why do people get so mad about people being gay, its their life, if you dont like it stay out of it.
   when bush tried to pass the law of no gay marriage, he was trying to run a country with religion!
     so what if it says "no being gay" in the bible. if you think they're sining by being gay soo what its their life.
      also in some states if your gay, and your husband or wife is in a hospital, youd have to lie and say your their brother or sister just to get in and see them. thats wrong man. and people are all the sudden starting to use the word gay to mean stupid. like "school is so gay."   aaarrrggg   i cant stand it!!!!!

Saying that marriage is one man and one woman is now "gay discrimination"?

Come on.

However people want to define "Marriage" is just semantics anyway.  If people want to hook up for life, it shouldn't be a government issue anyway.  No marriage should be "legal", it should be a personal issue, or a church issue.

Yes.  And you didn't give me the right option to vote in your poll.
::)

Gay Marriage is now legal here in Canada.  Some people protest it, but not me.  Gays should be able to get married.  They are no different than you or I

It depends on who is doing the discriminating.

I don't think the government should discriminate against gays, and I don't think employers or landlords in general should.  However, I feel there are some exceptions.  I think a person who is renting out a home should not discriminate.  But I think that someone who is looking for a roommate has the right to discriminate.  I also think that religious organizations and private schools which are religion oriented have the right to discriminate.

ummmmm......"gay" has been used in this way for a LONG time....I remember it being used back i n the late 70s (can't remember any earlier because I was too young :P)


I'm afraid so.  When we were at the South Parkian age, we used to describe anything that was stupid, wimpy, sappy, immature, cheap, or insubstantial as "gay."  Furthermore, it a kid was being a dork, or a crybaby, or a wimp, or just being annoying, we might say he was being "gay."  
We had some clue about what homosexuality was, and that "gay" referred to homosexual.  However, the connection of our use of "gay" to "homosexual" was tenuous at best.  In Massachusetts, a person wh exhibited qualities of gayness to strong degree could be called  "wicked gay."  The same semantics applied to the word "queer."  Again in Massachusetts, a kid who came to school with courderoy pants, coke bottle glasses, and a Trapper-Keeper binder* might fall prey to the catcall, "Ya sooo queeeeahh!"
*I shall name no names here.
:-[

Now a person the whole sum of whose life was dedicated to our collequial interpretation of "gay" might be called a "gaylord."  Again, nothing to do really with homosexuality.  

For instance, the church organist who wore a waxed moustache, a top hat, and a fish-tie, and drove a pea-green Chevette was referred to as a "gaylord" by us kids.  His wife and children?  They were spouse and spawn of gaylord, and thus gaylords by extension!
:D

Yes but now people use the word "gay"  in just about every sentence.  last year i remeber alot of people sayin "straight"  if something was cool.

 I also think that religious organizations and private schools which are religion oriented have the right to discriminate.


That's the interesting dynamic. They are not adhering to their religion are they? Most of them have this mantra: Treat others as you would want to be treated.

This has been covered in here before, so I will just give a recap of my opinion.

Personally, I do not care if somebody is gay or not.  That is their business.  And I am against discrimination of any type.

However, I am against the "grandstanding" of some "gay rights" groups.  So you are gay, fine.  I do not need that information crammed into my face either.  To me, it is simply inappropriate (if not outright offensive).  And if you feel you are being discriminated against, simply do not tell the people at work/church/etc.  I am not saying "go into the closet", I am simply saying that bragging about your sexuality is rather tacky, and rude.

I am against "Gay Marriage", because of the religious meaning of the word.  But I am 100% in favor of a gay "civil union", or any other phrase for giving gay couples the same rights as married couples.  If they want to call it "marriage" informally, that is perfectly fine with me.  But putting the word "marriage" in the law comes dangerously close to breaking the "seperation of church and state".

But with this "civil union" also should come the wonderful institution of "divorce".  Same sex couples should not be given a free ride here.  The "union" should be legally binding, and the same procedures should be in place for the disolving of said union.

To me, the "Gay Marriage" movement is all about semantics.  If they called it "Civil Union", I am sure a lot of the opposition would dissapear.  And what is the fight really about, the rights involved in the "Marriage", or a word?  If the fight is about rights, I fully support it.  If the fight is simply about a word, then I basically turn my back on them. 

To me, the "Gay Marriage" movement is all about semantics.  If they called it "Civil Union", I am sure a lot of the opposition would dissapear.  And what is the fight really about, the rights involved in the "Marriage", or a word?  If the fight is about rights, I fully support it.  If the fight is simply about a word, then I basically turn my back on them. 


