RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/28/2009 9:17:10 PM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Although if it was up to me everyone would be a civil union,

Im right with you there.

For that matter, so is the president. "My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth" --- Barack Obama in the 2007 Democratic primary debate Aug 9, 2007

And for that matter, several opinion polls show that the majority of americans want the government out of the maraige business, redurcing the government interference in the lives of BOTH gay and straight to being only civial unions.

But why is it that when I say I want gay AND straight couples to have civial unions, the 'straight couple civial union' gets totaly ignored and instead all people can focus on is 'he wants civial unions for gays, hes a hatemonger'?

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to SmokingGun82)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/28/2009 9:19:40 PM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I'm totally for religious institutions choosing who they will and won't marry.

So now your saying you are ok with gay couples being denied the right to marry?

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 12:02:17 AM

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

I'm totally for religious institutions choosing who they will and won't marry.
So now your saying you are ok with gay couples being denied the right to marry?

On a symbolic and religious level? Totally. Deny whoever you want. On a political and legal level? Absolutely not.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 12:21:29 AM

BKSir

Posts: 4037
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Salt Lake City, UT
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

Although if it was up to me everyone would be a civil union,
Im right with you there.

For that matter, so is the president. "My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth" --- Barack Obama in the 2007 Democratic primary debate Aug 9, 2007

And for that matter, several opinion polls show that the majority of americans want the government out of the maraige business, redurcing the government interference in the lives of BOTH gay and straight to being only civial unions.

But why is it that when I say I want gay AND straight couples to have civial unions, the 'straight couple civial union' gets totaly ignored and instead all people can focus on is 'he wants civial unions for gays, hes a hatemonger'?

Well, I've had my "marriage", you know what? It means diddly jack shit. Why, because it was two guys, not a guy and a gal. Even though it was two ministers there performing it. So, whoop de fuggin'doo...

Thing is, we haven't had the "civil union" side of it, and even if we WERE to get it in a state that does them, and recognizes them, it means diddly here in Utah, and 44 other states. You know, the 'legal' side, the 'incorporation'.

Marriage, in the definition most people consider it, is just that, a civil union. A business agreement dealing with property laws, tax laws, inheritance laws, liability and asset laws.

But in reality, Marriage is nothing but pomp and circumstance and some overdressed schmuck spewing platitudes, and means absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law.

So no, I don't want a marriage. I have one. Be damned if I'm going to go through all that work and planning and logistical nightmare and expense again. But I DO want a civil union. I want my J. and M. Inc.

_____________________________

We'll begin with a spin, traveling in a world of my creation. What we'll see will defy explanation.

I am the voices in your head.

BiggKatt Studios

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 6:10:43 AM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

Great! Now I can finally answer your question.

quote:

If you could explain why you, personally, don't seem to want gay couples using it, perhaps we'd be getting somewhere with this conversation.

You want to know why I want to deny gays the right to marry? On a symbolic and religious level? Totally. Deny whoever you want. On a political and legal level? Absolutely not.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 6:14:16 AM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

But I DO want a civil union. I want my J. and M. Inc.

I will go you one better than that. I want it not only for YOU, but for EVERYONE!

But why is it that when I say that I get accused of not allowing equal rights?

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to BKSir)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 6:37:43 AM

Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

The problem would be solved if we stopped using the term "marriage" or "married" or anything like that for legal reasons but guess what, they are use for legal reasons.

So instead of fixing that problem, lets just screw it up for everyone?

The government has already fucked up things totally for straight couples. Why do I need to go to uncle sam and beg for permission to be in love? What business is it of the grovernment to be passing out certificates telling people who they can or cant form a relationship with? Whats next? Government issued free speach permits? But when faced with the task of 'Lets get government out of peoples private lives' we just throw up our hands and claim that its too tough of a task?

Wow, that is a huge jump in logic.

To be in love, you don't need anyone permission except maybe your family depending on how much control they have over you.

Marriage, as it is legally defined, isn't about love, it's about legal rights.

If you get a religious ceremony that is not backed by the state, you can call it marriage all you wish but in terms of the law of the USA it is not a legal marriage and you will have zero rights.

Most religious groups take the time to find out what is required by the law and they include that in their religious ceremonies -- either before, during or right after. The state paperwork must be done and filed or you are not legally married.

Period. That is the law, that is how it works, period.

You do not need the religious aspect but you do need that legal documentation to be considered legally married which is what gay and lesbian couples are asking for.

May I ask, TheHungryTiger, why that bothers you so much? You seem to be very confused about what actually happens at a religious ceremony that makes it a legal marriage. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the legal system of the state.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 8:02:24 AM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

Its not a jump in logic, its the enevadabal fallout of using only one word for two difrent issues.

