cannot have any decent long term studies yet. 

Under a federal system, with each state able to make its own laws, it isn't unreasonable for the states that don't allow homosexual marriage to want to wait and see how it plays out in other states. And if someone feels strongly about it, as I do about taxes & gun rights, they can move to a state that reflects their views - as I have by retiring in Arizona instead of California or Colorado. If you offered me $50K/year to live in Illinois or New York, I'd turn you down. But if you are right about homosexual marriage, and it is a spectacular success as a way of raising kids, then more states will adopt it. Societies are like battleships - they don't turn on a dime, nor should they.

Either way, it isn't something found in the US Constitution. No one writing it or ratifying it had any concept that it might someday be used to require homosexual marriage. It takes a gross twisting of the words - something courts do all the time, as with equine liability laws - to insert into the Constitution a 'right' to homosexual marriage. Let the states handle it.


----------



## KayceeJo

This is rediculous. All of this same-sex this and that is unbelieveable. I do not in any way understand. And my biggest problem with it is not the people. Just think on what Rick Warren said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense." 

Just becuase I am against same sex marriage is not becuase I don't like the people. It is simply because it is not Biblical. Marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman. Not two people of the same sex. It is things like this that make me extremely worried about our country. I support a marriage that is between a man and a woman, created by God, defined by God. 

The other thing. I know that this is a very important topic, but there seem to be more pressing matters at hand for the Supreme Court to spend there time worrying about.


----------



## jinxremoving

I'm a straight male who rides English who often gets confused for being gay, because I ride English and I'm apparently ever so slightly feminine... so here is my take on gay marriage:

I don't care. As long as I don't have to see it or be a part of it, I don't care. I don't know why other people care what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom or on the kitchen table if they want! It's not like there are gay people having sex in the middle of Time's Square forcing everyone to watch. I just shudder to think about the time, the energy and the money being spent on this whole issue. Who cares! People need to worry about their own life, and not worry about what Jane and Jackie or Ted and Tom are doing in their bedrooms.


----------



## BaileyJo

KayceeJo said:


> It is simply because it is not Biblical. Marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman. Not two people of the same sex. It is things like this that make me extremely worried about our country. I support a marriage that is between a man and a woman, created by God, defined by God.


Oh geez... I am so sick of the Bible thumping. Glad you support your own marriage. I support _*my*_ own marriage. As I keep saying _my God_ is not your God, just as my relationship with anyone else on this planet is not the same as yours. Why do you put what your God is onto me? What gives you the right??? Who are you to do that? 



KayceeJo said:


> The other thing. I know that this is a very important topic, but there seem to be more pressing matters at hand for the Supreme Court to spend there time worrying about.


Oh yeah???? Like what? What could be more important to _you_? I'm sure there is so many things that you worry about. Maybe we should just ask you what needs to be presented next?


----------



## SlideStop

Should we also took at WHY "traditional" marriage is heterosexual? 

Simply put, women had ZERO rights and were always seen as "weaker" then men. 

Prehistoric man... Of course men were physically stronger/faster. No denying that! Women linking up with men would have offered protection, meat, shelter. Basic necessities. In return a woman could offer children baring and rearing, gathering food, etc. Sounds basically like a watered down version stereotypical marriages, huh? 

Fast forward to civilization. Women still not seen as equals to men. They cannot own businesses, property, vote, etc. They are basically view as property as of the family or husband. Basically to do anything with her life a woman needs a man. 

Fast forward to the 1800s .Women are still stuck in the domestic and subservient frame work. They were finally able to have jobs. Education was unimportant. They had no place in law and couldn't vote. Plus families NEEDED to have many children to help look after farms and to help look after the family.

Today.... Beside eggs and sperm men don't need women and a woman is not reliant on a man. Not even for the physical act of conception or maturation of a fetus. Of course we didn't see gay marriage back then. It really wasn't practical! Now with advancing technology neither gender needs to rely on the other. For anything. 

This is probably why the EMERGENCE of homosexuality is rather new. A few hundred years later its "breaking out" and now people are looking to rectify it. Homosexuality is not cultural phenomenon! The only thing that is new is looking for the equality of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is NOTHING new to society, and even if it WAS illegal (because it is different then the norm) it doesn't mean people weren't still practicing it!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FlyGap

Well... Since common morals and religion are no longer accepted as valid considerations in forming a society's laws and procedures...

I believe we should get rid of the marriage license, the tax credits, the federal benefits, etc. The government should have no say in who or how many or what people marry. It obviously doesn't help create lasting healthy bonds, why bother?
Financially it's prudent to charge for licenses, it pays for lawyers, Judges, etc, great idea guys, but no thanks.

If anyone wants to share or leave anything to someone else they must write up a legal contract. If they want their kids or spouse taken care of THEY NEED TO SAVE the money themselves. If they want to get "married", then it should be nothing more than a ceremony celebrated in front of God, and/or family, and a signed legal document.

Problem solved.

I agree with you KayceeJo, that the supreme court, the lawyers, and the government have far more pressing DANGERS and ISSUES to address right now.


----------



## Missy May

BaileyJo said:


> I don't get why we keep going back to Iran. We are not in Iran. Btw, saying the majority rules is slowly going out the window as more and more people support gay marriage. That's an old crutch that people continue to use to defend their positions.
> 
> All I know is that when I make a committment to someone, whether it is a man or a woman, I want the same rights that are allowed anyone else. Whether you think I should be married in the eyes of God, or not, it makes no difference. I don't take up a heterosexuals place at the alter. When I do get married, it will not be in the eyes of your God anyway. It will be in the eyes of my own.
> 
> Also, I make it important that I ask if you know any gay people. I mean, really know them and have befriended them. This is important because what it does is opens your mind to their stuggles and how they live their lives. You know their children, you know their jobs and how they save for retirement and build a house and life together. It is not so distant for you.
> 
> Until you really know a situation, both sides, can you make a decision. Dare I say that even an Uncle or a nephew is too distant as many are not that close. Do you know their partners? Do you know their struggles? You can claim to know someone who is gay, but until you really know someone and their lives day by day, you can't form any kind of real educated opinion. Except for, I don't like it because the Bible says it isn't so.


Lets see. The poster I was _responding_ to asked why I mentioned Iran. I explained, perhaps you chose not to read it. Either way, what I do and do not mention is not limited by what you feel I should be allowed. Or, should freedom of speech only apply to those that support gay marriage???

Also, the poster I was _responding_ to is under the impression we live in a democracy - not I. I am fully aware of the government structure under which we live in the US (i.e., it is not I that am completely unaware of our government structure - it is they). 

It has been my experience that most often is the case that people make straw man arguments b/c they can't defend their position w facts. I have not referenced the bible in support of my position. Please make a note of it.

Really educated opinion? I don't think anyone that believes we live in a democracy can form an educated opinion on anything regarding US laws (which necessarily includes marriage laws), _regardless_ of who they rub elbows with! And, I darn sure wouldn't call them "enlightened".


----------



## BaileyJo

FlyGap said:


> Well... Since common morals and religion are no longer accepted as valid considerations in forming a society's laws and procedures...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you KayceeJo, that the supreme court, the lawyers, and the government have far more pressing DANGERS and ISSUES to address right now.


Whose morals??? Oh yeah.... *your* morals. Oh and religion is man made, translated by humans. It is not God. It is the church. And totally used as torque to manhandle and push across agendas. We truly have no idea what God feels about anything. 

Leviticus was written over 3500 years ago. Why in the world has everything evolved around it but people still take things so literal from it? Do you know all the other laws in Leviticus? Here they are. Please pick and chose which ones you like best....

http://leviticusbans.tumblr.com/post/23730370413/76-things-banned-in-leviticus

Hmmm.... getting tatoos is on the list. Think I will condemn all who have a tatoo. 

Again, I am sure you Supreme Court is waiting to hear what agendas are important to you. What DANGERS and ISSUES are you referring to? Just because you couldn't care less about same sex marriage doesn't mean it's not important to anyone else. That is so closed thinking.


----------



## FlyGap

I also believe that family and community needs to start protecting their family units again. Back in the day if a man didn't take proper care of his family the woman's relatives would take him out back behind the woodshed. Or a man's parents would disinherit him. We didn't NEED the government to step in and help out.

The current set up of all social programs/protections leaves very little incentive to remain married, actually I believe the current laws are financially disenfranchising. Why remain married when you can leave your family and let them qualify for food stamps, medicare, free lunches, and single parents get higher tax deductions?


----------



## SlideStop

KayceeJo said:


> This is rediculous. All of this same-sex this and that is unbelieveable. I do not in any way understand. And my biggest problem with it is not the people. Just think on what Rick Warren said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense."
> 
> Just becuase I am against same sex marriage is not becuase I don't like the people. It is simply because it is not Biblical. Marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman. Not two people of the same sex. It is things like this that make me extremely worried about our country. I support a marriage that is between a man and a woman, created by God, defined by God.
> 
> The other thing. I know that this is a very important topic, but there seem to be more pressing matters at hand for the Supreme Court to spend there time worrying about.


To me, and many others, this is a pressing issue. Just like Obamacare is a pressing issue to people with no healthcare. Just like creating more jobs is important to people who don't have one. Everyone has priorities and personally I have health care and a job so I'm not super worried about either. War and debit, those go without say are also very important. 

Gay people aren't looking to infiltrate the RELIGIOUS side of marriage, only the LEGAL side. Yes, same sex marriage is recognized according to STATE laws. There are over a thousand federal benefits gay's want that the state doesn't provide. 

This is NOT about religion, which should be separate from government anyway! Just because YOUR religion doesn't allow it, why should that be the law? Should we also make it illegal to eat meat on Friday? What about fine companies for operating Sundays, after all it is a holy day?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FlyGap

BaileyJo, I am not enforcing or dictating *MY* religious or moral views on anyone. READ MY POST, the answer is *NOT ALLOWING* the government dictate or support or approve or allow who, what, and how many *ANYONE* can marry.

*YOUR* argument is intrensically flawed because *YOU* are inserting *YOUR* moral and theological views on the subject.


----------



## BaileyJo

Missy May said:


> . Or, should freedom of speech only apply to those that support gay marriage???


Yes, the same way that only freedom to marry is given to heterosexuals. How does it feel?


----------



## BaileyJo

FlyGap said:


> BaileyJo, I am not enforcing or dictating *MY* religious or moral views on anyone. READ MY POST, the answer is *NOT ALLOWING* the government dictate or support or approve or allow who, what, and how many *ANYONE* can marry.
> 
> *YOUR* argument is intrensically flawed because *YOU* are inserting *YOUR* moral and theological views on the subject.


Sorry, thought you were being saracastic and implying that I have no moral or religious views. 

Anyway, no, I am not inserting my views on anyone. I am asking people to let me have my own!


----------



## FlyGap

Close minded? Sorry, but no.
Our economy, the strength of our nation, and our future impacts EVERYONE, not just a small minority.


----------



## BaileyJo

Oh, so because it's one or two people, they don't have a right to be heard? This IS Editih Windsor's economy! It may not be your or the majority's economy but have you heard she has to pay over $363,000 in federal taxes because the Federal Government, the very one she is suing, does not recognize her New York state marriage?? Where else does she go?? Yeah, I would say it needs to heard and it will affect people's economy. Sorry, may not be your economy but I believe she has waited long enough.


