No, you are missing my point. I think government should view marriage as a purely contractual union entered into willingly by 2 parties. AND, the government should not legislate the sex of either of those parties. In the government's eyes it is a legal contract. It has nothing to do with religion, seperation of church and state, remember? Now, I have no problem with the church outlawing gay marriages. Churches are their own institutions. But, government outlawing gay partnerships is discrimination, people should have a right to choose whom to love and whom to enter into a binding contract with, you should not legislate it. That is why I am in favor of removing any reference to "marriage" in our legal system, make it what it is...a binding contract. This allows each person to have equal rights. IMHO. DD
mar·riagePronunciation Key (mrj) n. 1. 1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Thats marriage. Gays should be able to have a "legal union" which includes the tax benefits etc. that comes with being married, but MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Its just calling it something different in this scenario.
IMO, just keep the status quo, I don't think the country has an overwhelming majority that wants to either ban it or legalize it. i still think its dumb that so many people have such a strong opinion on something that is likely to never affect their lives. if its just because they are uncomfortable, might as well outlaw geriatric p*rn while we're at it.
Dakota, That's fine. I wish you had posted that sooner; would have saved me some posts in this thread. I don't agree with that view; I look at marriage, I guess in a sociological way, as an institution. If same sex marriages were allowed, to me marriage is no longer an institution. It is something else like a union, which is not an institution like a traditional marriage or the family, if you see what I am saying.
You are free to look at it however you like, I am only speaking of it as how the government should view it. I am a happily married man with 2 kids a wonderful wife, and my point is that if someone else finds happiness in a partnership like mine, great, but if they find happiness in an alternative partnership, than whom am I to tell them what they can and can't do, and the government should certainly not have any say. We are a government of laws, and those laws should protect each and everyone on of us equally, regardless of skin color, religious views, or sexual orientation, each of us deserves the same respect and protection of the constitution and our laws. No matter if it is popular or not. That is what our country was founded on to protect everyone, not just the majority. DD
Hmmm...I have no problem with legal union and some of the benefits that go along with being married, but I don't think tax benefits is one of them. Why do we have tax benefits for married people in the first place? Is it supposed to promote family values by attempting to relieve some of the financial stress that doom many marriages? Or is it supposed to give two people a financial break to make it easier to raise and take care of their children? I don't know exactly what the reason behind it is, but I just think giving tax benefits to gay couples may be pushing it. I mean, what's the justification?
But you really can't say that. Because if you could we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. You agree or not?
I agree that the government can not write it into the laws, but it is implied when you guarantee rights to everyone. DD
First off I'm not gay, it would be news to the wife and kids if I was. That said, I do support giving gay couples equal status as heterosexual married couples. I am in agreement with others on the board that the government should stop issuing marriage licenses and start calling them civil union licenses. Let churches conduct the "marriage" ceremony. A church can be as selective as they want about who they marry. Today many gay couples have children, so child rearing isn't solely a heterosexual task anymore. As with any group, the most outlandish are the ones that get on TV. If you do not want your children at a gay rights parade, your choice not to take them. I wouldn't take mine to one anymore then I would take them to a Klan march. A lot has been said about it being outlawed in the bible. One could make the world a pretty miserable place by taking every passage in the Bible literally. I think people should think real hard before amending the constituion. Remember the constitution once banned the sale of alcohol and then another amendment made it legal again. Sometimes its best not to be a lemming and rush with the crowd over a cliff.
One of these days, the topic will be divorce rates among couples, without regard to gender. The same divisiveness brought about by the Republican Party using this as a "wedge issue," which worked beautifully, btw... give Rove and company credit, mirrors the use of fear of racial integration for the same purpose. I'm old enough to remember when fear of equal rights for "inferior" black people (that's not what they were called then, but I'd prefer not to use the lingo) was used very effectively by the Democratic Party as a wedge issue, not only in the South, but in other parts of the country. I feel the same way about this issue (gay marriage, gays "choosing" their lifestyle, etc.) as I felt about discrimination against Blacks. And, someday, my children will look back at this period the same way the vast majority today looks back at the fight for racial equality in the '50's and '60's. They will say, "What were they thinking??" Nice post, ima_drummer. I've been married for 26 years. Keep D&D Civil!!
