Same Sex Marriage

[2quills]

Let's make it legal. I for one feel that every citizen of this country should have the same right to marry and file jointly just like everyone else. It's time to put aside petty differences in lifestyles or belief. We don't have to agree with each other, we just need to find a way to co-exist peacefully with one another.
Amen!

 

[jovial]

Concur, the same rights should be extended to polygamists or someone who wants to marry a flock of mountain goats.

 

[silverado61]

I for one don't give two craps what religion somebody is. Or what race they are. Or what sexual orientation they are. If we're all good honest people, that's all that really matters.

Isn't it?

 

[darthtang aw]

Let's make it legal. I for one feel that every citizen of this country should have the same right to marry and file jointly just like everyone else. It's time to put aside petty differences in lifestyles or belief. We don't have to agree with each other, we just need to find a way to co-exist peacefully with one another.
Amen!
I have no issue with this as long as the law will allow churches to still dictate who they marry. It is no different than Catholic church refusing to marry someone unless they are catholic.
Civil Unions would have passed 10 years ago....based off public opinion.

 

[mohawkninja]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397249/same-sex-marriage#post_3540324
I have no issue with this as long as the law will allow churches to still dictate who they marry. It is no different than Catholic church refusing to marry someone unless they are catholic.
Civil Unions would have passed 10 years ago....based off public opinion.
Well Darth and I finally agree on something...

 

[2quills]

I for one don't give two craps what religion somebody is. Or what race they are. Or what sexual orientation they are. If we're all good honest people, that's all that really matters.
Isn't it?
To some of us I suppose it is. For me I'd say yes.
I have no issue with this as long as the law will allow churches to still dictate who they marry. It is no different than Catholic church refusing to marry someone unless they are catholic.
Civil Unions would have passed 10 years ago....based off public opinion. Absolutely, religious freedoms should always remain protected in this country. Everybody should have a place of sanctuary, comfort, support or just somewhere that makes you feel like home. Unless things turn violent or break some real crimes of course.
Churches can deny who ever they want. But in the matters of state or businesses that are a part of that state then those business have to comply with law. Discrimination for one's belief is not justification for refusal of service. That should only come into play where matters of health or safety are concerned.
Everyone has a right to pursue their happiness. I can't imagine denying anyone the same great things that civil union has brought to my life. That's just cruel, IMO.
I will not support any politician if I believe they ever try to do so.
Well Darth and I finally agree on something...  
Don't hear that every day do we? lol

 

[darthtang aw]

You know what is funny/ironic in all this? Government created this problem in the first place. Religion and religious people get blamed for the divide, but in actuality The Government created the divide before there was an issue.
I wonder if anyone can figure out what I mean.

 

[2quills]

If you really think about it government isn't all that different than the roll religions have played over the years. The separation of church and state is nothing more than one religion wishing to separate itself from the others.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397249/same-sex-marriage#post_3540339
You know what is funny/ironic in all this? Government created this problem in the first place. Religion and religious people get blamed for the divide, but in actuality The Government created the divide before there was an issue.
I wonder if anyone can figure out what I mean.
So the government passed the Civil Rights Act to protect individuals from being discriminated against, and you call that the problem? So I assume that if they never would've intervened and passed this law, people in this country would've magically come together, put aside all their animosities and bigotries towards anyone who was "different from them", whether it be the color of their skin, their religious preferences, their sexual preferences, or simply which sex they were? Interesting how Coke made their landmark commercial about this issue, and the Beatles created their numerous songs about this very topic around the same time. Unfortunately, very few people listened.

Religion and religious people get blamed for the divide because they are the one's who are the most vocal opponents when any controversial issue about race, sex, or national origin comes to fruition. When it comes to same sex marriage, which organizations or groups of individuals in this country are the most vocal opponent for allowing states to ratify a law for even civil unions for those individuals? What's the main statement or "motto" used to voice opposition for gay marriages? - "Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN." Where does that ideology come from? It's not from the nonsecular population in this country.

 

[darthtang aw]

So the government passed the Civil Rights Act to protect individuals from being discriminated against, and you call that the problem? 
Nope. That isn't the issue.
So I don't even need to read the rest of what you wrote.
Go back furhter in U.S. history, a lot further back......At the inception of this nation pretty much.

 

[sharkysmachine]

Anyone who travels the world would know the rest of the world laughs at US culture today. Gay marriage and abortion are a small part of a much larger social virus that will divide this country once again.

The religious movement is growing exponentially and unity to defeat the liberal agenda will be found on a global scale. Tolerance yes, acceptance never.

One only has to look at the news lately to see how other countries view gay marriage.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkysMachine http:///t/397249/same-sex-marriage#post_3540360
Anyone who travels the world would know the rest of the world laughs at US culture. Gay marriage and abortion are a small part of a much larger social virus that will divide this country once again. There is a silent majority that opposes the liberal agenda.