----------



## FlyGap

Like I said, the government should have no right determining who or how anyone is related and how they receive an inheritance, a simple document should have sufficed. There are ways around paying these taxes, even heterosexuals have to figure them out. 

We should all fight to get rid of these insane tax/property laws, instead most people are only interested in helping a certain group. Just think how great things could be if we all united instead of focusing our energy on a few minorities...


----------



## SlideStop

If this is such a small issue then why a people vigorously trying to resist it?

Obviously issues like war a debit are more important to our countries well being. It effects everyone, gay, straight, married, black, liberal, republican or size 8 shoe. That doesn't mean these "small" issues like abortion, gay marriage or stem cell usages, aren't important, because they are. It may not effect you directly, but one day when your child's life could be saved by something like stem cells or you find out your loved one is gay it WILL suddenly impact you, not only impact you but could change your entire life! There is no reason government can't multitask on these issues. They can multitask, right?!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> You mean, by amending it? That would be the 14th for slavery, and the 19th for women to vote. And BTW, the laws for both of those were changed in many places before the Constitution was amended. Just as some states have decided to support homosexual marriage...
> 
> When did the Constitution start having protections that covered gay marriage? What was found there that had been hidden for the last 200+ years? And why isn't this being addressed in CONGRESS, or the other state legislatures?
> 
> Why do you need a court to make up a law? Why do you need one judge to find what no judge had found before him for 200+ years? And why do you like living under judicial tyranny, and fear the popular vote?


The Supreme Court does not amend the constitution. You know that....right? They set precedents that may, in the long run, prompt amendments. BUT, they can change federal laws through PRECEDENT. They can determine that curtailing the right to become legally married is a violation.

Since when do SC decisions automatically amend the constitution? I work with new SC decisions every year in my job, yet none of these decisions (Roe V Wade, Brown V Board of Ed, Miranda) ever became an amendment to the constitution.

Addressing this...



> Why do you need a court to make up a law? Why do you need one judge to find what no judge had found before him for 200+ years? And why do you like living under judicial tyranny, and fear the popular vote?


Laws are dissected every day. That had better NEVER change. The world and cultures evolve. Otherwise we would still be living in mud huts with our slaves and killing our misbehaving children. There have been countless cultural and legal changes in the last 200 years, or have you not noticed?

I believe letting the minority decide what I can do with my OWN BODY and other people's OWN LOVE (as long as they are consenting adults) IS TYRANNY! 

I live a very boring and mainstream lifestyle. But I have dear friends who are wonderful partners and parents who are affected by this decision every minute of their lives. Why should you, put your thumb on these people whose lives impact you in a zero, personal, way?


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...:rofl:


Oh, but there is a BIG difference between how I address people and how you do.:evil:


----------



## SlideStop

FlyGap said:


> Like I said, the government should have no right determining who or how anyone is related and how they receive an inheritance, a simple document should have sufficed. There are ways around paying these taxes, even heterosexuals have to figure them out.
> 
> We should all fight to get rid of these insane tax/property laws, instead most people are only interested in helping a certain group. Just think how great things could be if we all united instead of focusing our energy on a few minorities...


Or work on INCORPORATING the minorities into the whole. The only thing that makes them "minorities" are the attitude of the majority. 

The simple argument is that of this woman had a husband instead of a wife she would have NOT been charged those taxes. 

Maybe we should revoke all federal benefits from everyone if we can't share them equally. How would any heterosexual single, couple or family feel about that? I bet you would be awfully ****ed about missing you babies birth and first few weeks of life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

Bsms, what exactly would you think the "natural" difference is? Any why is it so important it couldn't come from an alternate source, like a brother, uncle or cousin? You need a man to teach the proper technique of how to pee on a tree? And how to shake? I just don't see why it is necessary. 

And your right, there isn't really any longer term research out there on the long term impact on children. Then how do you know heterosexual parents are the OPTIMAL way of raising kids? Yes, its been done that way for a very, very, long time. There's a little something in the medical world called Evidence Biased Practice. It pretty much means that care is made OPTIMAL by researching what works best. This means we DON'T give care biased on "just because" that's how its always been done. 

Can you please show me research that says a heterosexual household is the best place to raise children, that isn't backed or from a religious sources? "Just because" is no longer an acceptable answer in this day in age.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

Saddlebag, and anyone else... This is an EXCELLENT video of an interview with Edie Windsor and her Lawyer. It gives background on the circumstances and why they are suing and trying to overturn DOMA. 

Btw, their marriage in Canada WAS recognized by NY state. 

Www.YouTube.com/watch?v=7h4ropt3eq

If that doesn't work look up: Digital Age- have we outlawed the traditional meaning of marriage? 

And holy moly, this woman is 83 years awesome! She could of spent the $360,000 and just gotten on with it. 83 years old and taking on the government... Excuse the cliche but YOU GO GIRL!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FlyGap

SlideStop said:


> Maybe we should revoke all federal benefits from everyone if we can't share them equally. How would any heterosexual single, couple or family feel about that? I bet you would be awfully ****ed about missing you babies birth and first few weeks of life.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's what I said. Revoke benefits, eliminate the taxes, get government out of the way we parent and live our lives, make things FAIR. The government is the one causing the problem, not the heterosexuals that don't support your lifestyle. Again, why not make things FAIR across the board instead of by one group by one group by one group by one group?

When my aunt and her best friend get older they will combine their assets and live together with me caring for them. Should we all get married so we don't have to pay higher taxes when one of us dies? 
We will have lived together, known and loved each other longer than any married couple, so why should married couples get added benefits and tax breaks?

And what does being gay have to do with the inequities of child birth? I'm sorry that a man can't birth a child, if I could I would gladly give them that honor. :lol:


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> The Supreme Court does not amend the constitution. You know that....right? They set precedents that may, in the long run, prompt amendments. BUT, they can change federal laws through PRECEDENT. They can determine that curtailing the right to become legally married is a violation.
> 
> Since when do SC decisions automatically amend the constitution? I work with new SC decisions every year in my job, yet none of these decisions (Roe V Wade, Brown V Board of Ed, Miranda) ever became an amendment to the constitution.
> 
> Addressing this...
> 
> Laws are dissected every day. That had better NEVER change. The world and cultures evolve. Otherwise we would still be living in mud huts with our slaves and killing our misbehaving children. There have been countless cultural and legal changes in the last 200 years, or have you not noticed?
> 
> I believe letting the minority decide what I can do with my OWN BODY and other people's OWN LOVE (as long as they are consenting adults) IS TYRANNY!
> 
> I live a very boring and mainstream lifestyle. But I have dear friends who are wonderful partners and parents who are affected by this decision every minute of their lives. Why should you, put your thumb on these people whose lives impact you in a zero, personal, way?


1 - Yes, I know the Supreme Court doesn't amend the Constitution. However, in the examples you gave, change was done BY amending the US Constitution - as I pointed out in my post.

2 - It is NOT the job of the Supreme Court to change what the Constitution says. That should be done by amendment. It is hard to know what the law is, if a judge can change the law based on whim. Unhappily, the US Supreme Court has often decided to MAKE law, rather than to rule ON law.

Ruling ON law, they could never conclude the Constitution gives a right to homosexual marriage, since there is nothing in the Constitution on the subject. Roe v Wade was an obscene travesty of justice: finding a right to privacy, and then applying it to something done by a publicly licensed doctor in his/her place of business (also regulated) and paid for by insurance companies. REAL private. By that standard, every business transaction I make is private and not to be regulated by government.

3 - No one is telling you what to do with your body or love. You can move in and have sex with 7 guys, 3 gals and a hamster, and there isn't any law that I know of against it (except the hamster). However, government often gives tax breaks or special status to things they believe will make our society a better place. That can be a business tax break, or one to help raise kids, invest in green energy, or any of a number of other desired activities.

That has nothing to do with what you decide to do with your body or love. It does have to do with what society has concluded will be helpful to society as a whole. Marriage, with a man & woman trying to raise kids, has been given that recognition by society. The question before the court is if society also must, to comply with the demands of the Constitution, give that recognition to same sex arrangements. This latter recognition is almost unheard of in society for thousands of years. Romans had LOTS of homosexual acts, but generally not homosexual 'marriage'. Other societies banned all homosexual activity, including ours until the 1960s.

No one has a 'right' to marriage. There could not be varying age restrictions, if it was a 'right'. There cannot logically be any restrictions on numbers, if marriage is a right given to anyone who loves someone else.

This is a case where a homosexual judge decided all the states were required to accept homosexual marriage. That is a pretty big step for one person, unelected, to impose on a country. It could reasonably be done state by state. It could be done by Congress tomorrow. But in a democracy, courts should not create law. When they do, they almost always screw it up, since they do so without debate and without popular support.

Yes, I've noticed a lot of cultural changes over time. That is why we have ELECTED OFFICIALS, and why most states allow popular referendums - to change the law. That is how laws should be changed in society - by elected officials. Not courts and unelected judges.

I haven't put my thumb on anyone. What you or others do with your bodies in your bedroom has no interest for me. However, what social structures we encourage, as a society, will affect the future of our society. If you encourage out-of-wedlock births, you encourage child abuse and poverty as a result - NOT because it always happens, but because children (plural, talking populations, not individuals) born outside of marriage will have a higher rate of physical abuse and poverty. Statistically, they are more likely to end up poor or in prison. That is a cost to society, and thus society has an interest in minimizing it.

Homosexual marriage is far too new to have a track record. Lots of folks, including me, believe there are differences between boys and girls, and we are not gender-neutral widgets that can be interchanged without effect. What effect and how much, no one knows. Having an activist judge make that decision for all 50 states seems a stretch.


----------



## bsms

SlideStop said:


> ...There's a little something in the medical world called Evidence Biased Practice...


Having read a number of medical journals, I agree...they use "Evidence *BIASED* practice"!

There is ample evidence that boys and girls differ. We are not gender-neutral units. Those who claim we are, and that 5000 years of experience can be chucked into the trash can, need to provide some evidence.

Maybe you can get some. Maybe those states that have approved homosexual marriage will be able to show it works. Fine. But until then, prudence suggests caution in tossing out societal norms that have been in place for almost all of recorded human history. And tossing it based on one judge's feelings is rash indeed...


----------



## SlideStop

FlyGap said:


> That's what I said. Revoke benefits, eliminate the taxes, get government out of the way we parent and live our lives, make things FAIR. The government is the one causing the problem, not the heterosexuals that don't support your lifestyle. Again, why not make things FAIR across the board instead of by one group by one group by one group by one group?
> 
> When my aunt and her best friend get older they will combine their assets and live together with me caring for them. Should we all get married so we don't have to pay higher taxes when one of us dies?
> We will have lived together, known and loved each other longer than any married couple, so why should married couples get added benefits and tax breaks?
> 
> And what does being gay have to do with the inequities of child birth? I'm sorry that a man can't birth a child, if I could I would gladly give them that honor. :lol:


Because under the family leave act men can take time off work for the birth of a child. If my girlfriend goes into labor tomorrow I do not have the right to be at her side because gay people don't recieve those benefits. I could of used another example, like income tax or assets, but I chose that one because it hits close to home. 

