Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Same-sex marriage


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Same-sex marriage Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/19/2005 6:06:28 PM   
LadyAngelika


Posts: 8070
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrThorns

I guess I have never seen marriage as being a religious event, but then that's probably because I don't think much about religion...period. So is there a difference between a common law marriage and a traditional marriage? How does a common law marriage differ from a civil union?

~Thorns


In Canada, there is no difference. But I think what people are comparing is a civil marriage and simply declaring common law after so much time living together.

- LA


_____________________________

Une main de fer dans un gant de velours ~ An iron hand in a velvet glove

(in reply to MrThorns)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/19/2005 7:00:36 PM   
BlkTallFullfig


Posts: 5585
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrThorns
We tend to get fairly pissed off when other people set out to define us. There isn't a guide out there that assigns us a label, instead we define ourselves. So why is there a problem with a gay couple defining their relationship as a marriage? It doesn't lessen the marital bond between people in a heterosexual relationship, does it?

Whatever it's called...civil union, marriage, etc., I think it should be legal.
~Thorns

I agree we like to define ourselves for ourselves, and ought to be allowed to do that, but I wonder how it would work "my husband/my wife" deal.
Labels/words do have meaning, and for me being married means I have a husband, and for a married man, a wife.
I would never legislate against anyone calling themselves anything that didn't directly interfere with my life or well-being (so I don't feel strongly either way on this matter), and agree whatever they call it should be legal... M


_____________________________

a.k.a. SexyBossyBBW
""Touching was, and still is, and will always be, the true revolution" Nikki Giovanni

(in reply to MrThorns)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/19/2005 8:46:27 PM   
Jennsen


Posts: 39
Joined: 3/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

Why anyone would even care about same-sex marriages is beyond me!


Actually many people of the same sex who want to get married care. And I can sorta kind of understand their desire to have their relationship legally recognised as legitimate if that is important to them.

- LA



Oh no LadyAngelika, I've been misunderstood! I'm sorry, care was not the right word to use there! I feel no one, church or government, has the right or authority to dictate laws against it. How can there be a law against it? Is it criminal? Is it hurting anyone? Is it money? Does it fall under the civil law, common law, criminal law, international law, maritime law, natural law, oraganic law, parliamentary law? No, it's a preference, the governments and the churches.

The church declares it's against God's laws, that it's morally wrong... by who's standards, and from where, the Bible? It was written by man! There's no true proof to what is God's law and what isnt, which brings us back to man's law again, and since it falls under no law, it's a preference.

And what is our government? A mess! Their laws have become so politically swayed to pleasing the majority voters and not the rights of all people. Their "law" should be declared criminal, because they're stealing our rights to benifit themselves. So once again, the same sex marriage law is a preference, and has no legs to stand on!

That's what I meant!



_____________________________

"....and they who danced were thought insane by those who refused to hear the music"

(in reply to LadyAngelika)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/19/2005 8:52:40 PM   
kisshou


Posts: 2425
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline
I believe homosexual couples should be allowed to marry in any state in the US.



There are alot of benefits to marriage, tax breaks, health insurance just to name two.



Not to change your thread ShiftedJewel but what if you are in a poly , do you think all 3 should be able to marry? Or all 4,5,6?

(in reply to ShiftedJewel)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/19/2005 9:08:34 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
This is one of the reasons why I think the best solution is to abolish marriage altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

Not to change your thread ShiftedJewel but what if you are in a poly , do you think all 3 should be able to marry? Or all 4,5,6?


(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/19/2005 10:09:47 PM   
perverseangelic


Posts: 2625
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

This is one of the reasons why I think the best solution is to abolish marriage altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

Not to change your thread ShiftedJewel but what if you are in a poly , do you think all 3 should be able to marry? Or all 4,5,6?




