Do you understand the basic precept of Christianity is that everyone is born immoral? Tex, there are lots of morality issues that are legislated: gambling, prostitution, drinking, drugs, suicide, etc. In fact, I don't know where you draw the line between moral laws and amoral ones. Isn't homicide a moral issue too?
Sorry about that... it was a joke. We're in agreement here about the backlash on imposing morality. Think there's a misunderstanding here... By voting "NO", as in against Prop 2, I think we're on the same page... Am I wrong here? I brought up my wife because even though whether or not the legislation passes, it doesn't affect us directly, yet we both agree that it's a crappy piece of legislation.
That's why Christan is backwards. Human beings are fundamentally good. You would then have to make humanity itself illegal. But if that was true and we are all born immoral, then heterosexuality is just as immoral as homosexuality. It's the sexual acts, like all acts, that are immoral, hetero or homo. Not the sexual orientation itself.
I don't want to make this another Christianity and Homosexuality thread. We've seen enough of those. I was simply pointing out, in case you've overlooked it, that a large segment of society has no problem seeing people as born immoral -- and not just gay people, but all people.
Personally, I don't think governments should recognize any marriages. Marriage is a religious institution.
I've always found it funny how when a person is explaining themselves in opposition of some minority issue, they will always start with this standard template. "I'm not a bigot. Hell, I even have a [black/Jewish/Gay/Muslim/Arab] friend!"
man, for someone who's Buddhist...who talks down about absolutes...you sure talk in absolutes a lot. Christianity is backwards?? why?? because you're right and they're wrong. got it.
Gay marriage: My only gripe of this whole ordeal is the question. Didn't you know homosexuals love too? Their love is as real as a heterosexual's love. Doesn't that bother anyone that we want to deny our expression of love to them.
WRONG .... WRONG ... WRONG! READ THE ENTIRE PROPOSITION!!! (it's not long - only 3 small paragraphs) link c'mon, guys! Don't get played! If you're going to vote 'yes' or 'no', do it because you've read it, and understand it, and do/don't agree with it. DON'T make your decision based on some bull$hit statements that people are making about the prop just to confuse you into not-voting or making an unedeucated vote. It clearly states: SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage. That means that even if the prop passes, gay spouses will have access to estates, visitation rights, and life insurances. Anything you've heard to the contrary is simply NOT TRUE.
but not by operation of law. only if the designation is made. married couples have these rights without making any designation...their marriage is, in effect, the designation.
True. But without that designation, I could walk in on a complete stranger's death and estate, claim I was his secret gay lover and want a chunk of his estate and life insurance. Don't you think that there SHOULD be designation to prevent such a scenario? (and note: A man-woman marriage already carries that designation) What's really strange is - without this ammendment: gay spouses WON'T have any visitation rights for their spouses gay spouses WON'T have any access to estates for their spouses gay spouses WON'T have any access to life insurance policies for their spouses In that aspect, voting 'yes' actually provides tremendous benefit to gay spouses. CORRECTION: It seems that these rights are available WITHOUT needing prop 2.
wait, what? i don't understand. you couldn't do that if you weren't married to him or joined to him in some sort of civil union.
[hypothetically] Joined to him? He and I were in love for 10 years! Civil union? What civil union? We can't get married. And he was in a retirement community that wouldn't allow us to live together. But I was his lover! He loved me! I loved him! I deserve just as much of his estate (if not more) than the other family members! [/hypothetically] In such a scenario, there SHOULD be a designation in order to: a) have written evidence that the gay spouse is entitled OR b) protect the family from people who are trying to swindle the estate.
I agree with what you're saying. But what you're saying is the argument FOR civil unions. Absent a civil union, they are forced into making designations that I don't have to make to protect my wife.
i TOTALLY AGREE If you want to seperate CHURCH AND STATE then remove ALL Marriage laws and guidelines from the books Rocket River
Your marriage to your wife (and mine to mine) already acts as such a designation. Proposition 2 provides for equivalient designations for gay spouses. Without proposition 2, and without that designation, gay spouses won't get squat. Proposition 2 is bad for the 'image' of a gay relationship, by specifically identifying that it will not be considered as a 'marriage' by the state. But Proposition 2 is good for the rights of gay spouses who want to be able to be deisgnated as having access to visitation rights, inheritance, and life insurance. If you vote 'no' to proposition 2, gay spouses will continue to have no access to the estate, vitistion rights, and life insurance. CORRECTION: It seems that these rights are available WITHOUT needing prop 2
Honestly . . I think the GAY Lover and Married woman should have to have the same burden of proof something . .i dunno . . .a WILL saying they get what ever As stated I think Marriage should not be a legal matter at all no special treatment or entitlements So . . . I think we should repeal the Marriage laws from the book just as the Gay Lover should be required to be included in a will so should a wife so should a a good good friend .. . Keep it fair .. . . no marriage for anyone [LEGALLY] on through your church and yourselves Rocket River
