Maine Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

What does her being gay or not being gay have to do with anything? What does it matter if she's from South Beach or not?

From the quotes you listed it sounds like the problem isn't that the parents are gay, but that others are bigoted and hateful towards homosexuality and caused the children grief. Hopefully more gay parents will help lessen the intolerance that caused the children a hard time.

 

The government should simply not be in the Marriage Business at all

Rocket River

 

Landlord Landry is doing it for the children.

Also: It should be noted that a kid whose mother or father gets killed in war suffers more than anyone with gay parents, therefore all war should be abolished.

 

For Centuries. . . the Definition of Marriage was UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN
now . .
we are REDEFINING IT to be UNION BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUALS
so
Why is it a big deal to say it is a UNION BETWEEN Multiple Individuals?

No matter how folx wish it were so . . Intro-ing Homosexuality into the Marriage conversation is CHANGING THE DEFINITION of Marriage
a Definition that has been held for quite sometime
IN FACT
Polygamy has been more defined as a marriage that same sex marriage ever has
so
Being that we are a country of precedence. . . Polygamy would seem to have more legal umphf than same Sex marriage because it has more of a history . . . .

Rocket River

 

thadeus with the TRUTH BOMB!!!!

 

The definition of marriage has changed many times. What's wrong with changing it? Especially when that change is more tolerant. Yes Polygamy does have a longer history associated with marriage.

I haven't seen anyone tell me why Polygamy shouldn't be legal, but that's beside the point.

The reason why multiple partners is a different argument is because there isn't a law that says some sets of multiple partners is ok, and other sets of multiple marriage partners is not OK.

There are a set of laws that say some unions between two individuals are OK, and some unions between two individuals are not OK. That's why it is discrimination, unfair, and unjust.

 

It is always sickening to have the Civil Rights Movement 'married' to the gay rights movement.
It seems to belittle the Movement.
Why not compare it to Holocaust instead?

Rocket River

 

Offhand I can’t think of which specific law covers this, but you can’t just use any word any way you want. You couldn’t open up an all pork buffet and call it Halal Haven, for example, and you couldn’t open up a strip club and call it a Synagogue. Doing this would clearly be offensive. These words have meanings, and they belong to certain traditions, and you can’t just redefine them and use them any way you want. Does anyone know which specific law would cover this kind of thing?

I presume you were married in a civil ceremony? The use of the word marriage in that sense is part of the slippery slope I was talking about earlier. Again, marriage is a many centuries old religious tradition. At some point, however, governments decided to grant certain legal rights to married couples, and then they started using the word in a different sense. Then some people decided that they wanted the rights but not the religious ceremony. That was fair enough, but the government decided to call that a civil marriage, or being married in a civil ceremony, and that’s where the problems start to get deeper, because that’s a misnomer. The way out of this problem is to simply give the word marriage back to the religions that it came from. Do we believe in tolerance? Do we believe in respecting other cultures? If so then we should be big enough to give the word back to the people it belongs to and pick another one. Remember that for the government it’s just a legal term, but for Catholics, for example, it’s one of their seven sacraments, and has been for many centuries.

What I proposed in my above post is that the government should stop using the word marriage altogether. All unions from the government's standpoint should be civil unions. Churches will continue with their traditions, and some churches marry same sex couples, so if a same sex couple wants to be married they can be. Obviously there are churches that disagree with this, but this kind of dispute falls into a different category. Different denominations are used to having disputes with each other and this is one of them, but the key point here is that the government would not be part of it. Let the churches fight that one out. The government has no place in that dispute.

 

The gay rights movement is a civil rights movement. Nobody is same it has the same history.

But to pretend there aren't similarities is also disingenuous. Both movements have had people attacked, beaten, and killed because of who they were. Both movements have laws that have discriminated against groups of individuals. Based only on the fact that they are different than the majority.

 

Ridicule is ridicule. I don't believe that being ridiculed incessantly for being fat or having braces or being afflicted by halitosis is any different from being ridiculed for having gay parents.

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, just that I was ridiculed for it.

 

But it’s not more tolerant. It is extremely intolerant of the centuries old traditions held by the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths, and others as well. There is no reason that the government needs to use the word marriage, and by doing so it infringes on the traditions and rights of these groups. The tolerant and enlightened way for the government to go would be to drop the word marriage altogether and to call all unions civil unions, and, iirc, this is what Obama favours as well.

 

IT isn't intolerant to recognize same sex marriages. It doesn't force Christians, Jews, or Muslims to enter into same sex marriage. They can still oppose it, and none of the holy places have to perform that kind of marriage.

The govt. has no place in marriage argument is fine, except that they are already in it. As long as they are in it, they shouldn't be discriminating in their practice of it.

 

I tell my kids that homosexuality is wrong.

maybe instead of educating parents we could just teach the whole world to please Basso.

 

then I'll just post my Catholic family studies that counter all your studies and we can have a a more clear and valid argument? see?

 

and what is my goal exactly?

 

the world would be a better place then, at least from my perspective.

 

Trying to appropriate and redefine a centuries old cultural term that belongs to certain religious groups is very intolerant. I’ll acknowledge that the government may have inadvertently slipped into this position over many years, but now finding itself here it should give the term back as I’m quite confident that Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths can establish a historical claim to the word. It’s an important cultural term for these groups, but it’s only a legal term for the government, so if there is any dispute, and there is now, I think the government should drop the word and pick a new.

 

you got my vote