Originally posted by naldric Originally posted by lardmouth So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other , in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps
It's not just sex though. We're talking about individuals who could be in love with a man and woman to complete their sexual orientation. Are you saying they should be forced to go outside the bonds of committed marriage? Why shouldn't the marriage boundries instead be changed?
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Originally posted by lardmouth So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other , in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps
It's not just sex though. We're talking about individuals who could be in love with a man and woman to complete their sexual orientation. Are you saying they should be forced to go outside the bounds of committed marriage? Why shouldn't the marriage boundries instead be changed?
Yeah sure but, both homosexuals and heterosexuals could be in love with 2 diferent persons too lol, bisexuality is diferent from polygamy... dont mix everything up.
I'm sorry, how is it a different arguement? Discrimination is discrimination. The number involved is just as arbitrary as the gender. Or, look at it as a religious based institution. Just as the gender involved was influenced by religious roots in this country, so was the number. The number was influenced by traditional judeo-christian morals that our ancestors carried with them to the US. I see absolutely no way to recognize gay marriage and still be able to discriminate against bisexual and polygamist marrital structures. It is incosistent in my opinion.
Originally posted by naldric Yeah sure but, both homosexuals and heterosexuals could be in love with 2 diferent persons too lol, bisexuality is diferent from polygamy... dont mix everything up.
Yes, but a married heterosexaul can still fullfill his/her gender related sexual-orientation and identity within his marriage. A bisexual by definition cannot if he/she is permitted only one marriage partner.
Originally posted by lardmouth So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
It's really hard to win an argument by proposing a hypothetical unrelated to the debate at hand.
This comes up all the time when people say, "well what's next, polygamy, marrying an animal." Those are different topics all together. We're talking about gay marriage here.
If you want to take up the issue of bisexual marriage then start a new thread. But don't try to use slide of hide or distraction to get off the point.
Originally posted by lardmouth I'm sorry, how is it a different arguement? Discrimination is discrimination. The number involved is just as arbitrary as the gender. Or, look at it as a religious based institution. Just as the gender involved was influenced by religious roots in this country, so was the number. The number was influenced by traditional judeo-christian morals that our ancestors carried with them to the US. I see absolutely no way to recognize gay marriage and still be able to discriminate against bisexual and polygamist marrital structures. It is incosistent in my opinion.
Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by freethinker I consider the whole "Civil Union" a seperate-but-equal policy. Look how well those wen't over in the 60's
I agree with you.
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
I don't care what they want to do with their marriage. It's the point that they want to do what they want with your marriage. I can understand it too...it's the same attitude these people have with pressing their religion on others. It's about power and spreading their religious dogma....freedom be damned.
And then of course all the less extreme sheep go along with the flock because their leaders bend the argument in such a way as If You're For Gay Marriage You're Against God....*shock* *gasp*....who could be against god??????
hehe..those sheep will believe anything, I tell ya.
Anyway..that's my opinion on the matter.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
The problem is, you're thinking rationally about it when the situation is anything but.
It's all about pressing their religion on to you. They don't like homosexuality because (in their belief) god hates it. Now you (whether or not you subscribe to their POV) will suffer for their idiocy.
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
BINGO! It's really "land of the free"*
*applies only to those whom I believe deserves it.
You're right.
I just have this strong sense of empathy when it comes to others. It's sometimes hard for me get over. But at times I guess you have to.
I really don't see how this couldn't come to some compromise. But in order for it to come to a compromise both parties are going to have to be willing to accept the others proposals to some degree and move on from there.
I don't think the religious right has any intention of trying to understand that they aren't the end all of every discussion with their Biblical passages.
Originally posted by reavo Originally posted by lardmouth So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
It's really hard to win an argument by proposing a hypothetical unrelated to the debate at hand.
This comes up all the time when people say, "well what's next, polygamy, marrying an animal." Those are different topics all together. We're talking about gay marriage here.
If you want to take up the issue of bisexual marriage then start a new thread. But don't try to use slide of hide or distraction to get off the point.
I knew someone would try this. This topic by nature includes the definition and boundries of what a marriage is, or should be. If we're discussing an issue that redefines marriage, yet narrowly view it in regards to one form (gay marriage), then we're purposefully putting blinders on. And of course it'll come up all the time. We're talking about the definition of marriage here!