That's why I think that civil union should be between any adults at all, in any number :)

_____________________________

~in the begining it is always dark~

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/19/2005 10:13:46 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
Morally I think that would be fine, but insurance companies wouldn't go for that, and they've come to rule our lives. So, OK, you could say let's allow civil unions among any number of adults, but without any legal benefits, so that insurance companies don't pop a gasket. At that point you'd have to say--what's the point of having marriage at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic

That's why I think that civil union should be between any adults at all, in any number :)


(in reply to perverseangelic)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 4:44:30 AM   
ShiftedJewel


Posts: 2492
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Not to change your thread ShiftedJewel but what if you are in a poly , do you think all 3 should be able to marry? Or all 4,5,6?


Actually, it's interesting that you brought that up! Scooter and I attended the Indiana Civil Liberties Union's conference last year and they had both supporters of the Marriage Defense laws as well as those that fought it there. One Senator (sorry, can't remember his name) said the biggest reason they were trying to legislate the term "one man and one woman" and make same sex marriage illegal was because if they allowed that, what would be next? Poly marriages? That would be followed by incest..... Now that's some scientific reasoning if I ever heard of any! I was given the chance to ask a question, so I did, I said "Wasn't incest outlawed because of something to do with genetics?" To which I got a mumbling almost coherent answer.

Again, marriage is just a word, whether it has religious connotations or not, so what ever you choose to call it, people should be able to marry the person(s) they choose to spend their lives with and be afforded the same privileges and protections that hetero couples currently enjoy. Should poly be allowed to marry? Why not? But that fight is way to far in the future to even consider.

Ok, yes, I have a gay daughter that would love more then anything to marry the woman she loves, to reap the benefits of married life just like the rest of us do. To declare openly her love and devotion for this person and I believe she should be able to. But above and beyond that... I believe that the government has NO business trying to write discrimination into those sacred documents the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we have fought to long and to hard to get it out of there to begin with, why put it back? My thinking is simple, if we, as a people allow this to happen, then who is next? Or what is next? I want more then anything to know where it is written that Church and State shall remain seperate.... except when it's necessary to use the Bible to pass an unreasonable law? Why is it that we have to do such things as take the statues of the Ten Commandments out of the courthouses and off the lawns of government buildings but can quote bits and pieces of the Bible to scare people into voting in hate and discrimination?

Sorry, that's my rant....

Jewel


_____________________________

Don't ask, trust me, you won't like the answer... no one ever does.

(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 5:09:07 AM   
cellogrrlMK


Posts: 672
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

I have no problem with marriage, as itself. I believe individuals should get married within religious as their conscience dictates. However, I believe that the state institutions which offers "marital benifits" should be civil union. Non-religious connotations. For anyone who wants to engage in it.


Isn't that what a civil wedding is? They are also much shorter and usually a whole lot less expensive. In and out of the courtroom! Woo hoo.



That's what we did <VBG> Simple, quick, saved a TON of $$$!

(in reply to LadyAngelika)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 5:18:08 AM   
cellogrrlMK


Posts: 672
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadameDahlia

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/JesusPenis.htm

Scroll down the to the bottom to see the video.

"Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis Song for George Bush et al" ©2004 Eric Schwartz



MadameDahlia, thank you!!!! I LOVED it!!! LOLOL PERFECT!!!!!!

(in reply to MadameDahlia)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 5:18:16 AM   
LadyAngelika


Posts: 8070
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jennsen


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

Why anyone would even care about same-sex marriages is beyond me!


Actually many people of the same sex who want to get married care. And I can sorta kind of understand their desire to have their relationship legally recognised as legitimate if that is important to them.

- LA



Oh no LadyAngelika, I've been misunderstood! I'm sorry, care was not the right word to use there! I feel no one, church or government, has the right or authority to dictate laws against it. How can there be a law against it? Is it criminal? Is it hurting anyone? Is it money? Does it fall under the civil law, common law, criminal law, international law, maritime law, natural law, oraganic law, parliamentary law? No, it's a preference, the governments and the churches.

The church declares it's against God's laws, that it's morally wrong... by who's standards, and from where, the Bible? It was written by man! There's no true proof to what is God's law and what isnt, which brings us back to man's law again, and since it falls under no law, it's a preference.

And what is our government? A mess! Their laws have become so politically swayed to pleasing the majority voters and not the rights of all people. Their "law" should be declared criminal, because they're stealing our rights to benifit themselves. So once again, the same sex marriage law is a preference, and has no legs to stand on!

