Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 714 times:
As many of you know, there is a movement in the U.S. to establish a new constitutional amendment which would define marriage as only being between one man and one woman. This is of course a backlash against gay and lesbian movements pushing for legal recognition of gay marriage.
I think it's a good idea. Morals in the world have dropped to such a point that at some point it has to be stopped. By allowing gay marriages, we would basically be throwing out the moral framework that is the bedrock of all civilized society, and replacing them with destructive ideals, such as 1) there are no differences between men and women that matter, 2) marriage has nothing to do with procreation, 3) children do not really need mothers and fathers, 4) the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.
In Europe we have an institution between being single and being married. The French word is "Concubinage", and is essentially a legally recognized status where 2 people live together, and have registered themselves as each others' concubine. It is not marriage, but it has practically the same effect vis-a-vis inheritance, rights, etc.
I don't think such an institution even has a descriptive word in English, but I think it's about time it should arrive. Gays and lesbians are here to stay, there's no question about that, but I feel marriage is a sacred institution that should not be touched. Mainstream society, while it can tolerate alternative lifestyles (as long as nobody is hurt) should not be forced to disgrace its most fundemental values for the sake of political correctness.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 662 times:
I think it's just a waste of breath and federal dollars, much like the flag-burning amendment. Some conservatives in this country want to have everything down on paper, so their way is the law of the land. If two people want to exchange vows to get married, what business is it of the governments to tell them otherwise? I thought the Republican Party was the party that was always telling us they want the government out of our lives? Yet they're trying to tell us we can't burn a piece of cloth; they're trying to tell us that they'll set the boundaries on who can legally get married. It's none of their business. It's none of my business, and it's none of anyone's business. And yeah, I know Cfalk didn't mention the GOP, but it is they that are spearheading this latest idiocy.
The institution of marriage isn't declining because of problems with gays and lesbians. Marriage is on the rocks because people who are getting married don't have any backbone to get through problems; they don't look at it as a committment, but just as an "agreement" or "understanding", that can be abridged at any time.
If the government wants to truly strengthen marriages, I'm sure there's a better way to do it than to just pick on gays and lesbians.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 656 times:
Being Roman Catholic, I don't much like the idea of divorce either, but enough blood has been shed over that issue...
As far as it being conservatives pushing this amendments, do you count Rev. Walter Fauntroy as one of them? If you recall, Fauntroy is one of Al Sharpton's good buddies, a civil rights leader, who denounced racial profiling, Bush's election, and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's a conservative?
The push for the amendment is interfaith, multicultural and bipartisan, and wishes to set a limit to which people do whatever they want to society's institutions.
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 644 times:
No, Hairyass, you're wrong. Here in Massachusetts, there are several democratic pushing for a state law to have on paper that marriage is something between a man and a woman. There is some conservative organization called the Masschusetts Family Alliance, or something like that who is spearheading the movement.
However, to me there are two kinds of marriages. One, a legally recognized marriage. Two, a Church recognized marriage. I think that a legally recognized marriage should be allowed. I believe in equal rights for all. However, I believe a church recognized marriage should be left up to the church.
I mean, it is a Church marriage that is sacred. A legal marriage is just a piece of paper that says "you are married." A church marriage is what people celebrate. You celebrate your anniversary on the day you got married in a church, even though you may have been married legally on paper for a few days, or in the case of my aunt and uncle, 20 years.
So, I believe that government should not be one to say "You are gay, and you cannot marry." It should be up to the church for them to decide whether they want to officially recognize gay marriages.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 634 times:
Cfalk: Could you please explain to me how two guys or two women who love each other and want to spend their lives together and have the same legal protections as straight people AFFECTS YOU?????? Why do you care???? I just can't understand why a straight, married person would give a rip. It affects you in no way. Marriage is a contract, plain and simple. Gays can and will live together without it, start families without it, and live their "alternative lifestyles" without it. It's simply a matter of FAIRNESS and doing what's right. Supposedly, only 10% of the population would be eligible for this anyway, and obviously only a fraction of that would be interested in getting married.... so explain to me again how letting a small portion of the population get married would have any effect on procreation, the degredation of "morals," the downfall of society, etc. And how dare you be so arrogant to think that only straight people can have and raise well-adjusted, morally-conscious kids? All you have to do is look at the large number of f*cked-up kids raised by straight people today to realize that most straights have no business procreating anyway.