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Originally posted by lardmouth So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other , in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps
It's not just sex though. We're talking about individuals who could be in love with a man and woman to complete their sexual orientation. Are you saying they should be forced to go outside the bonds of committed marriage? Why shouldn't the marriage boundries instead be changed?
Please don't try to distract from the topic at hand. I want the right to have a legally recognized contract with the person I love. To protect our rights of property, ownership, and representation for one another. Don't try to turn what I'm looking for into something else. I don't appreciate that.
If you have a problem with bisexuals getting married or polygamists then take that up with them.
Why wouldn't you want gay couples to get into monogomous relationships? It would cut down on infidelity between gay couples, create stable loving relationships, and help with the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Are you not for that? Or would you rather us do as some religious leaders have suggested, which is just lead a celiblate lifestyle and never experience the love of a relationship?
Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
And hey, that's a consistent arguement. No problem with that. But, I do have to ask. If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Please don't try to distract from the topic at hand. I want the right to have a legally recognized contract with the person I love. To protect our rights of property, ownership, and representation for one another. Don't try to turn what I'm looking for into something else. I don't appreciate that.
You're asking for a redefinition of marriage. It's silly to expect that any attempt to do so shouldn't include a broader look at other alternative marriages. Especially when they will rely on many of the same arguements the proponents of homosexual marriage use. You're asking for a very naive and narrow look at a major issue.
If you have a problem with bisexuals getting married or polygamists then take that up with them.
Do you have a problem with them getting married in their own arrangements? Please don't duck the question. I'm very curious as to your response.
Why wouldn't you want gay couples to get into monogomous relationships? It would cut down on infidelity between gay couples, create stable loving relationships, and help with the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Are you not for that? Or would you rather us do as some religious leaders have suggested, which is just lead a celiblate lifestyle and never experience the love of a relationship?
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by reavo Originally posted by lardmouth So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
It's really hard to win an argument by proposing a hypothetical unrelated to the debate at hand.
This comes up all the time when people say, "well what's next, polygamy, marrying an animal." Those are different topics all together. We're talking about gay marriage here.
If you want to take up the issue of bisexual marriage then start a new thread. But don't try to use slide of hide or distraction to get off the point.
I knew someone would try this. This topic by nature includes the definition and boundries of what a marriage is, or should be. If we're discussing an issue that redefines marriage, yet narrowly view it in regards to one form (gay marriage), then we're purposefully putting blinders on. And of course it'll come up all the time. We're talking about the definition of marriage here!
As well, I knew someone would try to send us down a slippery slope that you have no proof would ever occur.
Just for the record though, since you're so intent on dealing with the issue this way...
I don't care if people want to practice polygamy. If that's what their religion says is okay and that's what they want to believe is right to raise a family, then let them do it. It has been done all through history with success. It doesn't hurt the children and in some situations may actually be better as a cohesive unit.
As far as bisexuals. I think most bisexuals either lean towards a man or a woman when it comes to the love factor. Don't confuse love with sexual attraction. I don't see this ever really being a problem for that reason. I could be wrong, but every bisexual person I've ever known only felt love towards one sex. The sexual attraction was for both sexes, but not the emotion.
Also for the record, I'm kinda mad at God for making me straight. Why the heck couldn't I have been bisexual? Things would be so much better for me in my sex life. lol.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
And hey, that's a consistent arguement. No problem with that. But, I do have to ask. If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Sounds good to me.
I always thought it was the government doing social engineering anyways. I wish they'd stay the hell out of my life. The only thing they need to worry about is my physical protection and protection of my economic and intellectual freedoms.
Outside of that you enter into the horrible area of people using government and guns to get people to think and act a certain way. And that's right where our government is right now.
Why else would George Bush, the President of the United States want to put a constitutional amendment in the constitution defining the behavior of marriage.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
And hey, that's a consistent arguement. No problem with that. But, I do have to ask. If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now (government should never have been involved in marriage in the first place, mixing politics and religion is ALWAYS a bad thing)
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Exactly!
What business is it of the government who I contract with or how many i contract with. As long as all honor the contract. The government is clearly descriminating against gays just like it descriminated against blacks 50 yrs ago.
Originally posted by naldric Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
And hey, that's a consistent arguement. No problem with that. But, I do have to ask. If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them...
actually, marriage isn't addressed in the constitution........yet
Originally posted by upallnight Please don't try to distract from the topic at hand. I want the right to have a legally recognized contract with the person I love. To protect our rights of property, ownership, and representation for one another. Don't try to turn what I'm looking for into something else. I don't appreciate that. You're asking for a redefinition of marriage. It's silly to expect that any attempt to do so shouldn't include a broader look at other alternative marriages. Especially when they will rely on many of the same arguements the proponents of homosexual marriage use. You're asking for a very naive and narrow look at a major issue.