That's what I meant!




Thank you so much for the clarification. :)

- LA


_____________________________

Une main de fer dans un gant de velours ~ An iron hand in a velvet glove

(in reply to Jennsen)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 8:38:48 AM   
pantera


Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cellogrrlMK

[

I was in the car yesterday, listening to Jerry Springer on Air America (he has a really good show in the Cincinnati area)



cello[/color]



Do people really listen to Air America??? LOL!!! j/k


In the Atlanta area (and all over the country) we listen to Boortz (he's the best talk show host EVER!!!)

... but back to the topic - I think people should be free to be with who they want, and to enjoy the benefits (finances, inheritances, medical and life insurance, etc) of making a life together...I still don't understand why they insist in calling it marriage though....it should not make a different what the name is (that goes both ways) -

Even though I voted for Bush, I voted against the constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages- keep g'vmt out of our personal lives,....but also our pockets!!!!!


(in reply to cellogrrlMK)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 9:42:24 AM   
perverseangelic


Posts: 2625
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Morally I think that would be fine, but insurance companies wouldn't go for that, and they've come to rule our lives. So, OK, you could say let's allow civil unions among any number of adults, but without any legal benefits, so that insurance companies don't pop a gasket. At that point you'd have to say--what's the point of having marriage at all?



Yeah, I agree. I don't think society is equipped to handle something like that. I'd like to think that we could change such that multiple marriage would work, but I think you're right. It's more likely that before that would happen we'd abolish the institution of marriage all together.

_____________________________

~in the begining it is always dark~

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 10:46:57 AM   
MadameDahlia


Posts: 2021
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: SoCal aka Hell
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cellogrrlMK


quote:

ORIGINAL: MadameDahlia

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/JesusPenis.htm

Scroll down the to the bottom to see the video.

"Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis Song for George Bush et al" ©2004 Eric Schwartz



MadameDahlia, thank you!!!! I LOVED it!!! LOLOL PERFECT!!!!!!



You’re very welcome!


quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

I believe homosexual couples should be allowed to marry in any state in the US.


There are alot of benefits to marriage, tax breaks, health insurance just to name two.


Not to change your thread ShiftedJewel but what if you are in a poly , do you think all 3 should be able to marry? Or all 4,5,6?


They could incorporate, each being partners, and then at least get health care for themselves and extended family.


_____________________________

Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
--R. D. Laing

"Oh, but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 1:36:23 PM   
cellogrrlMK


Posts: 672
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pantera


Do people really listen to Air America??? LOL!!! j/k



Yeah, they do...

quote:


In the Atlanta area (and all over the country) we listen to Boortz (he's the best talk show host EVER!!!)



Don't know where I could find him in the Cincy area, do you?

quote:


Even though I voted for Bush, I voted against the constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages- keep g'vmt out of our personal lives,....but also our pockets!!!!!


Ah well, we all make mistakes .... too bad your second vote couldn't negate the first.

(in reply to pantera)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 3:35:57 PM   
onceburned


Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cellogrrlMK
quote:


In the Atlanta area (and all over the country) we listen to Boortz (he's the best talk show host EVER!!!)


Don't know where I could find him in the Cincy area, do you?


I don't know a thing about the guy but his website has a live audio stream while he is broadcasting (8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET). And it also has a list of stations that carry his show.

Cox Radio Syndication distributes his show, and has a sampler of one-liners Boortz has said. It might make give you an idea of his views and his approach.

And if you want to read a funny anti-Boortz rant, Creative Loafing dethrones the king.


< Message edited by onceburned -- 5/20/2005 3:36:41 PM >

(in reply to cellogrrlMK)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 4:10:00 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel


I want more then anything to know where it is written that Church and State shall remain seperate.... Jewel


Good question Jewel! It isn't! The original intent of the "idea" was to ensure that no state would have a state religion. In other words, Arizona cannot declare that you can't live in Arizona without becoming a member of the <insert any religious denomination of your choice here>
The whole separation of church and state has been bastardized into what W/we hear so much about today.
Yes, I, too, would love for someone to show Me where this is written in the constitution.