Even in this thread thers examples where I say 'I dont suport gay mariage' and the comback was 'Who are you to tell others what their relationship can be. Cant you see their in love' Every time some state law passes the political movement finds some 80 year old couple who have been together forever and parade them in front of their cameras touting off how wonderful that this couple who is 'so in love' can finaly express their love.

Its not the 'evil christians' who are so demanding that the two issues get merged into one. Its the politicized gay activists. Vermont had a previous law granting equal legal standing, and it wasent the bible thumpers that came along demanding that its all gotta be just one thing, its the gay activists and their rally cry of 'we tried seperate but equal and it didnt work' that is causing this unfortunate merger between the legal situation and the religious situation.

If I talk about gay mariage, enevedably someone is going to misunderstand me and think Im talking about gay mariage instead of gay mariage. Or if I talk about gay mariage someone will misunderstand me and think im talking about gay mariage instead of gay mariage.

Ok, so language changes. Im not one of these sticklers that chastises people for using 'car' instead of 'automoble'. If we want to take the word mariage away from churches and have 'mariage' mean only and purely just a legal status Im perfectly willing to do that. Lets DO call it mariage. What do you call that thing that isnt mariage? I try using the word 'marklar' abnd get yelled at for being stupid. I take someone elses suggestion and call it 'The Incredible String Band' and get chastised for being argumenitive. I ASK for someone to give me a word and get told to use the word 'mariage' even though I just got done being lectured to that 'mariage' is only a legal term and nothing else.

Why does it matter to me? Because im a minority religion myself. As pointed out by others, I dont agree with a catholic church, but I will defend strongly their right to refuse gay mariage.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to thetammyjo)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 9:46:33 AM

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

...its the gay activists and their rally cry of 'we tried seperate but equal and it didnt work' that is causing this unfortunate merger between the legal situation and the religious situation.

You keep on talking about this blur between church and state, and have yet to come up with a reason why allowing gay marriage does this.

I live in a country that allows gay marriage. There are churches that will marry gay couples, and ones that won't. That's their choice, and that choice is protected by the law. Gay marriage in no way impinges upon their religious freedom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

Ok, so language changes. Im not one of these sticklers that chastises people for using 'car' instead of 'automoble'. If we want to take the word mariage away from churches and have 'mariage' mean only and purely just a legal status Im perfectly willing to do that. Lets DO call it mariage. What do you call that thing that isnt mariage? I try using the word 'marklar' abnd get yelled at for being stupid. I take someone elses suggestion and call it 'The Incredible String Band' and get chastised for being argumenitive. I ASK for someone to give me a word and get told to use the word 'mariage' even though I just got done being lectured to that 'mariage' is only a legal term and nothing else.

What baffles me is the fact that you feel the need for a new word for marriage. Just because the Catholic church and the courthouse differ in how they define it doesn't mean one of them needs to abandon the term.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 10:45:51 AM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

You keep on talking about this blur between church and state, and have yet to come up with a reason why allowing gay marriage does this.

But gay marriage doesn't do it. I never claimed that gay marriage blurs the separation of church and state.

In contrast, gay marriage does blur the separation of church and state. Nobody has a right to gay marriage, instead they have a right to gay marriage.

If I was claiming that I was against gay marriage because it blurs the separation of church and state, then I would agree that such talk is nonsense. But Its gay marriage and not gay marriage that is the problem.

And if the above three paragraphs dont make any sense, remember that its you claiming that there dosent need to be difrent words for difrent meanings.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 12:12:57 PM

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

You keep on talking about this blur between church and state, and have yet to come up with a reason why allowing gay marriage does this.

But gay marriage doesn't do it. I never claimed that gay marriage blurs the separation of church and state.

In contrast, gay marriage does blur the separation of church and state. Nobody has a right to gay marriage, instead they have a right to gay marriage.

If I was claiming that I was against gay marriage because it blurs the separation of church and state, then I would agree that such talk is nonsense. But Its gay marriage and not gay marriage that is the problem.

And if the above three paragraphs dont make any sense, remember that its you claiming that there dosent need to be difrent words for difrent meanings.

Well, if you could elaborate on which gay marriage you object to, and why, it would be helpful, because as I see it, neither religious nor legal gay marriage blurs the line between church and state. It really doesn't matter whether you're objecting to the The United Church of Canada marrying a gay couple, or the Government of Canada marrying a gay couple, in either case the divide between church and state remains intact, and I really can't see what you have to object to in either case.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 2:35:35 PM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Well, if you could elaborate on which gay marriage you object to, and why, it would be helpful,

I wish I could ..... give me the terms to use and I will do it.

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to WestBaySlave)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/29/2009 11:42:14 PM

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

Well, if you could elaborate on which gay marriage you object to, and why, it would be helpful,
I wish I could ..... give me the terms to use and I will do it.

Since you can't articulate what you object to, there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this discussion.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/30/2009 12:33:38 AM

Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

Well, if you could elaborate on which gay marriage you object to, and why, it would be helpful,
I wish I could ..... give me the terms to use and I will do it.

