what would you say to her? : same sex marriage

[firemachine69]

also, I really dont understand how anybody can be against it ...it really doesnt affect you in any way

oh and a religion cannot be forced to perform a same-sex marriage

Bingo. Why do people care about others if it doesn't affect them? Never really understood that...

 

[Sainku]

also, I really dont understand how anybody can be against it ...it really doesnt affect you in any way

No it doesnt affect me in any way shape or form, but a lot of religious people feel it affects them ( what they percieve as their freedom I assume ). Marrige being called a civil union does not affect homosexuals, but it makes most of those religious people feel better.

 

[CptStern]

No it doesnt affect me in any way shape or form, but a lot of religious people feel it affects them. Marrige being called a civil union does not affect homosexuals, but it makes most of those religious people feel better.

you cant make laws to protect the majority against the minority ..it's an issue of human rights, plain and simple

the religious people you cite who would be affected by it are inconsequential, as it has absolutely nothing to do with them ..marriage is NOT a religious institution

 

[CptStern]

Bingo. Why do people care about others if it doesn't affect them? Never really understood that...

there is only one reason ...intolerance

 

[Sainku]

..marriage is NOT a religious institution

That was my point, if religious people feel it is religious, let them have the term. What the government does should be called civil contracts or unions. Civil unions would not just be for homosexuals but everyone who does not follow a particular religion which preforms marriage itself. The the government would have nothing to with marriage and could not force the church to preform any activities which it does not approve of. Everyone is happy, no one is being discriminated against. There are a lot of christian people in this country and to just give them the middle finger and infringe on what they percieve as their right to marriage would be insane.

I still prefer that this be left up to the states however.

 

[CptStern]

That was my point, if religious people feel it is religious, let them have the term. What the government does should be called civil contracts or unions. Civil unions would not just be for homosexuals but everyone who does not follow a particular religion which preforms marriage itself.

but by what criteria would you define marriage? religions are extreme in thei opposing views, I doubt they could come to a consensus

The the government would .....could not force the church to preform any activities which it does not approve of.

in canada that's already the norm

Everyone is happy, no one is being discriminated against.

this has nothing to do with happiness ...many many people were unwilling to accept integration of blacks with whites in america but that didnt make a lick of difference because when it comes to human rights there is no place for "indivdual opinions"

There are a lot of christian people in this country and to just give them the middle finger and infringe on what they percieve as their right to marriage would be insane.

what about the buddists, muslims, jews etc? do they not count or is america christian? really this has nothing to do with religion, religions dont have to perform it ..it's about intolerance

I still prefer that this be left up to the states however.

it should be up to the federal government ..you dont vote on human rights ..it should be a given

 

[K e r b e r o s]

towards perfection

Perfection is a goal, not a state.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

comes to human rights there is no place for "indivdual opinions"

No, there should be the option for individual opinions. However, I believe you should be able to have whatever union you want, and coin whatever term you want with it.

 

[Sainku]

what about the buddists, muslims, jews etc? do they not count or is america christian? really this has nothing to do with religion, religions dont have to perform it ..it's about intolerance

I meant religious when I said christian, apologies. Religion ignorance and intolerance are best buddies.

 

[RZAL]

Before this could happen I bet we would have to modify our current system.
What comes too mind is increased litigation in divorce courts, along with a number of equal protection law suites, possibly increased insurance and medical cost, increased insurance frauds so on and so fourth. Other questions would have to be defined such as, in a same sex marriage, who gets the house, who gets the kids, who gets alimony, who gets custody over visitation. If the laws were equal then how do you decide who the female equivalent is? If you don’t decide then you just set a president for the traditional couple too follow, both sides would have to be equal and I don’t think women will ever allow men to get the upper hand in court.

Not saying it couldn’t be worked out, but I do believe it would cause havoc with our current system.

 

[CptStern]

No, there should be the option for individual opinions.

no, human rights are universal ...public opinion has no place in deciding how it's implemented

 

[CptStern]

Before this could happen I bet we would have to modify our current system.
What comes too mind is increased litigation in divorce courts, along with a number of equal protection law suites, possibly increased insurance and medical cost, increased insurance frauds so on and so fourth. Other questions would have to be defined such as, in a same sex marriage, who gets the house, who gets the kids, who gets alimony, who gets custody over visitation. If the laws were equal then how do you decide who the female equivalent is? If you don’t decide then you just set a president for the traditional couple too follow, both sides would have to be equal and I don’t think women will ever allow men to get the upper hand in court.