Sadly, for some gays who feel the need to end the traditional definition of marriage, it is.

I remember Rosie O'Donnell was on The O'Reilly Factor sometime after the election talking about how evil the 13 states whose voters approved amendments to their state constitutions prohibiting same-sex "marriage" were/are.  During the interview Bill asked her if she would support civil unions with ALL the benefits of marriage, and she said no, nothing short of marriage is acceptable.

Sadly, for some gays who feel the need to end the traditional definition of marriage, it is.

I remember Rosie O'Donnelll was on The O'Reilly Factor sometime after the election talking about how evil the 13 states whose voters approved amendments to their state constitutions prohibiting same-sex "marriage" were/are.  During the interview Bill asked her if she would support civil unions with ALL the benefits of marriage, and she said no, nothing short of marriage is acceptable.


That is exactly my point!

I remember a few years ago when Vermont was considering allowing "Gay Marriage".  They already had people lined up who were going to demand various churches (LDS, Catholic, etc) perform the marriages.  For any that refused, they were going to start class-action lawsuits.  To these people, it was not the rights that mattered, but cramming their lifestyle down the throats of churches and religious institutions.

My best friend "married" her gf last year.  It was a small private ceremony, and it was a pastor who performed the service.  To them, it is about each other, not the State.  We all call it a "Marriage".  And she actually agrees with me about the terminology.  Her church is one that left the decision as to performing ceremonies for gay couples up to the local church.  And the church in our town decided several years ago to only perform them for same-sex couples who attend the church.  And I have no problem with this, as it is their right to perform services or deny services.  A same-sex couple who does not belong has lots of other options as to where or who can perform it.

To me, this goes back to my issue with fanatics.  If it is the right that is wanted, then the term does not matter (as long as it is a true equal right, not the "seperate but equal" we had a few generations ago).  But there is a sector in there that wants to use it to redefine the world to fit their own viewpoint, and that is wrong.

This will probably get me thrown to the wolves, but oh well....

I think that any private institution should have the right to determine who they do or don't want as a member/employee/etc.  This applies to businesses, schools, churches, clubs, et al.  If a potential employee/member does not adhere to the same "beliefs", then they should have the option to NOT accept that person.

So if I don't want any Christians working at my company, I ought to be able nix them?

So if I don't want any Christians working at my company, I ought to be able nix them?


If you own it, knock yourself out.

If you own it, knock yourself out.

AND BLACKS...DON'T WANT NO BLACK PEOPLE WORKIN' FOR ME NEITHER, THAT STILL OK?

Welcome home, Jim Crow!

AND BLACKS...DON'T WANT NO BLACK PEOPLE WORKIN' FOR ME NEITHER, THAT STILL OK?

Welcome home, Jim Crow!


*tongue firmly in cheek*
What about the disabled?  Would you hire them?  ;D

I personally think that gays should have EVERY right to get married.  I know a few gays/lesbians who don't have the same rights as married couples.  It shouldn't be the government's decision who can or can't get married.  And I dislike people who stick their religious beliefs down my throat when it comes to this subject.  What happened to "love thy neighbor?"  Oh, it doesn't include gays because they're gay, and we're allowed to hate gays because in the Bible it says to hate gays. 

Simply put, like anything to do with the 'sense' of taste, feel touch, etc..

Maybe it effects those opposed to gays like the power of suggestion..ever see someone eating chips and your mouth starts to water and YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME?

Or when people see a movie with a hottie in it, they get their imagination going to picture themselves DOING whatever or having to try it??

So, if they are straight and see some guy/girl/ getting it on with another of the same sex, their senses trigger, hmm you can almost feel the heat from whatever THE GAY COUPLE are doing and it 'FEELS' disgusting to them!?

That's a theory what I pick up from some who seem to not stand the actions of the gay lifestyle. The other VIOLENTLY opposed are another matter.   

Oh, it doesn't include gays because they're gay, and we're allowed to hate gays because in the Bible it says to hate gays. 


Hate is a whole different issue.  Hate is a feeling, not an action.  There is no way a person could NOT be allowed to hate.

I'm against gay discrimination, AND I'm also against Gay's discriminating against heterosexuals.

I think ANY kind of discrimination against anyone in our society is wrong...unless they are criminals engaged in unlawful or hate-crime type stuff!

I am against "Gay Marriage", because of the religious meaning of the word. 

  ok its fine if YOUR against it because of religiouse regions cause your not the president. bush is makin gay marriage illegal for relligiouse reasons too.
but like i said before, you cant run a country by religion...    unless your the pope of course hahahaha
  but bush is the president of the united states, a free country!

woops sorry i put that all in quote
::)

Hate is a whole different issue.  Hate is a feeling, not an action.  There is no way a person could NOT be allowed to hate.