Well when your aunt and her best friend are legally married they will be just like my girlfriends aunt,abusing the system to reap the benefits! My gfs aunt married a (gay) man so he could obtain citizenship in this country. Is it right? Hell no. But people abuse the system all the time. That ruins the integrity of marriage for EVERYONE. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

bsms said:


> Having read a number of medical journals, I agree...they use "Evidence *BIASED* practice"!
> 
> There is ample evidence that boys and girls differ. We are not gender-neutral units. Those who claim we are, and that 5000 years of experience can be chucked into the trash can, need to provide some evidence.
> 
> Maybe you can get some. Maybe those states that have approved homosexual marriage will be able to show it works. Fine. But until then, prudence suggests caution in tossing out societal norms that have been in place for almost all of recorded human history. And tossing it based on one judge's feelings is rash indeed...



Is right for one judge to go rogue and do whatever he wants? No, it may just so happen to be in this case. But, from what I'm hearing the supreme court believes DOMA is unconstitutional and won't argue for it, which means they have no case. It's being turned over to the house of reps, I believe. 

Us being not gender neutral is no surprise, but there is a sliding scale of femininity and masculinity. So what exactly is the reason we need opposite sex parents? "Just because" that's how its always been? Or do we need women to teach girls about make up and push them to be cheerleaders and men to push their kids into sport and tell their sons to "toughen up and act like a man"? A man can drive, enjoy and support his daughter thought dance just like a woman can teach her kids to play baseball! in We could probably get a rough idea of single parents raising opposite gender kids. Do you have a problem with that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

bsms said:


> Having read a number of medical journals, I agree...they use "Evidence *BIASED* practice"!


When all else fails go for the spelling, that's what I always say! :thumbsup:


----------



## FlyGap

Great, all we need are more people abusing the system.
Again, that's why I feel like this argument is self centered and why, if they don't like it, they/we need to band together and eliminate these "special" _benefits_ in order for everyone to prosper.
Unfortunately the primary political group _for_ GBL marriage is also the one _for_ more and higher taxes.

The argument about being there for the birth... We had to budget and DH had to schedule his time off for the birth. He caught major hell for it. Just because men have the "right" to take off they usually can't afford it, sooo should we pass YET ANOTHER LAW and make sure employers pay for it too? That's the only way to even the playing field, at the expense of someone else.


----------



## SlideStop

FlyGap said:


> Great, all we need are more people abusing the system.
> Again, that's why I feel like this argument is self centered and why, if they don't like it, they/we need to band together and eliminate these "special" _benefits_ in order for everyone to prosper.
> Unfortunately the primary political group _for_ GBL marriage is also the one _for_ more and higher taxes.
> 
> It is self centered that gay people want to marry, as in share the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple? I think it's self centered to think those 1,000 plus benefits are exclusively reserved for you! How does gay marriage = Higher taxed?
> 
> The argument about being there for the birth... We had to budget and DH had to schedule his time off for the birth. He caught major hell for it. Just because men have the "right" to take off they usually can't afford it, sooo should we pass YET ANOTHER LAW and make sure employers pay for it too? That's the only way to even the playing field, at the expense of someone else.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that your husband couldn't afford to take off from work for the birth of your child, but the FMLA doesn't say he *must* take off from work. FMLA says your entitled to 12 weeks off from work. _*Entitled to, not must.*_ Married gay couples don't even the the _*choice!*_ And really, what significant other wouldn't want their spouse there? And what person wouldn't want to be at the side of their loved one in labor? Gay or straight. If you want it paid, take vacation time and be happy with what you actually have instead of want more. Especially when other people would kill to be in the shoes (legality wise) of a heterosexual couple.


(So happy to have a computer to type on for the first time in days!)


----------



## SlideStop

FlyGap said:


> Great, all we need are more people abusing the system.


And not for nothing, people have been and always will abuse the system. Just because people will abuse Obamacare should we take it away from the people who need it? Just because people abuse welfare should we take it away from people who need it? Just because people abuse the privileges of international marriage and citizenship should we take them away from people who need it? 

No.


----------



## FlyGap

You say it's unfair that because the fed dosen't acknoledge GBL's and Hets get added benefits, so we need to change the law. I say take *ALL* the benefits away, therefore we are all equal. You are twisting things around and arguing for the sake of arguing.

IT IS self-centered to try and make things EVEN when the time and effort should be to eliminate the governments involvement in marriage. Especially when it's going to further burden our system, but oh well. The political party supporting and supported by GBL's will be the last one to eliminate the taxes, breaks, and benefits that are unfair AND will add more taxes in the future. So lets not do the RIGHT thing, regardless of the ramifications, at least we will all be equal!

Of course my DH was with me, as you could be with your DW. It dosen't take super powers to schedule and plan, which I am all for. That's what I said.
If we took away the governments power over our marriage to make things EQUAL then we may lose some entitlements or "rights". Like I said, schedule, no big deal. We did it.


----------



## SlideStop

FlyGap said:


> You say it's unfair that because the fed dosen't acknoledge GBL's and Hets get added benefits, so we need to change the law. I say take *ALL* the benefits away, therefore we are all equal. You are twisting things around and arguing for the sake of arguing.
> 
> Is the twisting around your referring to examples? Like I just wrote at the bottom, taking all rights away from everyone if fun to dream about but it will never happen.
> 
> IT IS self-centered to try and make things EVEN when the time and effort should be to eliminate the governments involvement in marriage. Especially when it's going to further burden our system, but oh well. The political party supporting and supported by GBL's will be the last one to eliminate the taxes, breaks, and benefits that are unfair AND will add more taxes in the future. So lets not do the RIGHT thing, regardless of the ramifications, at least we will all be equal!
> 
> Just please explain to me how allowing gay marriage will add aditional taxes? I seem to be missing the reasoning behind this one.
> 
> Of course my DH was with me, as you could be with your DW. It dosen't take super powers to schedule and plan, which I am all for. That's what I said.
> 
> Of course planning is one way around things, but planning is not the same as having FMLA. This isn't the only advantage to don't forget... there are over 1,000 others
> 
> If we took away the governments power over our marriage to make things EQUAL then we may lose some entitlements or "rights". Like I said, schedule, no big deal. We did it.


Then what would be the point of marrying someone? 

Honestly, thinking that the goverment will take away all rights so all relationships are seen as equal would be eye opening, if not ideal, but there is *no way* anyone would let that happen. Ever.... though it is quiet fun to dream about.


----------



## Missy May

BaileyJo said:


> Yes, the same way that only freedom to marry is given to heterosexuals. How does it feel?


So "yes" you feel only gays should have freedom of speech as your above post indicates. How does what feel? I didn't advocate other's right to an opinion be limited to only those that agree w me, nor did I completely misrepresent what anyone had stated. I don't champion oppression as you do ... and as they do in Iran.


----------



## BaileyJo

Missy May said:


> So "yes" you feel only gays should have freedom of speech as your above post indicates. How does what feel? I didn't advocate other's right to an opinion be limited to only those that agree w me, nor did I completely misrepresent what anyone had stated. I don't champion oppression as you do ... and as they do in Iran.


Have you ever heard of sarcasm? My post was sarcastic. 

I can't even respond to this type of post. It's posted just to confuse people.


----------



## Allison Finch

So, BSMS, if marriage is only for a man and a woman who are planning to raise children, I guess we should also ban couples marrying who do not plan to have children (no benefits for YOU!) and especially ban marriage between people who are too old to have children (No benefits for you!!). 

Your view on the reasons for marriage are awfully narrow. I guess love and companionship cannot be factored as reasons for wanting a marriage.


----------



## WickedNag

Did not read all of the posts and I probably should as they are mostly likely amusing if nothing else. I am old school from a small town. Gays were unheard of, made fun of and very much not someone you would associate with! 

Than my best friend's son told us he was gay. He is now 17 and has been "out of the closet" for several years. How do you stop loving someone you have known for so many years because he is "different" than you? 

I still don't understand it but I don't understand lots of things and still live among them. I have two very dear friends "lesbians" who joined a saddle club we belong too. I love them dearly!

I don't care to see public signs of affection between people (any people) but I am no longer a homophobic and if a couple wants to marry, who am I to judge?


----------



## SlideStop

WickedNag said:


> Did not read all of the posts and I probably should as they are mostly likely amusing if nothing else. I am old school from a small town. Gays were unheard of, made fun of and very much not someone you would associate with!
> 
> Than my best friend's son told us he was gay. He is now 17 and has been "out of the closet" for several years. How do you stop loving someone you have known for so many years because he is "different" than you?
> 
> I still don't understand it but I don't understand lots of things and still live among them. I have two very dear friends "lesbians" who joined a saddle club we belong too. I love them dearly!
> 
> I don't care to see public signs of affection between people (any people) but I am no longer a homophobic and if a couple wants to marry, who am I to judge?


*Beautiful post! * This sums it up perfectly, being gay/lesbian is just a small blip on the map of who a person really is. Bravo!


----------



## Allison Finch

WickedNag said:


> Did not read all of the posts and I probably should as they are mostly likely amusing if nothing else. I am old school from a small town. Gays were unheard of, made fun of and very much not someone you would associate with!
> 
> Than my best friend's son told us he was gay. He is now 17 and has been "out of the closet" for several years. How do you stop loving someone you have known for so many years because he is "different" than you?
> 
> I still don't understand it but I don't understand lots of things and still live among them. I have two very dear friends "lesbians" who joined a saddle club we belong too. I love them dearly!
> 
> I don't care to see public signs of affection between people (any people) but I am no longer a homophobic and if a couple wants to marry, who am I to judge?


Well said Wicked!! Familiarity does NOT have to breed contempt!

:clap::clap:


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> ...Your view on the reasons for marriage are awfully narrow. I guess love and companionship cannot be factored as reasons for wanting a marriage.


We aren't discussing all the reasons someone might WANT to marry, but why society might want to recognize marriage and make it a part of public law. That was done, before the Bible was written and now, FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILDREN. That was why many states had tough divorce laws.

Once marriage is divorced from that concept, and just becomes about feeling good and emotional involvement, then marriage - THAT type of marriage - has no meaning for the state. Years ago, a cop friend of mine in Tucson told me of a homeless guy known for 'loving' his Nike shoe...in public! I don't much care what someone feels or what acts they perform with a Nike sneaker, but that isn't the institution of marriage that has been around for thousands of years. Nike shoes don't produce offspring.

And while there have always been heterosexual marriages that didn't produce children, most did - and THAT was what the STATE cared about - a stable family unit that produced a stable next generation.

If marriage is about 'love', then people OUGHT to be able to marry their dogs or horses. Most dogs are a lot more lovable than most humans, and I have a higher regard for a lot of horses than a lot of folks, too. Marriage, as a state institution, isn't about love. If a man decides he loves another man's wife, and she loves him, should they both divorce and marry each other? Until the 60s, the answer was no - and it was no because of the impact on children (and to a lesser extent, on women). That impact was what justified state involvement. The state cares no more about who you love than I do...