Not saying it couldn’t be worked out, but I do believe it would cause havoc with our current system.

in child custoday cases courts almost always split the responsibilities 50/50 so it's a non-issue ...it's pretty easy to implement as is the case in canada which pretty much happened overnight

 

[RZAL]

in child custoday cases courts almost always split the responsibilities 50/50 so it's a non-issue ...it's pretty easy to implement as is the case in canada which pretty much happened overnight

Who has primary custody in Canada? The US has 50/50 custody also but the woman is generally the primary custodian who is awarded child support and allowed to deduct it on taxes, not the man.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not really sure but custody is 50/50

 

[RZAL]

I'm not really sure but custody is 50/50

The way your making it sound is so simple, if it is that way I wish America would adopt it.

 

[CptStern]

it is simple ...the law changed over night ...but that's best left to lawyers to argue as my limited knowledge of the intricacies of the law stems from watching one too many Law and order episodes


oh and it's just a matter of finding "separate but equal" unconstitutional

 

[seinfeldrules]

no it's about having separate laws for separate groups

"separate but equal"

See, I am not proposing seperate laws. I am proposing a different word to signify a union between a man and a man. Nothing different, except a word. That is why I find it hard to draw a comparison between Civil Unions and the civil rights movement. There would be no seperate laws, no seperate conditions, only different words. They would both fall under the legal rights of a 'union'. 'Union' would signify all legal joinings (mainly marriages and 'Civil Unions').

it just gets hard to put a point across when people's judgements are clouded by personal opinions. It's such a volitile issue that raises the ire of many religious people

If that was directed at me, I was not cross in my rebuttal, nor am I very religious. And is your view not clouded by personal opinion? Saying otherwise would be foolish. We all have opinions to guide our judgements, or else we would be mere robots.

 

[CptStern]

but it doesnt ...civil union would only be for gays and marriage for everybody else .."separate but equal"

And is your view not clouded by personal opinion?

no, what motive could I possibly have in gays having the right to marry? I'm not gay

 

[seinfeldrules]

but it doesnt ...civil union would only be for gays and marriage for everybody else .."separate but equal"

Civil Unions would only be for gays.
Marriage would only be for heterosexuals, not 'everybody else'.

no, what motive could I possibly have in gays having the right to marry? I'm not gay

Are you saying you hold no opinion on this matter? I dont know where or how you picked it up, but you surely have one.

 

[CptStern]

Civil Unions would only be for gays.
Marriage would only be for heterosexuals, not 'everybody else'.

isnt that what I just said? and how is that not "separate but equal"?

Are you saying you hold no opinion on this matter? I dont know where or how you picked it up, but you surely have one.

of course I have an opinion, but it has to with human rights ...I'd be advocating the same thing regardless of which group it is

 

[seinfeldrules]

isnt that what I just said? and how is that not "separate but equal"?

You said 'everybody else' as if there was some large void out there other than homosexualtiy and heterosexuality. I am proposing that different unions be established to represent the two forms of sexuality that currently exist. It would be a basic word tree. 'Union' would be at the top, branching off from that would be 'Marriage' and 'Civil Unions'. Just as 'sexuality' is the top word, and 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' branch of from that. All legal activity and other conditions would apply to 'Unions'.

of course I have an opinion

Ok then, it is also clouding your judgement. Just because you believe your opinion is 100% correct doesnt mean it is.

 

[CptStern]

still doesnt change the fact that's it's "separate but equal"


seinfeldrules can you just accept it? I'm tired of continuously writing "separate but equal"

Ok then, it is also clouding your judgement. Just because you believe your opinion is 100% correct doesnt mean it is.

I am 100% correct because it's a human rights issue, there is no avoiding it ..the only reason to ban it is intolerance ...if not for the fact that the religious right controls your government it would been have deeemed unconstitutional a long time ago


seriously seinfeldrules if you can come up with a legal reason why it shouldnt be legalised than I will concede

 

[seinfeldrules]

seinfeldrules can you just accept it? I'm tired of continuously writing "separate but equal"

I'll accept that after you accept my point of view. I'm not going to change my position because you asked me to

 

[CptStern]

I'll accept that after you accept my point of view. I'm not going to change my position because you asked me to

look above, I edited my post


I'll accept your points when you can provide a valid reason ...so far you havent

 

[seinfeldrules]

if not for the fact that the religious right controls your government it would been have deeemed unconstitutional a long time ago

I believe Clinton was in charge for what? 8 years?

I'll accept your points when you can provide a valid reason ...so far you havent

Same for you.

 

[CptStern]

I believe Clinton was in charge for what? 8 years?

doesnt matter, democrats or republicans the outcome is still the same

Same for you.

I gave you clear concise and indisputable facts, not my fault you gloss over them

 

[No Limit]

I believe Clinton was in charge for what? 8 years?


Same for you.

I didn't read the whole thing but were you able to provide one LEGAL reason as to why gay marriage should be banned? If you haven't case closed; stern wins. (when did politics become a football game).

 

[bliink]

Hmm..
All that seems to be happening is that people have their point of view, never concede or change it, and just recycle the same argument over, and over, and over..

This thread's not going anywhere but into the realms of flame-ness.

Closed.