Hate is initially a feeling that can generally turn into action. That's the dangerous thing.

Hate is initially a feeling that can generally turn into action. That's the dangerous thing.


Hate leads to suffering...and suffering is the path to the Dark Side.

:D

Or when people see a movie with a hottie in it, they get their imagination going to picture themselves DONG whatever or having to try it??


I gess the DONGER knows!
:D


I'm against gay discrimination, AND I'm also against Gay's discriminating against heterosexuals.

Awww, de po' heterosexuals!
::)

I gess the DONGER knows!
:D
Awww, de po' heterosexuals!
::)


Hey, I respect and like my homosexual friends.  Someone calls them "Fag" or wants to hate them based on the fact that they are gay, they can kiss my a$$.  Someone tries to beat them up or hurt them in a physical or mental way just for the simple fact that they're homosexuals, they better be prepared to fight me as well.

If one of my gay friends ever tries to kiss me, or grab my penis or anything of the sort, I'll stop being friends with him and depending on how far he tried to go, I might just beat the crap out of him too.

Respect is a two way street on conservative drive, looks like a dead end on liberal lane.

Talk about the Freudian slip DONG!!!

(Corrected now, but found out I was using my gay friends' computer!) :D :D :D

I personally think that gays should have EVERY right to get married.  I know a few gays/lesbians who don't have the same rights as married couples.  It shouldn't be the government's decision who can or can't get married.  And I dislike people who stick their religious beliefs down my throat when it comes to this subject.  What happened to "love thy neighbor?"  Oh, it doesn't include gays because they're gay, and we're allowed to hate gays because in the Bible it says to hate gays. 



I agree. Marriage today is a social institution-not a religious one. Yes, you can have your marriage recognized by a church and that same church has the right not to recognize marriages too. Look at the Catholic Church. Do they recognize second marriages when the first one ends in divorce? I'm not too sure the answer to that one but it is their right not to because that Church does not believe in divorce. The government has no place to say who can and can't get married based on religious references, whether that be second marriages after divorce or gay marriages. And the government recognition of a marriage is what really matters for benefits, social securty,  next of kin rights, etc, etc.




Cat

Hate leads to suffering...and suffering is the path to the Dark Side.

:D


LOL!!!

I honestly think that SOME parents teach their kids, even inadvertently, that it's okay to hate, tease, make fun of,and discriminate against anyone who looks or acts 'different' than 'the normal way' people are supposed to be according to their NARROW,TUNNELVISIONED world view!!

I honestly think that SOME parents teach their kids, even inadvertently, that it's okay to hate, tease, make fun of,and discriminate against anyone who looks or acts 'different' than 'the normal way' people are supposed to be according to their NARROW,TUNNELVISIONED world view!!

The sure do...children learn what they live. 

I honestly think that SOME parents teach their kids, even inadvertently, that it's okay to hate, tease, make fun of,and discriminate against anyone who looks or acts 'different' than 'the normal way' people are supposed to be according to their NARROW,TUNNELVISIONED world view!!


I agree wholeheartedly. Kids are fine when they are with other kids. As soon as you place the ignorance of their parents, then the problems ensue.

I don't understand why people have an issue with gay people.  Some people said earlier that they don't care if people are gay they just don't want people be "in their face" about it -- well, a big part of the reason they're "in people's faces" because they're fighting against discrimination!  It reminds me of people complaining about Martin Luther King and "the rest of them rabblerousers" stirring up trouble with all their marches and protests all the time.

Live and let live.  As long as we're talking about consenting adults, what they do is no business of mine, as long, as they say in Vermont, they don't scare the horses. 

And I DO care, because if the rights of one person can be violated, than anyone's rights can be violated.  Don't ask "for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee".

I don't understand why people have an issue with gay people. 

Some people have issues with it because they feel it is against God's will.  People's personal prejudices cannot ever be eliminated.  They can't make a law that you have to like someone, because it would be impossible abide by and impossible to enforce.  As long as people don't use their prejudices to deny a person the same rights as the rest, such as the right to employment, housing, etc, I think it's acceptable.

While I respect gay rights, I also respect the rights of people to live by their religions.

Live and let live.  As long as we're talking about consenting adults, what they do is no business of mine, as long, as they say in Vermont, they don't scare the horses. 

And I DO care, because if the rights of one person can be violated, than anyone's rights can be violated.  Don't ask "for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee".