----------



## BaileyJo

bsms said:


> If marriage is about 'love', then people OUGHT to be able to marry their dogs or horses. Most dogs are a lot more lovable than most humans, and I have a higher regard for a lot of horses than a lot of folks, too.


Sure why not! If that is your thinking then why not? Why don't we just let people marry their cars and their own mothers, brothers or fathers? If this is how twisted your argument gets then yes, let's all go for it! (sarcasm, here, in case anyone doesn't see it) 

What you are FAILING to understand throughout the course of this thread is we are talking about two consenting adults! Not children, not molesters, not horses, cows, sheep or dogs. Your arguments falls FLAT on its face when you say marriage was designed to procreate. I guess that 50 year old woman who lost her husband to cancer doesn't get to marry again, or the 60 old man. Or the fact that some people who have never had children should not have ever married. Who aren't you out there picketing against them? 

I just don't get these cardboard flimsy arguments that amount to nothing but marry your horse, or they should be married to have children. Oh and also, the Bible thumping! Let's always keep that on the stove.


----------



## BaileyJo

Sorry for the double post, but had another point.

STOP comparing the love I have another as for the love I have for a dog. I don't compare the love for your wife, or children, as the same for a dog, do I? It's actually quite rude, mean and bullish.


----------



## bsms

Marriage, AS AN INSTITUTION GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT, isn't about individuals. It is about populations. It is about what happens to society when millions of people follow a construct.

No, marriage doesn't involve children when a 50 year old marries another 50 year old. But the institution of marriage, and why society cares about it, and why government thinks it is appropriate to regulate, IS about children.

It isn't about love. It isn't about feeling. It isn't about wants. It has nothing to do with you or me, as individuals.

It is about what works well, when followed by SOCIETY - get away from individuals, that isn't the governmental concern - what works well for SOCIETY to create the next generation of citizens. Even societies that freely accepted homosexual behavior still had marriage between a man & women, because that is what works - as a society, to raise the next generation. Government has no interest in how a man and a woman FEEL about each other, only in what they DO to raise the next generation. Laws are not made for individuals, but for how those laws affect society as a whole.

Sometime in the 60s, marriage stopped being about raising kids and started being about 'feeling love for someone'. It doesn't matter if a man feels love for his neighbor's wife - as long as he doesn't act on it. But if people feel free to leave their husband or wife, marry their neighbor's former spouse, and think it won't have a bad effect on society, they are fooling themselves. That is why marriage exists - to give approval to and promote an institution for raising kids.

Not love. Love is optional, from a societal viewpoint. Remember, for much of history, many marriages were arranged. Individuals may choose to marry 'for love', but marriage isn't supported by government 'for love'.


----------



## BaileyJo

The more you talk, the more I would hate to be your wife. Sorry.


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> We aren't discussing all the reasons someone might WANT to marry, but why society might want to recognize marriage and make it a part of public law.* That was done, before the Bible was written and now, FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILDREN*. That was why many states had tough divorce laws.
> 
> ...


Actually, there are historical instances of societies that accepted same sex unions, long before the Bible. From China to the Native Americans it was not vilified or made "illegal". In fact, it was the beginning of Christianity that found pressures to stop these unions. I found this information easily.

I am sorry that, in your world, Marriage was only for expedience.

Just curious.....are you in favor of the state bill being introduced that requires a two year waiting period before a divorce can be granted?????


----------



## StarfireSparrow

Muppetgirl said:


> I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal......:shock: I don't get it:?
> 
> But I'm a floater, I can see most things from most angles:wink:


Marriage is not, in any form, a "biblical" principal. The idea of marriage predates the bible by quite a long stretch of time. Everyone who uses the bible to to define marriage is totally off base.


----------



## bsms

You again try to inject the personal. The personal is irrelevant. The government doesn't care if my wife and I are happy, or in love. The government has no interest in our feelings, or if our marriage is fulfilling. The government does not support the institution of marriage in an attempt to further my happiness or hers. The state doesn't care about us.

I suppose the state would prefer we be happy, but that isn't why governments support and recognize marriage. If we team up to raise kids well, the government is content with our marriage.


----------



## BaileyJo

bsms said:


> I suppose the state would prefer we be happy, but that isn't why governments support and recognize marriage. If we team up to raise kids well, the government is content with our marriage.


The government is soon about ready to be content with gay marriage. So you do not hold the cornerstone on it much longer. 

Personally, yeah, I still am grateful I am not your wife. You seem to be very calious when it comes to marriage.


----------



## bsms

BaileyJo said:


> ...Personally, yeah, I still am grateful I am not your wife. You seem to be very calious when it comes to marriage.


I'm not at all callous about marriage. Mine is now over 26 years, and I love her far more now than I did when we married. But again, IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU. IT ISN'T ABOUT ME. My personal happiness isn't relevant to the government's endorsement of marriage.

The world doesn't revolve around your happiness. Marriage wasn't intended to make people "happy".



Allison Finch said:


> Actually, there are historical instances of societies that accepted same sex unions, long before the Bible. From China to the Native Americans it was not vilified or made "illegal". In fact, it was the beginning of Christianity that found pressures to stop these unions. I found this information easily...


Fine. Cite them. Show me the successful societies that encouraged homosexual 'marriages'. Show me the MARRIAGES that successful societies used to endorse homosexual unions.

Homosexual activity? Absolutely! There are a number of societies that have allowed and even encouraged it to some degree. Homosexual marriage? Odd that even the proponents of homosexual marriage didn't make that claim in the oral arguments."_Formal historical data provided by ancient records dealing with male homosexuality in China can be dated back to the Shang Dynasty (c. 16th century - 11th century BC), according to* Li Yinhe* in her book History of Chinese Homosexuality._

_The term "Luan Feng" was used to describe homosexuality in the "Shang Dynasty Records". Interestingly, there are no record of lesbianism in Chinese history..._

_...After the Han Dynasty, the general attitude was tolerant, so long as homosexuals fulfilled their filial duties by getting married and continuing the family line..._

_...The years 1573-1620 marked the most flourishing period of the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644)...Prostitution was a common practice at that time, due to the moral concept which advocated the acceptance of natural sexual needs, an approach promoted by the neo-Confucian philosopher Wang Yangming. __Male prostitutes (gigolos) were widely available to meet their clients' specific requirements. _

_Confucianism was canonized during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), with emphasis put on strict obedience to the social order. That is to say, both wife and husband should always remember their correct relationship, but homosexuals went directly against such rules._" ​History of Chinese homosexuality


----------



## StarfireSparrow

BaileyJo said:


> The government is soon about ready to be content with gay marriage. So you do not hold the cornerstone on it much longer.
> 
> Personally, yeah, I still am grateful I am not your wife. You seem to be very calious when it comes to marriage.


The impression I get is not one of callousness about marriage, but more a pragmatic and detached view of the issues. I'm willing to take it one step further. The state only pays a lick of attention to marriages for tax purposes.


----------



## BaileyJo

bsms, you can quote every single piece of literature that you want, throw every piece of history out there, drop as much as you want about the Constitution, even throw in a few links.... The bottom line is, the fact that gays can get married is coming. Keep talking if you want, it's not gonna change the fact that a homosexual marriage will be just as valid as a heterosexual. And yes, there may even be a few happy marriages out there too. 

I'm not going to continue to debate something that is inevitable. It's a waste of my time and energy.


----------



## BaileyJo

MysterySparrow said:


> The state only pays a lick of attention to marriages for tax purposes.


That actually could be true. But it is the Federal government that is stopping the legality of marriages whether the state approves or not.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Marriage, historically has been a civil institution. Most marriages, until quite recently, were arranged -- they were business arrangements/economic liaisons for growing family wealth, safely, and power, not for love or even procreation in many cases. The notion of "love" and being blessed by the church wasn't added until much later.

I think it's safe to say that throughout history, marriage is a bond between two people... a bond of responsibility, commitment, challenge, and legalities (and more recently, love). This concept of marriage has not changed and I see no reason why it should be denied to gays and lesbians.


----------



## Joe4d

good point , red horse, and now that I think about it, absolutely correct. Something to remember next time I get into a discussion with a Bible thumper rewriting history along all their "christian value founding lines"


----------



## Faceman

RedHorseRidge said:


> Marriage, historically has been a civil institution.


Is that the world according to RedHorseRidge?

80 million, or 25% of Americans, are Catholic. Marriage is a holy sacrament in the Catholic church (between a man and woman, by the way), and has been for 2,000 years, with a requirement for the last 500 years that marriage must be performed in the church.

In addition to Catholics, many other millions of Americans consider marriage a holy union and thus a religious institution.

I hope it is not history that you teach...


----------



## SlideStop

Faceman said:


> Is that the world according to RedHorseRidge?
> 
> 80 million, or 25% of Americans, are Catholic. Marriage is a holy sacrament in the Catholic church (between a man and woman, by the way), and has been for 2,000 years, with a requirement for the last 500 years that marriage must be performed in the church.
> 
> In addition to Catholics, many other millions of Americans consider marriage a holy union and thus a religious institution.
> 
> I hope it is not history that you teach...


No one cares about being married in the eyes of God. Same-sex couple want the LEGAL side of marriage, not the religious!! Call it whatever you want, union, marriage, or a steaming pile of crap, federal recognition of the coupling between two people of the same sex is ALL we want. The religious aspect is a whole new ball game.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> Fine. Cite them. Show me the successful societies that encouraged homosexual 'marriages'. Show me the MARRIAGES that successful societies used to endorse homosexual unions.
> 
> Homosexual activity? Absolutely! There are a number of societies that have allowed and even encouraged it to some degree. Homosexual marriage? Odd that even the proponents of homosexual marriage didn't make that claim in the oral arguments."_Formal historical data provided by ancient records dealing with male homosexuality in China can be dated back to the Shang Dynasty (c. 16th century - 11th century BC), according to* Li Yinhe* in her book History of Chinese Homosexuality._
> 
> _The term "Luan Feng" was used to describe homosexuality in the "Shang Dynasty Records". Interestingly, there are no record of lesbianism in Chinese history..._
> 
> _...After the Han Dynasty, the general attitude was tolerant, so long as homosexuals fulfilled their filial duties by getting married and continuing the family line..._
> 
> _...The years 1573-1620 marked the most flourishing period of the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644)...Prostitution was a common practice at that time, due to the moral concept which advocated the acceptance of natural sexual needs, an approach promoted by the neo-Confucian philosopher Wang Yangming. __Male prostitutes (gigolos) were widely available to meet their clients' specific requirements. _
> 
> _Confucianism was canonized during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), with emphasis put on strict obedience to the social order. That is to say, both wife and husband should always remember their correct relationship, but homosexuals went directly against such rules._" ​History of Chinese homosexuality


You seem to have missed a few examples.....




> In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.





> An example of egalitarian male domestic bonding from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, *and was compared to heterosexual marriage*, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.



There are numerous examples in Europe and even the Americas. As for when the prohibitions started showing up....



> Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:
> When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)



Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian. But, I find it sad that such intolerance seems to have come with the birth of my own religion. Something I am not proud of.