If you have a problem with bisexuals getting married or polygamists then take that up with them. Do you have a problem with them getting married in their own arrangements? Please don't duck the question. I'm very curious as to your response.
Why wouldn't you want gay couples to get into monogomous relationships? It would cut down on infidelity between gay couples, create stable loving relationships, and help with the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Are you not for that? Or would you rather us do as some religious leaders have suggested, which is just lead a celiblate lifestyle and never experience the love of a relationship?
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
This is where this whole demonization of us and the issue has come into play. People say we're trying to tear down the family and destroy the institution of marriage. WRONG. I understand your religious sacriment. I don't want to take that from you. I think it's beautiful that you have a faith as strong as you do and want your creator to see you bonded for life. It's a wonderful thing to me. We're not as evil as everyone makes us out to be. We don't want to strip things of beauty in life away.
And as for us trying to destroy the family. That's another load of sh*t that we've had to put up with. I love the concept of family. I love my mom and dad, although they don't speak to me anymore, and I love the closeness and comfort that a family can bring to you.
I don't want either of those to go away. I don't want a redefinition of marriage. I have said time and again we're just asking for legal protection for ourselves when we venture into a bonding relationship. Call it a civil union I don't care. Just give us some legal protection. It's the only humane thing to do.
Originally posted by naldric Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
And hey, that's a consistent arguement. No problem with that. But, I do have to ask. If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now (government should never have been involved in marriage in the first place, mixing politics and religion is ALWAYS a bad thing)
Erm, can you point out what part of the constitution you get that from?
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
And hey, that's a consistent arguement. No problem with that. But, I do have to ask. If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now (government should never have been involved in marriage in the first place, mixing politics and religion is ALWAYS a bad thing)
Erm, can you point out what part of the constitution you get that from?
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by naldric Well, first of all i m not against polygamy, i think everybody should be able to do what they want, and if the other parts (the 12 wives or 12 husbans) are willing, all the better , but the fight right now isnt about polygamy, it's about homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals, not about how many wives or husbans they can have, maybe later in a future of further tolerance.
And hey, that's a consistent arguement. No problem with that. But, I do have to ask. If gender and number of participants are not relevant to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd rather see at this point.
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now (government should never have been involved in marriage in the first place, mixing politics and religion is ALWAYS a bad thing)
Erm, can you point out what part of the constitution you get that from?
Well actually i made a mystake, it's in parenting that there is no gender, my mystake , well for making a complete answer and well thought i would have to do some research in US law, and i m really not in the mood, so i will eat my mystake and just take back my last post , but the main idea is, explicit discrimination should never enter the US constitution!
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
What protections are you seeking? Honest question.
This is where this whole demonization of us and the issue has come into play. People say we're trying to tear down the family and destroy the institution of marriage. WRONG. I understand your religious sacriment. I don't want to take that from you. I think it's beautiful that you have a faith as strong as you do and want your creator to see you bonded for life. It's a wonderful thing to me. We're not as evil as everyone makes us out to be. We don't want to strip things of beauty in life away.
And as for us trying to destroy the family. That's another load of sh*t that we've had to put up with. I love the concept of family. I love my mom and dad, although they don't speak to me anymore, and I love the closeness and comfort that a family can bring to you.
I don't want either of those to go away. I don't want a redefinition of marriage. I have said time and again we're just asking for legal protection for ourselves when we venture into a bonding relationship. Call it a civil union I don't care. Just give us some legal protection. It's the only humane thing to do.
What's protections? I ask because maybe these protections shouldn't be afforded to marriages in the first place. Or, maybe some should be included outside of marriage in the first place.
I'm still curious about the polygamist and bisexual unions, no matter what you might call them (civil union, marriage, etc.).
See, at this point in my life I've come to the conclusion that marriage in any shape should not be recognized or subsidized by the government. The government should be absolutely oblivious to the concept of marriage. Now, everyone is free to recognize their own marital or civil arrangements while not recognizing other types. A win/win situation based on individual liberty and freedom.
Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by lardmouth
Originally posted by upallnight
Please don't try to distract from the topic at hand. I want the right to have a legally recognized contract with the person I love. To protect our rights of property, ownership, and representation for one another. Don't try to turn what I'm looking for into something else. I don't appreciate that. You're asking for a redefinition of marriage. It's silly to expect that any attempt to do so shouldn't include a broader look at other alternative marriages. Especially when they will rely on many of the same arguements the proponents of homosexual marriage use. You're asking for a very naive and narrow look at a major issue.
If you have a problem with bisexuals getting married or polygamists then take that up with them. Do you have a problem with them getting married in their own arrangements? Please don't duck the question. I'm very curious as to your response.
Why wouldn't you want gay couples to get into monogomous relationships? It would cut down on infidelity between gay couples, create stable loving relationships, and help with the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Are you not for that? Or would you rather us do as some religious leaders have suggested, which is just lead a celiblate lifestyle and never experience the love of a relationship?
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
If you were a black man in the 60's would you be more than happy with your seperate-but-equal waterfountain? geez.
I want to expand a little bit further on my view. As I said, I don't think marriage should be recognized by any level of government (local, state, federal.). At the most, and I mean the very most, it should be a state by state issue. But, then you run into judicial systems legislating from the bench against the will of the populace and the legislation of their represenatives.
Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by upallnight
Originally posted by lardmouth
Originally posted by upallnight
Please don't try to distract from the topic at hand. I want the right to have a legally recognized contract with the person I love. To protect our rights of property, ownership, and representation for one another. Don't try to turn what I'm looking for into something else. I don't appreciate that. You're asking for a redefinition of marriage. It's silly to expect that any attempt to do so shouldn't include a broader look at other alternative marriages. Especially when they will rely on many of the same arguements the proponents of homosexual marriage use. You're asking for a very naive and narrow look at a major issue.
If you have a problem with bisexuals getting married or polygamists then take that up with them. Do you have a problem with them getting married in their own arrangements? Please don't duck the question. I'm very curious as to your response.
Why wouldn't you want gay couples to get into monogomous relationships? It would cut down on infidelity between gay couples, create stable loving relationships, and help with the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Are you not for that? Or would you rather us do as some religious leaders have suggested, which is just lead a celiblate lifestyle and never experience the love of a relationship?
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
If you were a black man in the 60's would you be more than happy with your seperate-but-equal waterfountain? geez. Yeah. I know. I do agree with you. But at the same time I have a respect for the religious folks and their concept of marriage.
Honestly, I don't have any desire to step on peoples toes. I just want the same legal representation that straight couples have. If they want to call it something different then that's okay, as long as the rights afforded are exactly the same.
Ideally, I would want the government to deal exclusively in civil unions. To the extent where someone could go to their church to get "married" but afterwords they would still have to go get a civil union to be recognized by the government. The marriage thing would just be something that the church recognizes. Kinda like Catholic churches don't accept marriages of couples from other denominations. If a Protestant couple converts to Catholicism they have to reaffirm their vows to the Catholic church or their marriage isn't recognized.
If the church doesn't want to recognize my civil union then so be it. But I want the government to so that I have legal protection.
But I do see your point. I just also see the religious folks point too.
Comments
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other
, in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps 
It's not just sex though. We're talking about individuals who could be in love with a man and woman to complete their sexual orientation. Are you saying they should be forced to go outside the bonds of committed marriage? Why shouldn't the marriage boundries instead be changed?
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other
, in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps 
It's not just sex though. We're talking about individuals who could be in love with a man and woman to complete their sexual orientation. Are you saying they should be forced to go outside the bounds of committed marriage? Why shouldn't the marriage boundries instead be changed?
Yeah sure but, both homosexuals and heterosexuals could be in love with 2 diferent persons too lol, bisexuality is diferent from polygamy... dont mix everything up.
Yes, but a married heterosexaul can still fullfill his/her gender related sexual-orientation and identity within his marriage. A bisexual by definition cannot if he/she is permitted only one marriage partner.
This comes up all the time when people say, "well what's next, polygamy, marrying an animal." Those are different topics all together. We're talking about gay marriage here.
If you want to take up the issue of bisexual marriage then start a new thread. But don't try to use slide of hide or distraction to get off the point.
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
I don't care what they want to do with their marriage. It's the point that they want to do what they want with your marriage. I can understand it too...it's the same attitude these people have with pressing their religion on others. It's about power and spreading their religious dogma....freedom be damned.
