RE: Gay marriage

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Gay marriage

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Gay marriage

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 9:52:06 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

I wanna kiss ya too......I wanna smear that lipstick all over you...

oops.. shoulda been cmail huh?

Tartily, I will agree, but hey... nothing wrong with a little PDA

.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreedyTop)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 9:54:53 AM

slaveboyforyou

Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline

quote:

SB4U,

Nice to know we at least agree on this. (I voted against it... but that's obvious since I've said before that I've been a part of a group that's been trying to get it blocked on a Constitutional basis. If it passes, we can expect a long, drawn out, very expensive [for AR taxpayers] legal battle.)

Bipolar, why would you think othewise? You got to get over this black/white view of the world that people with conservative opinions must be racist, homophobic bigots. Most of the people I know are voting against this, and that includes Republicans and Christians.

(in reply to bipolarber)

Profile

Post #: 62

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 9:56:35 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: persephonee

GT...firstly...any lipstick smudging is coming in my direction....
and second...kittensol is mine dammit.

possessively,

Lesbian spanking inferno *drool dribble beg* ?

_____________________________

(in reply to persephonee)

Profile

Post #: 63

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 9:56:37 AM

beargonewild

Posts: 22716
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

From what I have seen with the anti gay marriage debate, and this is especially true here in Canada before it was finally recognized in the legal system, is the fact that many in high positions of power and many of the general public are acting on their fear. Meaning that the religious groups and many in governmental positions have this belief that allowing a minority (homosexuals) the right to marry is a a sure sign that the state of marriage is being destroyed. Quite often, these people conveniently and automatically use the argument that the bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Yet what seems to be overlooked, deliberately or not, is a bold fact that the bible is basically a compilation of stories written by several people over the course of hundreds of years from their point of view so logically it will be biased.

Another issue I see as a stumbling block is all the laws we created concerning marriage and all the rights and privileges will have to be rewritten to reflect that homosexuals are able to wed legally and are entitled to the same accords. Now that alone should keep the lawyers and politicians busy for the next several years! It is very sad to see that these people in power and anti gay, will use any excuse to keep and treat minority groups as second or third class citizens. A prime example is 40 years ago, common law couples were treated the same way, 50-60 years ago, women weren't allowed to vote.

My stance regarding same sex marriages is and always will be positive. The general consensus among my fellow gays is simply we just want to be granted the same rights and accords a heterosexual couple has to marry. Whether we act upon that right is entirely up to the individuals involved, just like a heterosexual couple. We are not out to destroy the basic tenants of marriage and what it stands for, we simply would like it to be modified to include us. Frankly, this idea that a gay wedding will diminish a straight person's marriage is utter bullshit. It is up to the person who is married to keep a high value on their own marriage to their spouse.

As I said earlier, fear seems to be the common denominator in the anti same sex marriages. Yet my question is: Are all these religious and anti gay politicians that afraid of us, us who only comprise about 10% of the population? (10% being the estimated percentage of the population who are gay). I have yet to hear a valid and logical answer to this question.

_____________________________

Do Not Rile da Chosen Bear

Promiscuous boy you already know
That I’m all yours what you waiting for?

Resident MANWHORE ~1000 Bear pts~

10 NZ points
Whips~n~Cuffs

(in reply to thishereboi)

Profile

Post #: 64

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:01:08 AM

sirsholly

Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild
religious groups and many in governmental positions have this belief that allowing a minority (homosexuals) the right to marry is a a sure sign that the state of marriage is being destroyed..

if the state of marriage is being destroyed it has nothing to do with homosexuals but rather with past heterosexual "velcro" marriages.

_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)

(in reply to beargonewild)

Profile

Post #: 65

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:01:21 AM

persephonee

Posts: 5089
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline

Silly bear...its cuz we dress better.

_____________________________

You be the Captain; i'll be no one.

And You can carry me away....if You want to. ~Kasey Chambers

E*Whore, extraordinaire....

Nothing is exactly as it seems~Nor, is it otherwise.