----------



## Faceman

SlideStop said:


> *No one cares about being married in the eyes of God.* Same-sex couple want the LEGAL side of marriage, not the religious!! Call it whatever you want, union, marriage, or a steaming pile of crap, federal recognition of the coupling between two people of the same sex is ALL we want. The religious aspect is a whole new ball game.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If, by "no one', you are talking about the general population, the statement I highlighted is tripe. Do not tell me that no one cares about being married in the eyes of God. 

IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with. 

I don't disagree with the latter part. I have said repetitively, as have others, homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. And honestly, is there really anyone on here that really disagrees with that, and actually feels homosexuals should be denied the rights everyone else has? 

But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it. THAT is what should be lobbied for - a civil "institution" recognizing homosexual couples and according them all the appropriate rights and privileges. As I have also previously stated, I suspect there would be little opposition to that by anyone other than a handful of wackos. But trying to incorporate it into marriage is going to elicit a negative response from a sizeable portion of the population - and always will. Furthermore, should homosexuals be accepted into the legal institution of marriage, there will now and always be resentment by many, which appears to me to be counterproductive to achieving a society in which homosexuals are fully accepted...


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian. But, I find it sad that such intolerance seems to have come with the birth of my own religion. Something I am not proud of.


Just what do you define as intolerance, and why would you include opposition to homosexual marriage as intolerance?

Denial of rights or discrimination is intolerance. But denying homosexuals marriage, which is a traditional union between a man and a woman is not intolerance - at least to me.

Is it intolerance to deny NRA membership to a person that is a gun banning activist?

Is it intolerance to deny a 40 year old membership in AARP, an established organization for older people?

Is it intolerance to deny participation to an able bodied person in the Special Olympics?

Homosexuals can obtain whatever rights they are entitled to without intruding on marriage, and I will be first in line to lobby for whatever they choose to name the civil union vehicle to do it with...


----------



## Joe4d

Faceman said:


> If, by "no one', you are talking about the general population, the statement I highlighted is tripe. Do not tell me that no one cares about being married in the eyes of God.
> 
> IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.
> 
> I don't disagree with the latter part. I have said repetitively, as have others, homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. And honestly, is there really anyone on here that really disagrees with that, and actually feels homosexuals should be denied the rights everyone else has?
> 
> But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it. THAT is what should be lobbied for - a civil "institution" recognizing homosexual couples and according them all the appropriate rights and privileges. As I have also previously stated, I suspect there would be little opposition to that by anyone other than a handful of wackos. But trying to incorporate it into marriage is going to elicit a negative response from a sizeable portion of the population - and always will. Furthermore, should homosexuals be accepted into the legal institution of marriage, there will now and always be resentment by many, which appears to me to be counterproductive to achieving a society in which homosexuals are fully accepted...



Considering a 50% divorce rate, yeh Id say most people dont care about the church part. Especially all those Catholics lining up for divorces.

Pesonally I dont see why anyone of any sex would want to get legally married. Just invites lawyers and judges into your house. Who tend to pocket most of your assets. 

There are still people that resent black people living in their neighbor hoods. Public resentment shouldnt be a basis for laws anymore than a particular religious dogma. What people are free to do, or not do should come down to harm or infringing on freedoms of others. I still havent sen a single argument for how Homosexual marriage harms anyone that doesnt like it.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> Is that the world according to RedHorseRidge?


No, that's the world according to _history_... you know, that stuff that existed _before _religion and the catholic church... Did you even read my post?

Marriage only "recently" (in historical terms) became a holy sacrament. Marriages were being performed long before the church became involved in 13th century. And even after that, many groups rejected the notion of marriage and church being "joined"... even the Puritans passed an act of parliament in the 1700s making marriage purely secular... they believed marriage was a contract between two people which had nothing to do with the church. And believe it or not, there are still people today who don't believe marriage has to be blessed by the church.

Marriage can be recognized by more than just a religion; it can be recognized by a state, a tribal group, a community, etc. Just because many catholics and other Americans consider marriage a holy union does not make it a religious institution... it may be to them, but that doesn't make it a religious institution by law.

Marriage in the US is a government institution void of any religious affiliation; one does not have be religious to get married or have a marriage recognized by the state or federal government.



> In addition to Catholics, many other millions of Americans consider marriage a holy union and thus a religious institution.


Well, yippee skippee for them... that doesn't mean squat in regards to what I posted. Use some logic here Face (I know you have that ability). Civil and religious marriage are NOT the same thing, and our government recognizes civil marriages.... it's just that some of them are performed in a church and also recognized by that religion as a religious marriage.



> I hope it is not history that you teach...


Snide remarks again? Well, based on your response, I'd sure as heck do a better job than you, as you apparently don't understand there was history before the catholic church.


----------



## SlideStop

Faceman said:


> If, by "no one', you are talking about the general population, the statement I highlighted is tripe. Do not tell me that no one cares about being married in the eyes of God.
> 
> IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.
> 
> I don't disagree with the latter part. I have said repetitively, as have others, homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. And honestly, is there really anyone on here that really disagrees with that, and actually feels homosexuals should be denied the rights everyone else has?
> 
> But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it. THAT is what should be lobbied for - a civil "institution" recognizing homosexual couples and according them all the appropriate rights and privileges. As I have also previously stated, I suspect there would be little opposition to that by anyone other than a handful of wackos. But trying to incorporate it into marriage is going to elicit a negative response from a sizeable portion of the population - and always will. Furthermore, should homosexuals be accepted into the legal institution of marriage, there will now and always be resentment by many, which appears to me to be counterproductive to achieving a society in which homosexuals are fully accepted...


Yes, there most certainly are people on this forum who say no. 

By "no one" I ment gay people, sorry I wasn't so clear. We are fighting for federal rights. Not the right, or whatever you want to call it, to be married in the eyes of God. Just for it to be recognized as equal union in the eyes of the government, just like a man and woman. All religion aside. 

As for gay people and religion, you BEST believe there are practicing religious homosexuals. My girlfriend, my best friend and my best friends Aunts (pleural) are all catholic.... and practicing. I'm leaning towards religion also, but I'm not set on it. I doubt any God would judge a happy, productive, faithful person on the account of who they love. People are deeper then their sexuality. 

If same-sex couples what to me married in the eyes of God, well that's a whole 'nother battle. And personally, I don't think I need a ceremony in the "house of God" for God to recognize my marriage. God is all knowing. Same-sex couples just want federal benefits, that's all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.


Well, let's see how much more freaking offensive you can get, shall we? Why, exactly, would you not expect them to care much about god or religion? Do you think homosexuals cannot be religious? You think they are godless, hedonistic religion bashers?

The notion that someone who is gay doesn't care much about religion or god is ludicrous and shows your true prejudice.



> But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it.


That "whatever name they want to call it" would be marriage... I was married in a courthouse... does that mean I'm not really married?
[/QUOTE]


----------



## RedHorseRidge

SlideStop said:


> If same-sex couples what to me married in the eyes of God, well that's a whole 'nother battle.


It's interesting that there are MANY churches that have performed same-sex marriages that are recognized by the church but not the government...


----------



## Faceman

RedHorseRidge said:


> No, that's the world according to _history_... you know, that stuff that existed _before _religion and the catholic church... Did you even read my post?
> 
> Marriage only "recently" (in historical terms) became a holy sacrament. Marriages were being performed long before the church became involved in 13th century. And even after that, many groups rejected the notion of marriage and church being "joined"... even the Puritans passed an act of parliament in the 1700s making marriage purely secular... they believed marriage was a contract between two people which had nothing to do with the church. And believe it or not, there are still people today who don't believe marriage has to be blessed by the church.
> 
> Marriage can be recognized by more than just a religion; it can be recognized by a state, a tribal group, a community, etc. Just because many catholics and other Americans consider marriage a holy union does not make it a religious institution... it may be to them, but that doesn't make it a religious institution by law.
> 
> Marriage in the US is a government institution void of any religious affiliation; one does not have be religious to get married or have a marriage recognized by the state or federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yippee skippee for them... that doesn't mean squat in regards to what I posted. Use some logic here Face (I know you have that ability). Civil and religious marriage are NOT the same thing, and our government recognizes civil marriages.... it's just that some of them are performed in a church and also recognized by that religion as a religious marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Snide remarks again? Well, based on your response, I'd sure as heck do a better job than you, as you apparently don't understand there was history before the catholic church.


Bwahaha...study some history. Did you not read what I told you? If not, I will repeat it - marriage has been a holy sacrament in the Catholic Church for nearly 2,000 years.

Is there something you don't understand about that? Too difficult?

And as far as snide remarks...if the shoe fits, wear it...


----------



## Faceman

RedHorseRidge said:


> Well, let's see how much more freaking offensive you can get, shall we?


Oh - now it is "offensive" to have an opinion? I suppose it is OK for liberals and homosexuals to have their opinions, but not a conservative opposed to homosexual "marriage"? I oppose homosexual marriage, and think it is a farce and a joke, but I don't find those with a differing opinion "offensive".

What a hypocrite...


----------



## Faceman

SlideStop said:


> Same-sex couples just want federal benefits, that's all.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And I agree with that - not only federal, but any other benefits, as well as acceptance by society...not necessarily approval, as that is not going to happen, but acceptance in the form of being treated as everyone else is treated. We don't have to approve of people's lifestyle choices to accept them...


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.



That is one of the most offensive and judgemental statements I have seen you make. Just because they are homosexual they cannot be religious or want to be recognized by their church? In what world? I know some deeply religious gay and lesbian folks who attend their church regularly. A church that can look beyond their noses. Or, are you among the people who believe they are damned and have no reason to even consider themselves spiritual?





> But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it..


Believe it, or not, God and church just may mean as much to a gay person as it does to you. They ought to be married in the eyes of their church, though maybe not by yours.

Civil unions have never offered the same protections as civil marriage. THAT is the problem!!


----------



## BaileyJo

Faceman said:


> 80 million, or 25% of Americans, are Catholic. Marriage is a holy sacrament in the Catholic church (between a man and woman, by the way), and has been for 2,000 years, with a requirement for the last 500 years that marriage must be performed in the church.
> 
> I hope it is not history that you teach...


You're wrong. Marriage became a sacrament in the 12th century. I hope you get your facts straight.



Faceman said:


> IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.


Funny you should say that.... I was a nun and so was my partner. We are Catholics. We realized that God was calling us to be together. We both left after spending hours in prayer, listening to God and being open to what our true call was and who God wanted us to be. We were lucky. We had the courage to be who God made us to be. Many people do not. 

We are both still Catholic and we both still pray. The difference is the Catholic Church is not open to us.... But God is.


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> Bwahaha...study some history. Did you not read what I told you? If not, I will repeat it - marriage has been a holy sacrament in the Catholic Church for nearly 2,000 years.


Gee, even Bishop Usher admits that the Earth is older than 2,000 years. 2,000 is just a blip in the timeline.....



> Is there something you don't understand about that? Too difficult?
> 
> And as far as snide remarks...if the shoe fits, wear it...


Good grief. You really think this is constructive debate?


----------



## SlideStop

Faceman said:


> And I agree with that - not only federal, but any other benefits, as well as acceptance by society...not necessarily approval, as that is not going to happen, but acceptance in the form of being treated as everyone else is treated. We don't have to approve of people's lifestyle choices to accept them...