How about this:

A "marriage" is any union between two or more people, recognized by an established cultural institution. Thus, if the Universal Unitarian Church decides to marry Steve and Mary, they're married. If they decide to marry Steve and Bob, they're married. If they decide to marry Jake, Becky, Leah, Billie and Zillie, they're all one big happy family. Any other churches or social institutions that choose to honor the Universal Unitarian Church's definition of marriage can decide to agree that Jake, Becky, Leah, Billie and Zillie are married, and any churches or social institutions that choose not to honor that institution's definitions can say that they're just "living in heathen sin", and it doesn't matter at all in an official capacity due to what we call the "separation of church and state".

A "civil union" is any union between two or more people, recognized by the government. It has nothing to do with "marriage", because that's a cultural and/or religious thing. But if any two people decide that they want to have all the economic benefits and liabilities of a joint relationship - including joint tax filings, the ability to be held accountable for each others' debts, and re-allocation of belongings after separation - then they go to the Justice of the Peace and they apply for a civil union. And it doesn't matter who asks for one, because the government isn't in the business of judging whether one civil union is preferrable to another. It just makes sure that no one is trying to exploit someone else or pull some sort of legal shenanegans, and if everything's in order, they've got a civil union.

The problem that you've actually very eloquently described, is that we call both of these things "marriage" today. And a lot of people are loathe to strip the term "marriage" away from the second thing, which should really be called a "civil union" regardless of the number of penises of vaginas involved.

So, let's try this again, calling any government-recognized union a "civil union", and any culturally-recognized union a "marriage". I think you'll be able to express your point much more clearly this time.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/30/2009 6:02:21 AM

Posts: 454
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

The problem that you've actually very eloquently described, is that we call both of these things "marriage" today. And a lot of people are loathe to strip the term "marriage" away from the second thing, which should really be called a "civil union" regardless of the number of penises of vaginas involved.

Exactly my point. And its not the 'evil Christians' who are so opposed to stripping the term 'marriage' away from the second thing. The 'evil christioans' are the people who WANT the second thing to be called mariage. Its the radical activists that are so singlemindly focused on cementing the term 'mariage' to the second thing.

But thats cool. Im willing to go that way. If gay activists are so bloody terified of the word 'civial union', even if 'civial union' is applied both to gay and straight EQUALY, then im willing to scrap the term 'cival union' and use the word 'mariage' for that second thing. Lets all agree that the second thing should be called 'mariaqge'. But doing that now leave no word left to describe the first thing.

It seems like semantics but it has real world conciquences. There have already been instances where a church had denyed a couple the cermony of one of the churches religious sacrement and has been instantly hit up with anti-discrimination lawsuits. Even though the religious cermony has no legal standing whatsoever.

The risk to religious freedom is when a church denys a gay couple the first thing (what you and I are wanting to call mariage) and the couple gets their undies in a twist because they feel they have been denied the second thing (what you and I are wanting to call civial union) and start screaming that they are not being treated 'equaly' because they have just been denyed the "right to marry".

But they havent been denyed a right, they have been denyed a rite.

So even though the two terms you give are very good, and are the terms I wish we would all be able to use, its simply never goign to happen that way. Stripping the word mariage away from the second thing and having it mean only the first thing (or stripping the word mariage away from the first thing and having it mean only the second thing) is only going to start gay activists screaming that there isnt 'equality'. And I think the merging together of the first thing and the second thing both under the word 'mariage' is being done on purpose so that when a church refuses to preform a first thing cermony on a gay couple, the anti-discrimination lawusits againt the church can go forth under the theory that the gay couple was denyed the second thing.

quote:

So, let's try this again, calling any government-recognized union a "civil union", and any culturally-recognized union a "marriage". I think you'll be able to express your point much more clearly this time.

I can give it a try .....

No person, neither gay nor straight, has a fundamental right to marriage.

Wanna place bets on how long it will take before someone comes by saying 'he dosen't support gay marriage! Hes a hatemonger that dosent want equal rights for gays under the law'?

< Message edited by TheHungryTiger -- 5/30/2009 6:06:43 AM >

_____________________________

Bondage Ropes
High quality center-marked
bondage ropes and supplies.
www.kinkyropes.com

Ads by Goooooogle

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)

RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto over... - 5/30/2009 1:11:32 PM

Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

No person, neither gay nor straight, has a fundamental right to marriage.

Actually, I'd clarify that a step further:

No person, neither gay nor straight, has a fundamental right to having their marriage universally recognized by governmental force.

People actually do have a fundamental right to marriage under the First Amendment, as it falls under "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Likewise, under the Fourteenth Amendment ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"), the federal government has to either provide everyone the ability to enter into civil unions/mutual guardianship/durable power of attourney, or not provide civil unions at all.

(in reply to TheHungryTiger)

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: "Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override"

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

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

0.094