And then of course all the less extreme sheep go along with the flock because their leaders bend the argument in such a way as If You're For Gay Marriage You're Against God....*shock* *gasp*....who could be against god??????
hehe..those sheep will believe anything, I tell ya.
Anyway..that's my opinion on the matter.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
The problem is, you're thinking rationally about it when the situation is anything but.
It's all about pressing their religion on to you. They don't like homosexuality because (in their belief) god hates it. Now you (whether or not you subscribe to their POV) will suffer for their idiocy.
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
BINGO! It's really
"land of the free"*
*applies only to those whom I believe deserves it.
You're right.
I just have this strong sense of empathy when it comes to others. It's sometimes hard for me get over. But at times I guess you have to.
I really don't see how this couldn't come to some compromise. But in order for it to come to a compromise both parties are going to have to be willing to accept the others proposals to some degree and move on from there.
I don't think the religious right has any intention of trying to understand that they aren't the end all of every discussion with their Biblical passages.
--------------------------------------
This comes up all the time when people say, "well what's next, polygamy, marrying an animal." Those are different topics all together. We're talking about gay marriage here.
If you want to take up the issue of bisexual marriage then start a new thread. But don't try to use slide of hide or distraction to get off the point.
I knew someone would try this. This topic by nature includes the definition and boundries of what a marriage is, or should be. If we're discussing an issue that redefines marriage, yet narrowly view it in regards to one form (gay marriage), then we're purposefully putting blinders on. And of course it'll come up all the time. We're talking about the definition of marriage here!
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other
, in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps 
It's not just sex though. We're talking about individuals who could be in love with a man and woman to complete their sexual orientation. Are you saying they should be forced to go outside the bonds of committed marriage? Why shouldn't the marriage boundries instead be changed?
Please don't try to distract from the topic at hand. I want the right to have a legally recognized contract with the person I love. To protect our rights of property, ownership, and representation for one another. Don't try to turn what I'm looking for into something else. I don't appreciate that.
If you have a problem with bisexuals getting married or polygamists then take that up with them.
Why wouldn't you want gay couples to get into monogomous relationships? It would cut down on infidelity between gay couples, create stable loving relationships, and help with the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Are you not for that? Or would you rather us do as some religious leaders have suggested, which is just lead a celiblate lifestyle and never experience the love of a relationship?
--------------------------------------
This comes up all the time when people say, "well what's next, polygamy, marrying an animal." Those are different topics all together. We're talking about gay marriage here.
If you want to take up the issue of bisexual marriage then start a new thread. But don't try to use slide of hide or distraction to get off the point.
I knew someone would try this. This topic by nature includes the definition and boundries of what a marriage is, or should be. If we're discussing an issue that redefines marriage, yet narrowly view it in regards to one form (gay marriage), then we're purposefully putting blinders on. And of course it'll come up all the time. We're talking about the definition of marriage here!
As well, I knew someone would try to send us down a slippery slope that you have no proof would ever occur.
Just for the record though, since you're so intent on dealing with the issue this way...
I don't care if people want to practice polygamy. If that's what their religion says is okay and that's what they want to believe is right to raise a family, then let them do it. It has been done all through history with success. It doesn't hurt the children and in some situations may actually be better as a cohesive unit.
As far as bisexuals. I think most bisexuals either lean towards a man or a woman when it comes to the love factor. Don't confuse love with sexual attraction. I don't see this ever really being a problem for that reason. I could be wrong, but every bisexual person I've ever known only felt love towards one sex. The sexual attraction was for both sexes, but not the emotion.
Also for the record, I'm kinda mad at God for making me straight. Why the heck couldn't I have been bisexual? Things would be so much better for me in my sex life. lol.
Sounds good to me.
I always thought it was the government doing social engineering anyways. I wish they'd stay the hell out of my life. The only thing they need to worry about is my physical protection and protection of my economic and intellectual freedoms.
Outside of that you enter into the horrible area of people using government and guns to get people to think and act a certain way. And that's right where our government is right now.
Why else would George Bush, the President of the United States want to put a constitutional amendment in the constitution defining the behavior of marriage.
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now
to you, why bother slapping a label on the arrangement. Why not just
have government at all levels stay out of marriage? It's what I'd
rather see at this point.
Exactly!
What business is it of the government who I contract with or how many i contract with. As long as all honor the contract. The government is clearly descriminating against gays just like it descriminated against blacks 50 yrs ago.