Ok, so then there is no argument here. There are many things I do don't agree with, but I accept. Same-sex couples are only fighting for equal rights under the law, not recognition of marriages through the church. 

... And I revoke the statement about "No one cares about religious marriage". They do, but its a whole 'nother battle, like I said. But the reason for this court case is simply about legality and receiving the same governmental benefits as man/woman unions. I tend to leave religion out of a lot of things only because I wasn't brought up with one.


----------



## SlideStop

Allison Finch said:


> That is one of the most offensive and judgemental statements I have seen you make. Just because they are homosexual they cannot be religious or want to be recognized by their church? In what world? I know some deeply religious gay and lesbian folks who attend their church regularly. A church that can look beyond their noses. Or, are you among the people who believe they are damned and have no reason to even consider themselves spiritual?


My apologies, I kinda brought that on. By "no one" I meant no one in this case is seeking acceptance via the church. I'm sure there *are* those who do and have been recognized in their own churches. As I stated above, I seem to forget about the religious position of things, as I was never really brought up with religion. But your right, there ARE people who are practicing.. whatever their religion may be... and still very gay. I don't believe God is going to judge people based on sexuality only. A good person is a good person!


----------



## Faceman

BaileyJo said:


> You're wrong. Marriage became a sacrament in the 12th century. I hope you get your facts straight.


If you had an inkling of what you were talking about, you would know that marriage was first declared a sacrament in the 5th century, and went through several steps before the sacrament became part of canon law in the 16th century. 

What is the history of marriage? | USCatholic.org

Internet experts are quite humorous...


----------



## BaileyJo

Faceman said:


> If you had an inkling of what you were talking about, you would know that marriage was first declared a sacrament in the 5th century, and went through several steps before the sacrament became part of canon law in the 16th century.
> 
> What is the history of marriage? | USCatholic.org
> 
> Internet experts are quite humorous...


Oh please. What a joke.

At least I know what I am talking about. You were saying it was a sacrament for 2000 years. Hello? I bet you $5 you even had to look that up.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> Gee, even Bishop Usher admits that the Earth is older than 2,000 years. 2,000 is just a blip in the timeline.....
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief. You really think this is constructive debate?


I don't know - don't you think it is constructive in a debate to correct an incorrect statement? Do you know what a debate is? When someone makes a statement, that statement is open to be criticized and/or corrected by the opponent.

As for 2,000 years, be reminded that was correcting an erroneous statement that marriage is historically a civil union - which (as I said) is incorrect to 80 million Catholics and millions of others in the US. Do you seriously want to challenge that? Also, please be reminded that 2,000 years is not a "blip" in historical times. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they call the true "olden days" PREhistorical, because we don't really know what Grogg was thinking about when he dragged his new bride home by the hair...


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> Bwahaha...study some history. Did you not read what I told you? If not, I will repeat it - marriage has been a holy sacrament in the Catholic Church for nearly 2,000 years.
> .


I'm talking about history BEFORE the church... did you not read what I posted? Go look it up. Marriage existed before religion... imagine that.

I'm not arguing that marriage has been a holy sacrament in the catholic church for nearly 2000 years. I'm simply saying marriage was a civil union way before it was a religious one. Just because the church sees it as a religious union does not nullify that fact that it is a civil union.


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> If you had an inkling of what you were talking about, you would know that marriage was first declared a sacrament in the 5th century, and went through several steps before the sacrament became part of canon law in the 16th century.
> 
> What is the history of marriage? | USCatholic.org
> 
> Internet experts are quite humorous...


 
I read this in your site, too....



> The fifth-century Council of Florence declared, “The seventh sacrament is marriage, which is a figure of the union of Christ and the church.” This declaration, *however, was issued to clarify the relationship between Christ and the church.* Thanks to its societal ubiquity,* marriage was a handy metaphor.*
> 
> Fifteen hundred years after Cana, during the seventh session of the Council of Trent in *1547, sacramental marriage became part of canon law.* Centuries of local tradition, political interference, and conflicting religious opinions over what constituted a valid marriage faded as this critical change finally enabled the church to rule more consistently and effectively on marriage questions.


Always read the WHOLE article before posting.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> Oh - now it is "offensive" to have an opinion? I suppose it is OK for liberals and homosexuals to have their opinions, but not a conservative opposed to homosexual "marriage"? I oppose homosexual marriage, and think it is a farce and a joke, but I don't find those with a differing opinion "offensive".
> 
> What a hypocrite...


You can be opposed to whatever you want and say you don't believe in gay marriage as much as you'd like to... that's your opinion and I don't give a rat's *** how many times you express it.

But saying you don't expect gays to be religious is not simply an opinion... it is a preconceived notion based on no facts... the very definition of prejudice. Look it up. Better yet, I'll do it for you:
Let me google that for you


----------



## Faceman

RedHorseRidge said:


> But saying you don't expect gays to be religious is not simply an opinion... it is a preconceived notion based on no facts... the very definition of prejudice. Look it up. Better yet, I'll do it for you:
> Let me google that for you


You know what they say about assumptions.

I have very few "preconceived notions" - probably due to my age and having lived all over the world. What makes you think my opinions are based upon preconceived notions rather than observation?

I don't know how many homosexuals I have known - maybe 200 - 300 I suspect...some in the Army, some in college, some at work, some in my travels, and some just friends or acquaintances. I have had maybe 15 or 20 work directly for me over the years, and I have a couple of homosexual relatives, an uncle and a nephew. Among those I know or have known, I have yet to meet one that cared much about God or about religion in general. Should it be a revelation or "offensive" that I would be surprised if homosexuals cared much about religion?

Now that is not to say those that don't care may not be justified. After all, they have been shunned by most churches throughout history. Why would it be a surprise to anyone if they were hesitant to go where they have not been welcome. And as I have made clear ad nauseum, I think homosexuals should be treated the same way as everyone else. I certainly don't support excluding them from church - or anything else for that matter.

I am constantly amazed at how people find someone that lives in the real world "offensive". The world is what it is - I didn't make it that way, and I have done my part to try to right what wrongs I can within my little corner of it. But it is foolish to, in the effort to be politically correct, to close one's eyes to the real world. Problems are NEVER solved by ignoring them - they are solved by recognizing them, admitting they are problems, confronting them, and trying to resolve them...


----------



## Faceman

RedHorseRidge said:


> I'm talking about history BEFORE the church... did you not read what I posted? Go look it up. Marriage existed before religion... imagine that.
> 
> I'm not arguing that marriage has been a holy sacrament in the catholic church for nearly 2000 years. I'm simply saying marriage was a civil union way before it was a religious one. Just because the church sees it as a religious union does not nullify that fact that it is a civil union.


Yes, I read what you posted. Did YOU read what you posted yourself?...:rofl:

You said...


> Marriage, historically has been a civil institution


You did NOT say anything at all about "before the church".

I cannot read your mind - I can what read what you write and respond to that...


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> I read this in your site, too....
> 
> 
> 
> Always read the WHOLE article before posting.


And why would you think I hadn't read the entire article? Or hundreds of others over the years. I am not a 5 minute internet "expert" like some.

Nothing you quoted in the article conflicted with anything I have said. Actually, thank you for doing the copy and paste, as it merely confirms what I said to those that didn't link to the article...


----------



## natisha

Joe4d said:


> and hence my point. Gods view, or whether you think it is good or bad isnt relevant. I cant speak for God, I do know it isnt my place to judge others for actions that dont affect me.
> I think gays should have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. WHy should they get off so easy ?


I sure agree with that! If I were in a gay relationship I'd be glad there was no pressure to marry. 
Sure, marriage can be great, until it isn't.
Now, if gay people or any unmarried couple wants to split up, they just do. They agree what each will take etc., sometimes they can even remain friends. Enter the divorce lawyers & pretty soon they are fighting over the value of barn cats.

If Government gives you permission to marry then you have to ask their permission to unmarry (is that a word?)

There are contracts to cover single couples in every aspect of life or you can make your own. No big tax advantage to being married that I see. Even heath insurance for married people is considered a family/group policy & can be more costly than 2 single plans. Also you get to be responsible for half of all debt.
His/her bad name can become yours. 

Divorce lawyers are the only ones that will benefit in the long run. Meetings, court dates, back & forth bantering all costs money & breeds resentment.

I personally don't think any marriage is smart though I would consider marrying some rich guy who just entered hospice care if I didn't already have a contract making me his heir. 

I don't oppose gay marriage any more than I oppose all marriage.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> You did NOT say anything at all about "before the church".


So, what you're saying is "historical" does not involve a time when there was no churches? Whatever...

Historically means "throughout history." LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU. Marriage started as a civil union before it was a religious institution (because marriages were being performed BEFORE there was a catholic church) and it CONTINUES to be a civil institution even today... Yes some view it ALSO as a religious union, but that view didn't exist for quite some time after marriages were first being done and that doesn't change the fact that historically, marriage was, and still is, a civil union. 

I honestly don't understand what you don't understand about this... ? Historically, marriage has been a civil institution. It was created as a civil union and is still today a civil union. Just because some associate religious overtones with it does NOT mean it is not a civil union.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> I cannot read your mind - I can what read what you write and respond to that...


You don't have to read my mind... you just have to know the definition of a word like "historically."


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> Oh - now it is "offensive" to have an opinion?


If my "opinion" were that I expect all conservatives to be bible carrying, red neck, gun toting, illiterate jeso-facist freaks, you don't think that would be offensive? Boy, I sure do.

If my "opinion" were that I expected ALL catholics to be arrogant, judgmental, intolerant, and felt free to sin all week as long as they could confess every Sunday, you wouldn't find that offensive? I sure do.


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> You know what they say about assumptions.
> 
> I have very few "preconceived notions" -


:shock:





> The world is what it is - I didn't make it that way, and I have done my part to try to right what wrongs I can within my little corner of it.


Well, in my opinion it is people who seem so able to make huge judgements based on narrow view of the evidence before them that seem to make much of the tension in this country. Yes, I am judgemental too. However, I am still open to being inclusive rather than exclusive. That is a wholly different viewpoint of the world. I love the differences in people and cultures, which is why I go to places so far off the beaten path for long periods in my travels. Other people just seem to want people to conform to their view of what is correct.



> But it is foolish to, in the effort to be politically correct, to close one's eyes to the real world. Problems are NEVER solved by ignoring them - they are solved by recognizing them, admitting they are problems, confronting them, and trying to resolve them...


I guess it is just safe to say people will draw vastly different conclusions even if they are looking at the same information. I am almost the same age as you, have traveled likely more extensively in more "off the beaten path" locales, have had job experiences that have gone the gamit from mountain rescue paramedic to corporate world, and now a patrol supervisor and yet I see things so totally differently.

*My view is neither more correct OR less correct than yours!* I just believe in live and let live. I would much rather see things from my eyes where people are not so hastily judged by their beliefs, not even you, than to see things from such a negative perspective.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Faceman said:


> But it is foolish to, in the effort to be politically correct, to close one's eyes to the real world. Problems are NEVER solved by ignoring them - they are solved by recognizing them, admitting they are problems, confronting them, and trying to resolve them...