(in reply to beargonewild)

Profile

Post #: 66

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:01:28 AM

CallaFirestormBW

Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's"... Marriage is a -religious- ceremony. Christian, Pagan, Native American, etc... the origins of 'marriage' have always been the sanctifying of a relationship before whatever "gods" happen to be present for those folks. It has been secularized, but it was, and always has been, first and foremost, a religious ceremony, binding a man and woman under the hand of whatever god(s) they happen to believe in.

It is only in modern times that the US Government, unbounded (supposedly) by any religious predisposition, established -secular- "marriage", enabling a duly recognized official to "fill in" for a priest/minister/etc., in much the same way that a ship's Captain was allowed to do under British Marine Law, or a mayor was allowed to do in the Middle Ages, to buy a couple time until a duly authorized clergy of the Church of England could make the circuit to marry them.

I say get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Enable individuals to enter into civil contracts of cohabitation in any permutation they like. Require said individuals to bear the responsibility for proper contracting of these contracts, and allow them to be registered, for a fee, with the state in recognition of the contract, in the same way that a business registers. Let the -churches- have marriage back, and leave it as a sacred entity for the folks who need and want it to be that. Don't give any secular "benefits" for marriage. Require registration of parentage when a birth certificate is filed (as many "parents" as wish to be responsible for said child... but at -least- one adult taking responsibility for each birth registered), and base child support and maintenance on these registrations of birth.

Arrange insurance so that an individual may include any designated individual on their insurance, for a supplemental fee. Children can be insured by any or all parents, and benefits may be sub-divided among policies to assure full coverage of children, or different children in a household may be covered by different adults, as long as all the kids in a household are cared for.

Why is that so bloody hard to sort out..? That way, the Churches can have "marriage" as their own little private religious domain, and the rest of us can have civil contracts spelling out whatever permutation of relationship we prefer, without religious overtones of any sort. "Weird" people won't 'defile' marriage, because marriage will be returned to its historical status as a religious ceremony, and the law will recognize -any- contract of cohabitation, regardless of origin, religious or secular, with equal legal status.

< Message edited by CallaFirestormBW -- 10/22/2008 10:03:50 AM >

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to faerytattoodgirl)

Profile

Post #: 67

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:01:35 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Bingo, bear. The confusion seems to stem from the idea that marriage is a strictly religious (and christian, at that) affair, when couples from all walks of life sign up for it.

_____________________________

(in reply to beargonewild)

Profile

Post #: 68

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:02:59 AM

persephonee

Posts: 5089
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: persephonee

GT...firstly...any lipstick smudging is coming in my direction....
and second...kittensol is mine dammit.

possessively,

Lesbian spanking inferno *drool dribble beg* ?

kitten....come here...now.

_____________________________

You be the Captain; i'll be no one.

And You can carry me away....if You want to. ~Kasey Chambers

E*Whore, extraordinaire....

Nothing is exactly as it seems~Nor, is it otherwise.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 69

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:03:06 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

I live in a town of 12000, 200,ooo in 4 counties.

I was mad over the closing of the parks... the crack down. There was a degree of social to it- tho yes there was sleaze too.

I was waiting for brokeback to be banned here. it wasnt.

Some get married -because they are scared. One guy said to me he is surprised a brick doesnt go thru my window. But it isnt like that.

I would tell the guys to take the sex out of the park- meet and go somewhere else. But of course we learn the hard way. When they did the 2nd crack down 3 lost their job. They were charged but not yet convicted. 2 of them I verbally had warned.
(I knew what the state was up to)

A buddy of mine is stealth at laying bi guys. He goes to a regular bar. He laid like 7 guys that hung together... but none know about the other. Jim is the type that when some hoot and hollar in the front- he had pre-arranged to meet and fuck in the back.

anyhow I dont think in this area that gays have it harder then much of the US. I dont hang at bars, I keep to myself. I have no problems being harrassed.

(in reply to faerytattoodgirl)

Profile

Post #: 70

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:06:55 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's"... Marriage is a -religious- ceremony. Christian, Pagan, Native American, etc... the origins of 'marriage' have always been the sanctifying of a relationship before whatever "gods" happen to be present for those folks.