And yes, there is an English description for the European institution you described: Civil Unions. Vermont already has them
"Morals in the world have dropped to such a point that at some point it has to be stopped... ...should not be forced to disgrace its most fundemental values for the sake of political correctness."
Again, whose morals are you referring to??? Make no mistake about it, straight people have already done an excellent job of "disgracing" this "sacred institution" without any help from gay people. Gee, what's the divorce rate in this country? The Netherlands is the first country to allow full-fledged gay marriages (not civil unions, but same-sex marriages under the regular marriage laws), and I don't see them going to hell in a handbasket. They seem to be procreating just fine. Even conservative Germany just recently began recognizing same-sex unions. Europe certainly doesn't strike me as Sodom or Gomorrah.
If I've said it once I've said it a million times.. it all goes back to one fundamental truth: PEOPLE FEAR WHAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 632 times:
Much as I hate to say this, I'm afraid I have to agree with Alpha1's original post. Although I do agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that is only my opinion. This proposal does nothing to treat the real problem-which as Alpha1 correctly pointed out- is people not willing to recognize marriage for its ideals and stick with it.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39408 posts, RR: 76 Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 626 times:
I agree Alpha1 and Matt D on this issue.
This sounds like government intrusion.
Marriage is something personal and is none of the governments business. The government should NOT decide who can and can't get married. Nor should the government give preferential tax breaks to those who make an individual lifestyle choose.
We live in a world so full of hate and if to men or two women love each other and wants an official marriage, let them have it!
Any politician who brings this sort of B.S up has waaaay too much time on there hands.
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 630 times:
You can have your sacred institution of marriage as far as I'm concerned. All I want as a gay man is that my relationship with my partner of 4 years have some legal recognition in the following areas: Visitation rights as a family member if one of us should get sick or is in the hospital, de facto inheritance rights (why on earth should I leave my hard earned $$$ to the government, if I want to leave it all to my partner), tax status that heterosexual couples enjoy, and joint custody of the children I intend to adopt. I don't want your sacraments, your church weddings, your cheesy photo-ops outside your hallowed sacred institutions. I don't even want the term "marriage" sullied as it is by your 55% divorce rate. All I want is to be left alone, to live my life untouched by screaming republicans, hell-fire-and-brimstone preachers of any color and any political stripe, free of the stupid social regulation into my personal life by those who get more upset when someone tries to regulate a bottle of ketchup, and content that I can live my life as I please just as you and Jerry Fallwell and the entire fire breathing brigade in the GOP can live theirs.
Now, buzz off and leave me alone and stop trying to force your retrograde viewpoints on love and sex down my throat as you've been doing for centuries.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 604 times:
In my earlier post, I said "most" straights don't have any business procreating. I meant to say "many." Sorry about that. If I actually meant to use the superlative "most", then I would be generalizing and saying something incorrect and unfair about the straight world. Seeing as how I don't appreciate straights using that type of language towards gays, I felt compelled to correct my mistake.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 601 times:
Why didn't I stumble onto this earlier?
You took the words right out of my mouth. Who the hell do these people think they are? Has anyone ever heard the separation of church and state? Why should I not have my relationship recognised by the state as being a monogomous 2 person family, and enjoy the same benefits as other taxpayers?
Those who wish to have their marriage sanctified by the church, then get married in a church.
Having the government declare only man and woman may get married is pandering to right wing bigots and morons from the church. Why do they continue to carp on about these issues? Haven't these people got anything better to do with their time? I bet you one thing, these would be the same people that 20 or 30 years ago would have been pestering the government to stop interacial marriages using the same arguments.
All they have done is moved on to softer targets.
I would like to see those who want these changes in legislation wear a special sticker on the front of their shirts declaring their full intentions. Would they do it? Maybe if they had a crowd of themselves together protected by the police. By themselves? I think not.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 574 times:
Zach, why should it go through? Because you're homophobic? So two gay or lesbian people want to get "married"? So what? It has no effect on your life, my life or Cfalk's life. The only reason you'd be for such nazism is that you don't like gays/lesbians.