_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to ShiftedJewel)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 4:39:19 PM   
onceburned


Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline
quote:

The original intent of the "idea" was to ensure that no state would have a state religion.


Yes, the establishment clause of the First Amendment does not use the phrase "separation of Church and State". Apparently, the phrase had its roots in a letter that President Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association in which he advocated "building a wall of separation between Church and State".

The establishment clause is an idea - it is not a law. It is imprecise and needs to be interpreted and the Separation of Chuch and State is an interpretation that is rooted in judicial decisions since the early days of the United States. This is not necessarily a bad thing - the doctrine of Balance of Powers between the Executive Branch, the Legislature and the Judiciary is also not in the Constitution. It is a tradition of our country that has evolved over the past 200 years.

And it is a tradition that recognizes that religion can not be fully separated from the government.

quote:

With this in mind, it is important to note that throughout history, religion has not been kept wholly separate from the institutions of state. In fact, Congress, in conjunction with the Treasury, maintains the stamp "In God We Trust" on the currency of the United States, and the Judiciary is yet to ban the closing to the Pledge of Allegiance, which proclaims that America is "one nation under God."17 Such religious interventions prevent the Judiciary from taking a bright line approach with Establishment Clause cases, noting that "an absolutist approach in applying the Establishment Clause is simplistic and has been uniformly rejected by the Court."18

Accordingly, the Court has taken an ad hoc approach to cases involving the Establishment Clause, reviewing the surrounding circumstances in each case individually.19 "The Establishment Clause, like the Due Process Clauses, is not a precise, detailed provision in a legal code capable of ready application. The purpose of the Establishment Clause 'was to state an objective, not to write a statute.'"20 Therefore, "the line between permissible relationships and those barred by the Clause can no more be straight and unwavering than due process can be defined in a single stroke or phrase or test."21 This is because the Clause erects a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."22 Because of this inability to create a bright line rule, courts have sought to discover a way to determine whether a challenged law or conduct is in violation of the Establishment Clause.


The 10 Commandments plaques and sculptures are disallowed in courthouses because "for a practice to survive an Establishment Clause challenge, it 'must have a secular legislative purpose, . . . its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, . . . [and it] must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.'

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/misc/first_amendment.html




(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/20/2005 4:49:55 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
Thank you Chris! Now why didn't I know that this bastardization was begun by LBJ? I should've been able to make that leap!
Yet another thing to be grateful to him for. <tongue firmly in cheek>

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to onceburned)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Same-sex marriage - 5/21/2005 12:25:36 AM   
allyC


Posts: 778
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
I believe that any consenting adults, regardless of gender, faith, sexual orientation, etc., should be able to enter into a union (marriage, etc.) and be afforded the same legal rights as anyone else. It doesn't matter to me what it is called either. Call it marriage, call it a union - hell, call it whatever you want. Two or more people who love each other and who want to solidify their committment legally, ensuring legal rights to each other shouldn't be discriminated against period.

In a polygamy situation, as far as insurance companies are concerned, the premium should depend on the number of dependents anyway. For each additional dependent (child or spouse) it will cost the subscriber more money. I think its pretty simple.

Some insurance companies only have 2 types of coverage. One is "self" and the other is "self and family." When I worked for the feds, it was set up this way. What is strange is that the guy who had 7 kids and a wife paid the same as me (a single mom) with one child. That's screwed up no matter how you slice it.

If insurance companies were set up with premiums based on the number of dependents, than polygamy wouldn't be a problem. They'd make money and people would have coverage :)

When my owner and I eventually find another slave to join our life (prays), we think it is going to be quite a shame that he cannot, if he chooses, take her for his wife also. :( Maybe someday people will realize that you can't legislate morality. Until then, we're stuck with P.O.A's and such.

Well wishes, folks,

Cav's girl
ally

< Message edited by allyC -- 5/21/2005 12:26:14 AM >


_____________________________

Once I said to my owner (in a cheeky way after he had done something evil)...

"You know... Master almost rhymes with Bastard."

to which he replied, "Yup, and slave rhymes with cunt."


(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Same-sex marriage Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.145