No.

"From the Early Christian era, marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Prior to 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a bethrotal. But if the couple proceeded to have sexual relations, the union was a marriage. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

_____________________________

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)

Profile

Post #: 71

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:08:54 AM

beargonewild

Posts: 22716
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Bingo, bear. The confusion seems to stem from the idea that marriage is a strictly religious (and christian, at that) affair, when couples from all walks of life sign up for it.

Yes. Or even if it is possible without one influencing the other, still maintain a religious marriage ceremony and a marriage conducted by a Justice of the Peace. Yes there are couple who do desire a church wedding and others desire a JP.

_____________________________

Do Not Rile da Chosen Bear

Promiscuous boy you already know
That I’m all yours what you waiting for?

Resident MANWHORE ~1000 Bear pts~

10 NZ points
Whips~n~Cuffs

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 72

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:10:00 AM

sirsholly

Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's"... Marriage is a -religious- ceremony. Christian, Pagan, Native American, etc... the origins of 'marriage' have always been the sanctifying of a relationship before whatever "gods" happen to be present for those folks.

No.

"From the Early Christian era, marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Prior to 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a bethrotal. But if the couple proceeded to have sexual relations, the union was a marriage. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

*nods* It makes even more sense when you think that back then there were no legal benefits to marriage

_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 73

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:16:26 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

But then, David's Bridal and Tiffany's wanted to set up shop, so they lobbied big time to make wedding ceremonies something large and crazily expensive and... the rest is history.

_____________________________

(in reply to sirsholly)

Profile

Post #: 74

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:21:08 AM

Dnomyar

Posts: 7933
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline

Seeing that God is being brought up here a lot. Did he not covet and screw someone elses woman. Sorts of makes the 10 commandments hypocritical.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 75

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:21:31 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

yeah- a buddy of mine said it is only an issue so divorce attorneys can have business.

back in Chicago, movers who did last minute weekend moves made a fortune. of course the ads were hunky. but there would be a fight and a guy would move out. last minute.

lol.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 76

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:22:24 AM

Lashra

Posts: 4900
Joined: 2/9/2006
Status: offline

I am for gay marriage. I feel that they have a right, just like any other couple, to be married.
Afterall this is America, everyone is supposed to be free so why let the religious cronies dictate
who can marry and who cannot, isn't there still a separation of church and state in this country?
I hope so if we loose the separation of church and state, this country will be overrun with
fundamental nutcases.

~Lashra

_____________________________

“We can never judge the lives of others, because each person knows only their own pain and renunciation. It's one thing to feel that you are on the right path, but it's another to think that yours is the only path.”

(in reply to GreedyTop)

Profile

Post #: 77

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:22:47 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

I think if the religiously minded want to get back to proper tradition then all marriage except that conducted under the auspices of the Church Of England (Episcopalians in the US) should be banned.

Or is it about something other than traditional values (the sort that saw Catholics and other dissenters harassed and murdered - the sort that the first settlers left England to avoid - the sort that the descendants of those settlers were careful to avoid in the US Constitution)?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 78

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:34:01 AM

VivaciousSub

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/7/2008
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

<FR>

Aside from the fact that I am perfectly OK with gay marriage, or any other kind of long-term union, the state constitution is NO place for such a law, and thus I will be voting "no" on this come the 4th.

And Bipolar...I'm a conservative. I'm neither racist nor homophobic.

_____________________________

9.8m/s^2 + VivaciousSub + ground = ouchx10^9th

To yield readily--easily--to the persuasion of a friend is no merit.... To yield without conviction is no compliment to the understanding of either. ~ Pride and Prejudice

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 79

RE: Gay marriage - 10/22/2008 10:39:13 AM

GreedyTop

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

IIRC, in the Netherlands..a CHURCH wedding isnt recognized.. a marriage is only legal if done before LEGAL authorities (i.e. the equivalent of a JoP, etc)

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to VivaciousSub)

Profile

Post #: 80