As an Evangelical it is MY business to insure as many souls as possible atone for their sins thus they may live in the grace of God for eternity.  So don't be a f*g, 'coz God's gonna ask ME why I didn't tell YOU to knock if off!  So don't give me any of that "live and let live" hogwash!
:D

As an Evangelical it is MY business to insure as many souls as possible atone for their sins thus they may live in the grace of God for eternity.  So don't be a f*g, 'coz God's gonna ask ME why I didn't tell YOU to knock if off!  So don't give me any of that "live and let live" hogwash!
:D


Uh..Did you ever consider... NOBODY else believes in YOUR God? What about a God that gays may worship? Or NONE AT ALL? There goes your point out the window..using religion as an arguement only plays to those who may follow YOUR sect. Same arguement works for the death penalty.. 

Another saying is Don't nail YOUR shoes onto the natives feet.

Uh..Did you ever consider... NOBODY else believes in YOUR God? What about a God that gays may worship? Or NONE AT ALL? There goes your point out the window..using religion as an arguement only plays to those who may follow YOUR sect. Same arguement works for the death penalty.. 

Another saying is Don't nail YOUR shoes onto the natives feet.




Did you not notice the sarcasm there, saver?

Some people have issues with it because they feel it is against God's will.  People's personal prejudices cannot ever be eliminated.  They can't make a law that you have to like someone, because it would be impossible abide by and impossible to enforce.  As long as people don't use their prejudices to deny a person the same rights as the rest, such as the right to employment, housing, etc, I think it's acceptable.

While I respect gay rights, I also respect the rights of people to live by their religions.


Most people who have a problem with gays aren't prejudiced because they think it's against God's will.  You're average guy who tells f** jokes isn't religious.

I agree. Marriage today is a social institution-not a religious one. Yes, you can have your marriage recognized by a church and that same church has the right not to recognize marriages too. Look at the Catholic Church. Do they recognize second marriages when the first one ends in divorce? I'm not too sure the answer to that one but it is their right not to because that Church does not believe in divorce. The government has no place to say who can and can't get married based on religious references, whether that be second marriages after divorce or gay marriages. And the government recognition of a marriage is what really matters for benefits, social securty,  next of kin rights, etc, etc.


"Marriage" is a religious rite and contract, that has been handed down as "Common Law".  At one time, the "State" had no right to interfere with Marriage.  But as time went on they got involved, both as a way to controll their people, and to help protect people.

The Catholic Church is notorious for being unwilling to grant Divorce.  Look at King Henry VIII, who found beheading and forming a new religion a good alternative to this.  Civil authorities started to step in, to protect people.  And if a state is going to grant Divorces, then they also have to get involved in Marriage.  This is when it became less of a Religious act, and more of a Civil act.

In fact, earlier this year we had such a debate in England.  When Prince Charles got married, it was a Civil ceremony.  This is a good example of how a Religious marriage may appear different from a Civil one, but in reality is the same thing.

In the end, does it really matter what it is called?  I want the rights given to gay couples.  I want them to be legally recognized as "spouses", because that is what it is all about.  Marriage, civil union, domestic partner, the words mean nothing to me, it is the right that is really important.

What puzzles me is that there are a lot of others that want to give that right, but "legally" call it something else (to quiet the outcry from the more radical members).  And I am sure that in a decade or two, it will simply be called "Marriage", legally and casually.  After all, this is how the Civil RIghts movement worked.  Nobody there expected to change the world overnight.  They simply worked on it one piece at a time.

So for a last time, does it really matter what it is called, as long as the full equal status is given?

You mean does it matter if you treat someone with respect someone as long as you give them the same legal rights?  Of course it does.

You mean does it matter if you treat someone with respect someone as long as you give them the same legal rights?  Of course it does.


There will always be people who treat others who are different disrespectfully.  And there is nothing that can be done about it.  Heaven help us if they start prosecuting people for how they feel or believe.  I think that is wrong, but it is their right after all.  I firmly believe that the Constitution gives everybody the right to make an a$$ of themselves.

To me, the rights are much more important then what they are called.  And if giving the rights another name so that some people loosee reason to object, what is the harm?  I think that far to many are hung up on the name.  And this is aimed at both sides of the arguement.

And in siome places, it is illegal to call it "Marriage".  I know that California is one of the states that had a State Constitutional Ammendment passed by the voters which states that "Marriage is between a man and a woman".  One of the reasons the marriages were thrown out earlier this year is because it violates the State Constitution.  Arnold vetoed a simliar law fairly recently, because of this very same arguement.