Marriage isn't in trouble because of gays/lesbians-they're just being used as scapegoats because heterosexual America doesn't take marriage seriously anymore. There's no justification for such an "amendment" or whatever it is, except for pure homphobia.
You want to "save" marriage? Tell men and women who are married, or who are thinking about it, to work at it a little harder, and to take it more serious.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 572 times:
Jaysit, I agree with you to the point that the government and these religious zealots should leave you alone to live your lives that's none of their business.
However, I'm still not sold on the point that gays/lesbians with significant others should receive the same benefits as married people. I just don't.
And one more thing, Zach. I have said in the past that I do not agree, nor do I accept homsexual lifestyles as just another "choice" or "lifestyle". I don't believe that, and I believe homsexuality is wrong. But the diff between you and me on this is that I don't believe that I, nor you, nor Uncle Sam, has any right to tell these people how to live their lives, where they can work, how they can serve their country. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but it doesn't mean they are not free to pursue it. You and Cfalk, on the other hand, take your dislike of homsexuality and homosexuals that extra step, where you would start denying them "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39408 posts, RR: 76 Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 572 times:
...and to add what you are saying, us straight folks should stop marring for the wrong reasons.
Stop telling our daughters to marry man with lots of money like Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and Airline pilots
Stop listening to our family members who keep telling us to get married.
Some guys should stop showboating by marrying the hot chick with the large fake breast and divorcing when they get tired and repeating that same cycle every 5 years.
I think I'll be a bachelor for the rest of my life. Marriage is so overrated. If gays want to do it, go right ahead.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 566 times:
Alpha, I beg your pardon, I never said such a thing. I have no intention to tell people that they cannot do what they want. Like you, I don't agree with that lifestyle, but have no desire to make it illegal. However, I don't think the sacred institution of marriage, which has been in existance for at least 5000 years as a union between man and woman, should be extended to such a lifestyle. Marriage is, at its base a religious institution, and I feel that such a perversion of the institution would be a tremendous insult to all religious people. I don't mind them getting a legal institution of their own, like I described above, where all the rights would be there, but DO NOT CALL IT MARRIAGE. Call it something else.
I feel that much of this whole thing is caused by some people who love to tease and antagonize religious people or long-held beliefs.
Mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2572 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 561 times:
Now, see, that's where you're wrong, CFalk. You think that gay folk have nothing better to do with their time than campaign to change rules just so they can taunt the religious right?
Come on! That's pretty weak.
Here are some of the things that my partner and I have had to hire a lawyer to do in order to protect our interests. All of these items are addressed - in some manner - in a marriage contract:
Healthcare proxy - this piece of paper allows me to be in a hospital room with my partner should a serious health issue come up. If an emergency should arise, I am entitled to sign off on a surgical procedure that would otherwise have to be approved by his parents, who live 4,000 miles away.
Power of Attorney - this allows us to jointly share assets and to have access to each others' assets during times of emergency.
Trust - we had to form a trust in order to protect our shared interest in the purchase of our new home. Setting up a status such as tenants-in-common doesn't protect our interests fully in the event of death or a breakup.
The list goes on! Only six years ago, the state of Massachusetts change their insurance laws to accommodate jointly held assets by people other than traditionally acknowledged couples. I remember calling an insurance agency to inquire about household insurance and actually had an agent inform me that if we were a married couple or an unmarried heterosexual couple, we could purchase one policy to cover all assets; but since we were a gay couple, we had no choice but to purchase two separate policies.
I don't care what you call such a partnership contract. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to be called "marriage". But the time and expense that I have spent to protect our health and property as a couple is really ridiculous. And I don't think this is just about gay people. I think this issue pertains to many symbiotic partnerships between people who need legal protection.
25 Jaysit: I don't care if you don't "Agree with a gay lifestyle" - whatever that comment means... that's your prerogative. I don't necessarily agree with the "l
26 Cfalk: Mbmbos and Jaysit, Wow, that was easy, I think we actually agree. Just to reitterate, if some form of civil union can be created which has basically t