Marriage between a man and a woman is how it should be, otherwise we would all be the same sex. Gay marriage may become popular but it will never become right. Homosexuality dosent exist in nature and stops pro-creation.

The religious movement is growing exponentially fueled by the normal people who oppose the liberal agenda.
Tolerance yes, acceptance never.


2 posts and you stuck your nose into this battle??? Poor, poor deluded person...... Welcome to the site.

The only thing legal marriage presents in the eyes of the law are certain rights...to name a few....

[*]File jointly for taxes
[*]A legal resolution to dividing accumulated assets and debt, should the union fail
[*]The surviving spouse is in control of the body, remaining assets and whatnot, should one of them die.
The right to make decisions on health issues and be able to sign for treatment, should the partner not be able to.
be able to carry your partner on your health insurance.


The idea that it isn't 'right" is a moral (religious) one. The government has no right to dictate what people do on that level. Who we worship, how we worship, why we worship, and the moral laws dictated by that religion is none of the governments concern.


Same sex unions on a LEGAL level, should have every right to combine their assets, and allow the person they love to be able to make decisions on the disposition of their body, or sign for medical treatment. They should be able to file jointly for taxes, and be able to have insurance should one of them become sick. It doesn't involve the religious people, nor does it require one to be all holy enough to be able to have sex....the teen pregnancy problem would disappear completely if the people were truly holy enough to keep their pants on unless they are married.

The point is this....you don't need a marriage to have sex, the sex thing homosexuals are going to do regardless, just like the teens who do what they do. So my religion and your religion says it's a sin...fine, then don't do it, it is only going to affect you and me if we participate in such a marriage (or act of sex) ourselves. What "sinners" do in their own bedroom is between themselves and God. We don't have the right to dictate how others live their lives, if they ask our opinion on the subject of same sex...THEN give them your moral stand...otherwise it's none of our concern.

In our religion (Christian or Judaism to name a few) the act of sex is marriage, but the law won't recognize that union unless you apply for a license and make it legal... If you don't make it legal, you can't benefit from the union should something hit the fan in life....you would have no more rights then the homosexuals had for so many years. License of marriage just a legal document, concerning the laws and how you benefit from that law. It isn't a license to have sex, so whether it "right" or not, it doesn't matter.

 

[reefraff]

The government should only be involved in civil union contracts. Trying to create a marriage law violates the first amendment and always has. Congress shall make no law either for or against religion.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397249/same-sex-marriage#post_3540372
The government should only be involved in civil union contracts. Trying to create a marriage law violates the first amendment and always has. Congress shall make no law either for or against religion.

My argument is that a marriage license is a civil union contract. What marriage LAW are you talking about creating? That's a genuine question, I don't know of any such law. Giving a license to people so they can be recognized by the state as a unified couple has nothing to do with religion.

For example:

• A catholic girl can indeed get birth control or an abortion if she wants to, the law says she can...but not in a Catholic hospital nor with a priests "blessing".
• A man and a woman can live together for 30 years (some states recognize such unions as common law marriages, but not many) as husband and wife, but if they don't have a marriage license, the state won't be recognize them as married...and certain benefits are denied.
  As for being married in a church, each church leader has the right to decline or officiate to do it....regardless of it being legal.
  A divorce may be legal, but the Jewish faith will not recognize the divorce without a Get, a person that is legally divorced can't be remarried by a Rabbi without it.

Religion holds the high moral ground, no law can stop them. It may be legal for a girl to get an abortion, but there is no law that says she has to. Same sex unions may be legal, but that doesn't mean you nor I have to marry a person of the same sex. When it comes to religion, it only holds power over the religious people...what the rest of the world elects to do doesn't affect the religious position.

 

[reefraff]

A law that says says only a man and a woman can marry or same sex couples may marry. The government doesn't get a say under the constitution. Marriage is a religious institution that existed long before this country was founded. For the sake of being practical it made sense for the government to involve itself in marriage but according to the first amendment it's unconstitutional.

By proclaiming same sex "marriage" legal the government opens up churches to being sued for not performing the ceremony. People can argue until they are blue in the face that churches can't be forced to do so but you wouldn't think a photographer could be fined for refusing to attend a gay commitment ceremony either but it happened.

 

[darthtang aw]