/some things never change
==========================
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them...
actually, marriage isn't addressed in the constitution........yet
==========================
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
This is where this whole demonization of us and the issue has come into play. People say we're trying to tear down the family and destroy the institution of marriage. WRONG. I understand your religious sacriment. I don't want to take that from you. I think it's beautiful that you have a faith as strong as you do and want your creator to see you bonded for life. It's a wonderful thing to me. We're not as evil as everyone makes us out to be. We don't want to strip things of beauty in life away.
And as for us trying to destroy the family. That's another load of sh*t that we've had to put up with. I love the concept of family. I love my mom and dad, although they don't speak to me anymore, and I love the closeness and comfort that a family can bring to you.
I don't want either of those to go away. I don't want a redefinition of marriage. I have said time and again we're just asking for legal protection for ourselves when we venture into a bonding relationship. Call it a civil union I don't care. Just give us some legal protection. It's the only humane thing to do.
--------------------------------------
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now
Erm, can you point out what part of the constitution you get that from?
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now
Erm, can you point out what part of the constitution you get that from?
Lardmouth, just answer this one question for me.
What do you think we gay people should do?
--------------------------------------
Well the US constitution states that marriage is a contract between 2 persons without defining their gender, so why should gay ppl be the exception? and not be able to marry, why making a law to specificaly discriminate them... I m not against polygamy, but there is no way to defend it right now nowhere to cling to. Task at hand is protect who can be protected from discrimination now
Erm, can you point out what part of the constitution you get that from?
Well actually i made a mystake, it's in parenting that there is no gender, my mystake
, well for making a complete answer and well thought i would have to do some research in US law, and i m really not in the mood, so i will eat my mystake and just take back my last post 
, but the main idea is, explicit discrimination should never enter the US constitution!
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
What protections are you seeking? Honest question.
This is where this whole demonization of us and the issue has come into play. People say we're trying to tear down the family and destroy the institution of marriage. WRONG. I understand your religious sacriment. I don't want to take that from you. I think it's beautiful that you have a faith as strong as you do and want your creator to see you bonded for life. It's a wonderful thing to me. We're not as evil as everyone makes us out to be. We don't want to strip things of beauty in life away.
And as for us trying to destroy the family. That's another load of sh*t that we've had to put up with. I love the concept of family. I love my mom and dad, although they don't speak to me anymore, and I love the closeness and comfort that a family can bring to you.
I don't want either of those to go away. I don't want a redefinition of marriage. I have said time and again we're just asking for legal protection for ourselves when we venture into a bonding relationship. Call it a civil union I don't care. Just give us some legal protection. It's the only humane thing to do.
What's protections? I ask because maybe these protections shouldn't be afforded to marriages in the first place. Or, maybe some should be included outside of marriage in the first place.
I'm still curious about the polygamist and bisexual unions, no matter what you might call them (civil union, marriage, etc.).
See, at this point in my life I've come to the conclusion that marriage in any shape should not be recognized or subsidized by the government. The government should be absolutely oblivious to the concept of marriage. Now, everyone is free to recognize their own marital or civil arrangements while not recognizing other types. A win/win situation based on individual liberty and freedom.
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
If you were a black man in the 60's would you be more than happy with your seperate-but-equal waterfountain? geez.
==========================
I am not asking for a redefinition of marriage. Go back and read what I wrote. And you will find that most homosexuals agree with me.
We are more than happy to get civil unions, as long as they afford us the same legal rights as a straight couple. You guys can have you religious marriage label. I have no desire to take that away from you.
If you were a black man in the 60's would you be more than happy with your seperate-but-equal waterfountain? geez.
Yeah. I know. I do agree with you. But at the same time I have a respect for the religious folks and their concept of marriage.
Honestly, I don't have any desire to step on peoples toes. I just want the same legal representation that straight couples have. If they want to call it something different then that's okay, as long as the rights afforded are exactly the same.
Ideally, I would want the government to deal exclusively in civil unions. To the extent where someone could go to their church to get "married" but afterwords they would still have to go get a civil union to be recognized by the government. The marriage thing would just be something that the church recognizes. Kinda like Catholic churches don't accept marriages of couples from other denominations. If a Protestant couple converts to Catholicism they have to reaffirm their vows to the Catholic church or their marriage isn't recognized.
If the church doesn't want to recognize my civil union then so be it. But I want the government to so that I have legal protection.
But I do see your point. I just also see the religious folks point too.
--------------------------------------