Being gay is not a "problem." Being gay is not something that has to be "resolved." But I will agree that their lack of a federal right to be married IS a problem that can't be ignored, needs to be recognized, needs to be confronted, and needs to be resolved ... see, we can agree on some things.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Face, you should check out the book "Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation." It focuses on marriage exclusively in America. Even this book (which does not include any other cultures or any other nations, and only focuses on the nature of marriage since America was formed and excludes all other historical marriage information) concludes that marriage in America was and is definitely treated as a private, civil contract between two people versus a religious institution. This is not saying some people didn't/don't treat it as the latter; it's simply saying "from the beginning," marriage in America was always treated as a contract first. One can find similar information regarding marriage, historically, being a civil contract in pretty much any document/article written about the history or marriage. So in short, this book is saying historically, in American, marriage has been a civil union. The same is true of marriage around the world.

Many people against gay marriage are arguing that marriage is essentially and necessarily a religious rite and view marriage in almost exclusively religious terms. For them, legalizing gay marriage is basically sacrilege... and is often seen as government butting into a religious matter. And while it is true that religion has played a role in sanctifying marriages in the past (but not throughout all of history as I have pointed out), this view is understandable... but this view is incorrect. Marriage, by definition, is neither _essentially _or _necessarily _a religious rite.

The fact is marriage, to be considered legal, must be recognized by the government, not the church. Marriage does not need a religious component to be considered valid.


----------



## texasgal




----------



## Joe4d

natisha said:


> I sure agree with that! If I were in a gay relationship I'd be glad there was no pressure to marry.
> Sure, marriage can be great, until it isn't.
> Now, if gay people or any unmarried couple wants to split up, they just do. They agree what each will take etc., sometimes they can even remain friends. Enter the divorce lawyers & pretty soon they are fighting over the value of barn cats.
> 
> If Government gives you permission to marry then you have to ask their permission to unmarry (is that a word?)
> 
> There are contracts to cover single couples in every aspect of life or you can make your own. No big tax advantage to being married that I see. Even heath insurance for married people is considered a family/group policy & can be more costly than 2 single plans. Also you get to be responsible for half of all debt.
> His/her bad name can become yours.
> 
> Divorce lawyers are the only ones that will benefit in the long run. Meetings, court dates, back & forth bantering all costs money & breeds resentment.
> 
> I personally don't think any marriage is smart though I would consider marrying some rich guy who just entered hospice care if I didn't already have a contract making me his heir.
> 
> I don't oppose gay marriage any more than I oppose all marriage.




BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER !
 why on earth anyone in their right mind with any assets, or hope of acquiring some in the future would consider a legal marriage is beyond me.


----------



## SlideStop

Joe4d said:


> BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER !
> why on earth anyone in their right mind with any assets, or hope of acquiring some in the future would consider a legal marriage is beyond me.


It's funny, people choose to do it regardless. My parents fought over a MICROWAVE (our primary source of food as kids) when they were getting divorced. You should appreciate you can wake up one morning and say "wow, marriage is over rated, I won't get married". Even of you (or whoever else) think its overrated, who are you (again, not you personally) to make that decision for another person?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joe4d

My X's lawyer tried to get my divorce contested over interest on a couple hundred bucks I refused to pay till divorce was signed. The judge actually laughed when I fipped a quarter across the table and said, "that should cover it till I get out to the car and get my checkbook." 
Go to church, have your wedding, have your party, Why on earth get the government involved ?


----------



## SlideStop

Joe4d said:


> My X's lawyer tried to get my divorce contested over interest on a couple hundred bucks I refused to pay till divorce was signed. The judge actually laughed when I fipped a quarter across the table and said, "that should cover it till I get out to the car and get my checkbook."
> Go to church, have your wedding, have your party, Why on earth get the government involved ?


Because the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage and sees couples as "just friends" when, in fact, its deeper then that. There are over 1000 benefits, whether good or not, the federal government with holds. 

Idk if you know about the case in that has gone to supreme court but I'll cliff note it for you. Basically this woman's spouse passes away after 45 years of being together and legally married in the state of NY (their home state). Her spouse passes and leaves her the estate. That's well and good, except she was made to pay $360,000 of taxes on the property. If her spouse was a man the total of taxes she would of had to pay is $0. Fair? I think not. 

Sure, there are down points to marriage but that's why you should pick your partner CAREFULLY no matter what sexual orientation you are.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

Joe4d said:


> My X's lawyer tried to get my divorce contested over interest on a couple hundred bucks I refused to pay till divorce was signed. The judge actually laughed when I fipped a quarter across the table and said, "that should cover it till I get out to the car and get my checkbook."
> Go to church, have your wedding, have your party, Why on earth get the government involved ?


And one more thing, although a church might preform a same-sex wedding its not recognize within the entire institution. Recognition by the church would be great, but that's a whole 'bother battle.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag

If a person undergoes a sex change, that is recognized and the person is issued a new birth certificate. This means that with all same sex partners, one needs to have a sex change in order to be recognized under the law.


----------



## SlideStop

Saddlebag said:


> If a person undergoes a sex change, that is recognized and the person is issued a new birth certificate. This means that with all same sex partners, one needs to have a sex change in order to be recognized under the law.


...then they will be opposite sex partners. 

Gay/lesbian don't want to be the opposite sex. I'm a woman who loves other women. Not a man hater or a man wanna be, just a lesbian. I would NEVER want to be a man and I would certainly struggle is my partner wanted a sex change.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag

Faceman, have you ever wondered why those homosexuals you've know didn't seem to have any religious interest? Because there is always some a**hole who will make snide remarks. So by avoiding the topic and not attending church they save themselves a lot of grief. Has anyone ever wondered what it is like to be a kid knowing you are different and your parents are anti gay.No communication there so the child will grow up feeling very much alone.


----------



## HoofHearted

On the topic of the impact of growing up in a same-sex parent household on kids, my father is on wife #3 and my mother is looking for a husband of the same iteration. I'd say the odds of the dynamics of a married gay couple doing any more "damage" to a kid than was done to me or many kids similarly situated is unlikely. If people are so concerned about the impact on children of growing up in a same-sex parent household, championing or at least maintaining an accepting, live and let live attitude, such that these kids wouldn't have to grow up in a society that made them feel like outcasts or oddities, would go a long way toward reducing any such impact.

My brother-in-law is gay. He's a great guy. He's great with my girls - loves 'em to death. I wouldn't see him denied the right to have kids of his own just because he was born attracted to a different type of consenting adult, and I wouldn't see him denied the right to marry for that reason, either, especially if he can offer a loving, stable home, which is apparently becoming increasingly rare for children these days.

As for the sanctity of the institution of marriage, I think heterosexuals have already done too much damage to it for homosexuals to have much impact at this point.  

For goodness sake, let 'em drink from the same water fountain, already.


----------



## Faceman

Saddlebag said:


> Faceman, have you ever wondered why those homosexuals you've know didn't seem to have any religious interest? Because there is always some a**hole who will make snide remarks. So by avoiding the topic and not attending church they save themselves a lot of grief. Has anyone ever wondered what it is like to be a kid knowing you are different and your parents are anti gay.No communication there so the child will grow up feeling very much alone.


No, I don't wonder at all...I know - which you should know if you read my post in its entirety...


----------



## Saddlebag

Slide I was just pointing out the stupidity of the laws, that in order that your relationship with another woman be recognized one of you would have to undergo surgery. The laws condone genital mutilation, oh, my mistake, a sex change.


----------



## SlideStop

Saddlebag said:


> Slide I was just pointing out the stupidity of the laws, that in order that your relationship with another woman be recognized one of you would have to undergo surgery. The laws condone genital mutilation, oh, my mistake, a sex change.


Sorry I realized that after I read your post. I kind of thought it had a sarcastic tone, sorry! I should of posted something afterwards.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## natisha

SlideStop said:


> Because the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage and sees couples as "just friends" when, in fact, its deeper then that. There are over 1000 benefits, whether good or not, the federal government with holds.
> 
> Idk if you know about the case in that has gone to supreme court but I'll cliff note it for you. Basically this woman's spouse passes away after 45 years of being together and legally married in the state of NY (their home state). Her spouse passes and leaves her the estate. That's well and good, except she was made to pay $360,000 of taxes on the property. If her spouse was a man the total of taxes she would of had to pay is $0. Fair? I think not.
> 
> Sure, there are down points to marriage but that's why you should pick your partner CAREFULLY no matter what sexual orientation you are.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If both names had been on the estate she would have gotten it all without taxes. Also each should will their half to the other so family can't step in. No marriage is need for those things.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

natisha said:


> If both names had been on the estate she would have gotten it all without taxes... No marriage is need for those things.


Not true everywhere. In my state only property owned jointly by husband and wife is exempt from inheritance taxes. The same is true for jointly owned cars, bank accounts, etc. The joint owners must be married to avoid the tax.

Whether a couple is married for purposes of the federal estate-tax marital deduction can hinge on whether the couple is considered "married" under the law of the state in which the partner dies. And DOMA hasn't helped either.


----------



## SlideStop

natisha said:


> If both names had been on the estate she would have gotten it all without taxes. Also each should will their half to the other so family can't step in. No marriage is need for those things.



Yeah, she can will the estate to her, but the government will still make you pay taxes on it. Unless you are legally spouses you can't just will an asset, like a car or house. For example a family friend of mine, on paper, "gave" me a car for $0. I STILL have to pay tax on the book value of the car even though it was given to me. If the eyes of the government they were just friends, not married and not family, therefore she does not get her inheritance.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

SlideStop said:


> Yeah, she can will the estate to her, but the government will still make you pay taxes on it. Unless you are legally spouses you can't just will an asset, like a car or house. For example a family friend of mine, on paper, "gave" me a car for $0. I STILL have to pay tax on the book value of the car even though it was given to me. If the eyes of the government they were just friends, not married and not family, therefore she does not get her inheritance.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes and no. The tax consequences is actually no different whether leaving an asset to a spouse than it is to a total stranger. What comes into play is a spouse's claim on whatever the asset may be, and that varies from state to state...some states are community property states, some are not, and some incorporate some variation of community property.

Quite honestly, if a person left enough to incur taxes that high, considering the exempt amount, they should have been of sufficient means to go to a CPA or tax attorney and make arrangements, either through a trust or life insurance vehicle to avoid or compensate for that much tax to be incurred without an offset. I mean no disrespect for or to anyone, but this sounds like a serious lack of financial planning to me by someone to whom professional financial and estate planning was easily within their means...


----------



## Corazon Lock

No matter what the Bible says, it is important to remember that not everyone believes in God - and yes, I'm a Christian saying this. I say let people live their own lives. When they go to heaven, they will have to face their sins. It's not our burden to carry; it's theirs.

And people tend to overlook the fact that the Bible tells people not to judge others...HMM...

Basically, it's none of my business how a person wants to live their life unless it's endangering themselves or others. I don't think gay marriage or even homosexuality is dangerous compared to drugs, alcohol, murder...the list goes on...


----------



## Canterklutz

No, people just pick and chose what parts of the Bible they wish to follow and enforce upon others. 