A law that says says only a man and a woman can marry or same sex couples may marry. The government doesn't get a say under the constitution. Marriage is a religious institution that existed long before this country was founded. For the sake of being practical it made sense for the government to involve itself in marriage but according to the first amendment it's unconstitutional.
By proclaiming same sex "marriage" legal the government opens up churches to being sued for not performing the ceremony. People can argue until they are blue in the face that churches can't be forced to do so but you wouldn't think a photographer could be fined for refusing to attend a gay commitment ceremony either but it happened. 
Technically that is not true. And this is what I mean by the government causing this problem before it was a problem. At the inception of this country we adopted into law, English common law marriage. This states "“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.”
Once government interjected themselves into marriage it is no longer purely a religious or symbolic ceremony. it is a designation of class within the governmental society. If it was purely a religious or ceremonial institute, we would not need licenses, tax laws concerning married people which reduce the tax rate, automated wills based off law due to legal marriage...etc..etc...
Currently the homosexual community must pay more money to do the following instead of being legally married.
Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain legal abilities granted automatically by legal marriage, including power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance
A legal spouse could inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but a same-sex partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner
Same-sex couples were not eligible to file jointly as a married couple and thus could not take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly (however, in early 2013 the IRS did recognize the community property and income of same-sex partners in community property states
Only 18% of companies offered domestic partner health care benefits
Employer-provided health insurance coverage for a same-sex partner incurred federal income tax, unlike like coverage provided to a heterosexual couple
Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples had a member who was uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples
Inability to protect jointly-owned home from loss due to costs of potential medical catastrophe
Inability of a U.S. citizen to sponsor a same-sex spouse for citizenship, as married heterosexuals automatically could
Government grants these rights to married Adults without added costs.

 

[darthtang aw]

I guess what I am saying is from a legal standpoint I can see and actually support both arguments. From a religious standpoint I see and understand the concern. From a legal benefit standpoint I understand as well.
Hence why this issue has ranked low on my priority list. Neither side is willing to compromise that would benefit all... For the religious institutions, marriage was their domain for many many centuries with the government granting benefits Civil unions would solve this issue in all manners, but for the homosexual community that is not good enough, they wish to be treated equally.
With religious institutions they do not like the idea of marriage as it opens them up to a whole slew of legal problems (from the church only viewpoint).
Homosexual couples also encounter many legal problems.
It isn't a matter of who's right is greater than the other. Once we start placing certain rights above others then we create more problems. All "rights" are equal. It is a matter of finding the best solution to ensure all the rights remain intact.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397249/same-sex-marriage#post_3540377
A law that says says only a man and a woman can marry or same sex couples may marry. The government doesn't get a say under the constitution. Marriage is a religious institution that existed long before this country was founded. For the sake of being practical it made sense for the government to involve itself in marriage but according to the first amendment it's unconstitutional.




Marriage according to the Bible is two people who have sex....when the two come together they become one...also it continues on to say that a man should keep the old sex partner, and treat her equally to the next sex partner (wife #2), if he moves on and has sex with more then one partner... This law of scripture only pertains to men, women can't choose multiple sex partners.

Until the government created one, there never was a marriage license. The reason was to allow those who purchased a license to receive certain benefits from said government. The marriage license is nothing more then a legal document.

The government has created all kinds of laws that are not right in a moral sense...my example of abortion is one. I absolutely agree with you that a person should have the right to choose if they want to participate in any activity they feel is wrong, and the law should not be used to sue people for something they don't want to be a part of. This same government allows idiots to go picket at a funeral of a gay man with big signs saying he is damned to hell...to the horror of his family and friends and anyone else with a brain cell ...and the law gave him a license to do this protest.

LOL...I don't agree with the government, I don't let it dictate how I live my moral life. I don't participate, and if I have to... I'm smart enough to find a perfectly legal reason to not participate, and by showing a little respect, manage to not offend someone when I say no.

I think folks need to grow up a little bit and stop all the hate...it will never happen I know, but I only have control of my own life..

I may not think same sex relationships are moral because I'm deeply religious, but I love my friends and family (who cares what strangers do).... and if they are into that, and really intend to stay with someone they are sure they love, and want to be recognized by the state so they can have the benefits that go with that legal document called a license...so what. It isn't all roses either....sometimes jointly is more expensive. I know old folks who don't get married so they can keep their benefits, if they marry, they take a cut in their benefits... If one partner runs up a bill, even hospital bills...now both are responsible...if the couple want to divorce, now they have to pay a lawyer and assets are split. No more pack up your crap and leave to go find a new love of your life, divorce is expensive.

So instead of kicking so hard against same sex marriage, maybe we should spend our efforts to stop the ability to sue in a court of law for not wanting to participate if you don't want to. It isn't a hate crime to not want to tape somebodies wedding, it's just clogging up the courts with a bunch of nonsense.

 

[reefraff]

And if government ONLY issued civil union contracts we'd avoid all the hassles. If someone who is gay asked my opinion of their lifestyle I'd tell em "whatever floats your boat". If they asked if I thought it was a sin I'd have to say "according to what I've read in the bible, I think so but you can take that up with God when you meet him. It's not my call"

 

[darthtang aw]

And if government ONLY issued civil union contracts we'd avoid all the hassles. If someone who is gay asked my opinion of their lifestyle I'd tell em "whatever floats your boat". If they asked if I thought it was a sin I'd have to say "according to what I've read in the bible, I think so but you can take that up with God when you meet him. It's not my call"
Maybe, what government should do is change the law to only issue civil union contracts......would everyone be happy or content with that? maybe we are all protesting the wrong thing.