This is actually a good idea. Important black and hispanic historical figures can be studied right alongside white, asian, eskimo, native american, etc. leaders. When you get to the 1880's you talk about Booker T Washington, early 1900's you talk about George Washington Carver, etc. We are all just people, there is no need to differentiate between black history, hispanic history, or anything else.
SM: The reason to differentiate is that certain cultures in our country have been discriminated against disproportionate to the majority and still are. And it is to the benefit of young people, of those groups and majority ones, to understand both the contributions and the struggles of those cultures. We do not live in a color blind society. We should continue to aspire to one, yes, but we're not nearly there and even when we do get there, we should never forget. In all our history, no woman or minority has ever secured a major party nomination for president. Look at the race and gender makeup of our country and think about that. In our country's history only white men have run for president. Color blind society? I don't think so. In January, Barak Obama will be sworn in as the ONLY black in the Senate. We're not there yet. And, as this election proved, bigotry of other sorts is still alive and well. One day, during gay rights month (or week or day or whatever), Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists will look back on the current bigotry against gays with sober disappointment and a promise to never let it happen again. But we won't forget discrimination against gays and we shouldn't forget discrimination against blacks and Latinos either. Especially while it still exists.
I don't think we should forget discrimination. I think we should promote equality. One way to do that is by eliminating these artificial constructs that serve only to segregate and differentiate. We got rid of black and white bathrooms and black and white drinking fountains and black and white schools and we should get rid of black and white history. It is time we started just learning human history. All of the most important contributions and struggles of minorities can be taught right alongside the whites' contributions and struggles that we learn about all year. I don't know about when and where you went to school, but at my school you learned about black history during black history month, and ONLY during black history month. To me it made black history seem somehow less important, like it wasn't worth mentioning during the regular history lessons. During Feb. we can mention the contribution of Garret Morgan, because he isn't going to be mentioned when we learn about Marconi, Franklin, and Edison. We can learn about Booker T Washington, because he won't be mentioned when we talk about Lincoln and Grant. Black history month was important because the regular curriculum did not include black history, and certainly not outside of the context of how it related to whites. I think that we live in a more enlightened time, and we can integrate black history into the regular curriculum year round, so it isn't treated as second class history.
i think homosexuality is immoral. in my religion. i fail to see why that should be a consideration in this country's legal system. this idiocy that the republicans have capitalized on that god ends at gay folks and abortion is sick. you wanna get all moral? what about the hundreds of references about the poor in the bible? how about helping them way more? if your morality restricts the rights of others....in this country we discard that. it should be kept personal. make sure you teach your kids not to be gay. dont be friend people who are gay. but aside from that get over it. how about we institute the positive morality our religions have about peace and justice and equity? about helping the needy? only idiots would fail to understnad that if we spread compassionate values our religions had first...we'd make much more headway in the morality of the country than if we preached hell and immorality down everyones throat.
ps: interesting tidbit. the guy who introduced the defense of marriage act was twice divorced and thrice married.
Dead on Point I don't think Marriage should be ANYWHERE on the Law Books Marriage *is* a religious thing. . . . so why can church and state cross here . . but not other places? That being said. . . Tolerance cuts both ways . . . . I cannot throw a 10 Gallon hat on my head then run around calling it a yamaka [I butchered that word but the Hat that the Jewish People were at temple] Would that not be disrespectfil to them and their faith? Rocket River
DaDa Thou shall not Judge. . . that is the most abused line in the bible It is only used when someone is judge badly . . but when someone does something good or seen as good. .t hey don't break out the old DON'T JUDGE ME THING . . . I beleive homosexuality is a choice as well like liking Chocolate That being said .. . . one should not be discriminated for a choice I think most companies would opt to cover NO PARTNERS rather than get into that quadmire of Publicity Rocket River