You polyester-wearing heathens.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

In pondering what same sex marriage could mean for inheritance taxes, Jeremy Irons commented that fathers and sons could be "gay married" to avoid paying those taxes... good grief. I wonder why no one has pointed out to him that daughters aren't trying to marry their fathers now to avoid it...


----------



## SlideStop

RedHorseRidge said:


> In pondering what same sex marriage could mean for inheritance taxes, Jeremy Irons commented that fathers and sons could be "gay married" to avoid paying those taxes... good grief. I wonder why no one has pointed out to him that daughters aren't trying to marry their fathers now to avoid it...


Nothing gets under my skin more then arguments like this....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

And honestly, this case already made it through to supreme court. I think the legal professionals would have figured it out long ago if this was a case of "ops, forgot to put my name on the estate". I don't believe any of us, and correct me if I'm wrong, know the law like the people who work with it everyday. 

If this was her husband she would (as far as I know) automatically squire the estate, tax free. She was engaged, and living with her, then eventually married for 45 years... They clearly aren't "just friends" , they might as well be strangers in the eyes of the federal government.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop

Faceman said:


> Yes and no. The tax consequences is actually no different whether leaving an asset to a spouse than it is to a total stranger. What comes into play is a spouse's claim on whatever the asset may be, and that varies from state to state...some states are community property states, some are not, and some incorporate some variation of community property.
> 
> Quite honestly, if a person left enough to incur taxes that high, considering the exempt amount, they should have been of sufficient means to go to a CPA or tax attorney and make arrangements, either through a trust or life insurance vehicle to avoid or compensate for that much tax to be incurred without an offset. I mean no disrespect for or to anyone, but this sounds like a serious lack of financial planning to me by someone to whom professional financial and estate planning was easily within their means...


Or maybe this was a strategic move in hopes to be able to fight DOMA... Which I believe it is. Idk the financial status of these women, but they certainly comfortable financial and well educated, if not very intelligent. You don't acquire taxes that high on an estate when you live pay check to pay check. I bet this was a well thought out plan because you are right, financial planning is WELL within their reach. Plus she is 80 fricking 3, really, what does she have to lose. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joe4d

I dont see inheritance tax being an issue, faceman nailed it. If you are having a problem with inheritance tax you screwed up. Go find an accountant or a tax lawyer. Also term life is dirt cheap if you get it while young Take out a bit extra to cover the taxes.
Id rather buy a bit of life insurance to cover an inheritance tax, than pay a divorce lawyer.


----------



## RedHorseRidge

Joe4d said:


> If you are having a problem with inheritance tax you screwed up.


While federal taxes may have been avoidable by planning (up to a point as there are still gift taxes that might need to be addressed as well as proof the surviving partner contributed to home/accounts/etc which "legally" married couples don't have to worry about), state taxes may have to be paid regardless of how much planning was done. Here is PA, only joint property owned by husband and wife is exempt from inheritance taxes. If we weren't married, and if my spouse died, I'd have to cough up 15% of everything we own, from our farm, to our cars, to our savings accounts and stocks. 

A hundred acre farm with a nice house and barn around here goes for just shy of $2million... and 15% of that is about $300k... $300K that the survivor of a hetero marriage would never have to pay, but the survivor of a same sex marriage does. No amount of planning is going to change that.


----------



## Faceman

SlideStop said:


> If this was her husband she would (as far as I know) automatically squire the estate, tax free. She was engaged, and living with her, then eventually married for 45 years... They clearly aren't "just friends" , they might as well be strangers in the eyes of the federal government.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She wouldn't necessarily inherit the estate tax free - it depends upon the size of the estate. However, if they were joined legally in a civil union or "marriage", the surviving partner would have claim on 50% or some portion of the estate, as their own personally owned property, so would pay tax on whatever amount of the remaining portion was above the amount exempted from estate taxation. That is most likely the actual issue at hand, and is likely what the case is pleading for - sort of like pleading for spousal rights based upon a common law marriage, although as I think I said, I am not familiar with the case itself.

Stuff like this is exactly why, although I (obviously) vehemently oppose homosexual marriage, I feel there should be a civil union available that is recognized by all states, that gives homosexual partners the same legal rights as heterosexual partners. While it is not necessary to condone homosexuality, and trust me, I don't, it is unfair, discriminatory, and downright immoral to punish homosexuals just for being homosexual.

As for whether it was done intentionally to establish a precedent, I wouldn't of course know. It is certainly possible...some people are strongly guided by principles and the desire to effect change...


----------



## SlideStop

Right off this website: Capital Acquisitions Tax

"Introduction:

If you receive a gift, you may have to pay Gift Tax on it. If you receive an inheritance following a death, it may be liable to Inheritance Tax. Both these taxes are types of Capital Acquisitions Tax.

The benefit (the gift or inheritance) is taxed if its value is over a certain limit or threshold. Different tax-free thresholds apply depending on the relationship between the disponer (the person giving the benefit) and the beneficiary (the person receiving the benefit). There are also a number of exemptions and reliefs that depend on the type of the gift or inheritance.

_If you receive a gift or inheritance from your spouse or civil partner, you are exempt from Capital Acquisitions Tax._"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

SlideStop said:


> Right off this website: Capital Acquisitions Tax
> 
> "Introduction:
> 
> If you receive a gift, you may have to pay Gift Tax on it. If you receive an inheritance following a death, it may be liable to Inheritance Tax. Both these taxes are types of Capital Acquisitions Tax.
> 
> The benefit (the gift or inheritance) is taxed if its value is over a certain limit or threshold. Different tax-free thresholds apply depending on the relationship between the disponer (the person giving the benefit) and the beneficiary (the person receiving the benefit). There are also a number of exemptions and reliefs that depend on the type of the gift or inheritance.
> 
> _If you receive a gift or inheritance from your spouse or civil partner, you are exempt from Capital Acquisitions Tax._"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know if you live in Ireland or if you did not realize that site pertains to Ireland - not the US...in either case, Irish and US taxation laws are not identical...


----------



## SlideStop

Faceman said:


> I don't know if you live in Ireland or if you did not realize that site pertains to Ireland - not the US...in either case, Irish and US taxation laws are not identical...


Holy. Face. Palm. Moment.

My bad...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SouthernTrails

.

Inheritance Tax, Estate Tax, Gift Tax, all have the same thing in common, they are payable by the recipient regardless if the giver and receiver were married.

At least that is the way I read the IRS Code....

.


----------



## Faceman

SlideStop said:


> Holy. Face. Palm. Moment.
> 
> My bad...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Haha...it's not like the rest of us haven't done the same thing...:rofl:


----------



## RedHorseRidge

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> .
> Inheritance Tax, Estate Tax, Gift Tax, all have the same thing in common, they are payable by the recipient regardless if the giver and receiver were married.


While estate tax laws generally allow married heterosexuals to transfer unlimited assets to their spouses at death without incurring estate tax liability, those in same-sex relationships are limited in their ability to transfer assets tax-free to their same-sex partner upon death.

From what I can ascertain (and what I have found out from my friend in a same sex marriage) there are "marital deductions" that hetero married couples can get but same-sex couples cannot.

So, yes, while taxes are taxes and everyone pays them, the amounts certainly can differ...


----------



## Samstead

well speaking as a Christian with several queer friends, one of whom is Christian s well, I couldn't care less who you fall in love with and marry, as long as they treat you right. I don't see why someone's marriage is anybody else's business, saying someone elses choices/lifestyle/anything is against your religion is like complaining about someone eating a donut when YOU'RE on a diet.


----------



## SlideStop

Well said Samstead! 

I don't like how 1) homosexuals get pinned as religion hating. Not true. 2) Religious people as a whole get pegged at homosexual hating, again not true. 

I've noticed a lot more churches becoming more "gay friendly" lately. Honestly, fast forward 10 or 20 years and there will be way less homophobia in the world, the church included!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Samstead

SlideStop said:


> Well said Samstead!
> 
> I don't like how 1) homosexuals get pinned as religion hating. Not true. 2) Religious people as a whole get pegged at homosexual hating, again not true.
> 
> I've noticed a lot more churches becoming more "gay friendly" lately. Honestly, fast forward 10 or 20 years and there will be way less homophobia in the world, the church included!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I wish we could really fast forward like that, I'm sick and tired of my friends getting picked on for being who they are.


----------



## SlideStop

Samstead said:


> I wish we could really fast forward like that, I'm sick and tired of my friends getting picked on for being who they are.


Your telling me! :wink:

Homosexuality is very mainstream now. It's in the TV shows, on the news, in the schools, etc. It's only a matter of time before political leaders, and other influential members of society, come up to rank with the belief that being gay is nothing to be afraid of! The waiting game is definitely gonna suck though. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag

When the same sex marriage controversy was raging, I personally was fine with it but a dear Evangelical Christian friend was vehemently opposed and could quote chapter and verse from the Bible. She had been venting for days and couldn't understand why I wasn't upset. I'd had about enough and looked her square in the eye and said, because it doesn't affect me one way or the other nor does it affect you. Who the hell are you to deny these people marrying the ones they love. Did that stop her rant, nope, she came up with more scriptures and I had to walk away. This is what not only homosexuals have to deal with, so do atheists. I was taught to be tolerant by a wise father.


----------



## Samstead

Saddlebag said:


> When the same sex marriage controversy was raging, I personally was fine with it but a dear Evangelical Christian friend was vehemently opposed and could quote chapter and verse from the Bible. She had been venting for days and couldn't understand why I wasn't upset. I'd had about enough and looked her square in the eye and said, because it doesn't affect me one way or the other nor does it affect you. Who the hell are you to deny these people marrying the ones they love. Did that stop her rant, nope, she came up with more scriptures and I had to walk away. This is what not only homosexuals have to deal with, so do atheists. I was taught to be tolerant by a wise father.


and that's the mind of person who gives Christians a a bad rap, we can't force people to live a certain way or believe a certain thing.


----------



## dbarabians

What always amazes me is that the very people that will quote the bible to condemn homosexuals refuse to acknowledge the laws that they themselves break or ignore.
Their excuse is usually that times have changed. Why cant they apply that reasoning to this issue.
The fact is two men or two women getting married has no bearing on your relationship. It does not demean your marriage and only can if YOU allow it.
Those 1100 rights denied same sex couples are so important to heterosexuals that IMO they should demand that all couples are assured them.
Denying anyone fundamental rights is what demeans your relationship. Shalom


----------



## Saddlebag

If one delves historically into the Bible it is not an original book. It was written by hundreds of writers long after Jesus supposedly lived. There were something like 5500 pages written by less than well educated writers, starting with Greek. Then somewhere along the line, various parts of these 5500 pages were translated time and again. We all know that getting a precise meaning when translating can get difficult. So the bible became translations of translations with enormous amounts of editing which has caused discrepancies in events, times and places. It was the invention of the printing press that resulted in the greatest amount of editing. We don't know how many of the "scholars" changed stories to make them sound better. Our media does this all the time and people believe it. Somewhere in the bible it tells "Christians" to stone their children who don't believe in God. I wonder how many of the homosexual condemners have stoned their children?


----------