And yet, California already has the most liberal "Domestic Partnership" laws in the nation!  Instead of trying to force through "Marriage", simply give "Domestic Partners" full and equal status!  If they had done that, it would have passed, because it is not a "Marriage".  And yes, heterosexual couples can file as a Domestic Partnership, not just same sex couples.

This is what always puzzles me.  When a word becomes more important then rights.  I mean, it's just a word.  And if you drop that one word, then almost all opposition looses credibility.  I can see the side of somebody who does not want "marriage", because of it's history as a religious institution.  But when you take a religious neutral term like "Domestic Partner" or "Civil Union", then there is no basis in religion.  Then the only reason to oppose it is because you are anti-gay.  And that kind of small-mindedness I will fight against.

And I am not proposing some kind of "Equal but Seperate" rules.  Most states already have in place such a status.  "Common-Law" has the same problems as gay couples.  When it came to medical decisions for my late fiancee', her parents had the legal say, not me.  That is because we were not legally married, so the decisions legally fell to the legal next of kin.

Myself, I would like to see several layers of "Marriage".  But in all of them, save "The M Word" for the one that is performed by clergy.  That way, the religious nutcases will get off of our backs.

"Marriage" is a religious rite and contract, that has been handed down as "Common Law".  At one time, the "State" had no right to interfere with Marriage.  But as time went on they got involved, both as a way to controll their people, and to help protect people.

The Catholic Church is notorious for being unwilling to grant Divorce.  Look at King Henry VIII, who found beheading and forming a new religion a good alternative to this.  Civil authorities started to step in, to protect people.  And if a state is going to grant Divorces, then they also have to get involved in Marriage.  This is when it became less of a Religious act, and more of a Civil act.

In fact, earlier this year we had such a debate in England.  When Prince Charles got married, it was a Civil ceremony.  This is a good example of how a Religious marriage may appear different from a Civil one, but in reality is the same thing.

In the end, does it really matter what it is called?  I want the rights given to gay couples.  I want them to be legally recognized as "spouses", because that is what it is all about.  Marriage, civil union, domestic partner, the words mean nothing to me, it is the right that is really important.

What puzzles me is that there are a lot of others that want to give that right, but "legally" call it something else (to quiet the outcry from the more radical members).  And I am sure that in a decade or two, it will simply be called "Marriage", legally and casually.  After all, this is how the Civil RIghts movement worked.  Nobody there expected to change the world overnight.  They simply worked on it one piece at a time.

So for a last time, does it really matter what it is called, as long as the full equal status is given?



You are right that the Episcopal Church was founded so Henry VIII could divorce Catherine of Aragon but it was a bit more complacated. Normally the Pope would have granted him an annulment because no male heir was conceived. But because Catherine was related to the Pope (I think she was his aunt) he wouldn't grant the annulment.  See, even back then politics played a part.



Cat

There will always be people who treat others who are different disrespectfully.  And there is nothing that can be done about it.  Heaven help us if they start prosecuting people for how they feel or believe.  I think that is wrong, but it is their right after all.  I firmly believe that the Constitution gives everybody the right to make an a$$ of themselves.

There will always be murder, so... that's okay too?  Treating people with respect has nothing to do with what people "feel or believe".  Someone doesn't have to like me, but that doesn't mean it's ok for them to call me names.

Perhaps if religion has the monopoly over a certain word in our language (and I'm not saying it does, but it seems to be what many others are saying), then perhaps that word and its "legal definition" sould be exorcised from the legal system altogether. Perhaps the government should only issue civil union licences and leave "marriage" out completely. If people want to be "married" in the eyes of some deity, then they can go to a church either before or after and be recognised by their church as "married" and be recognised by the state as "civilly united."

Can you see how ridiculous that is? Marriage and civil unions are the same thing, one's just a fancy word for the other. Religion invented neither the concept of nor the word "marriage." Humans have been pair-bonding since before the evolution of such authorities. If "marriage" belongs to religions, then it has no place in the government. So if a couple wants to get "married," they should go to a church, but if they want the legal status currently referred to as "marriage" then they should go get a civil union licence. This is what these people are suggrsting, and if they aren't suggesting that, then what they are suggesting is discrimination of homosexuals wishing to be known as "married." THEY want to use the word argument as a tool to somehow place the relationship of a man and a woman above that of a relationship between 2 men or 2 women by denying them the everyday term we use for permanent human pair-bonding ("marriage") and forcing them to use some diluted, sterilised version of it. That's their goal. To demean. If it weren't their goal, they wouldn't be so worked up over the word.

I personally don't care WHICH word we use to describe the legal status of being pair-bonded, as long as every couple of consenting adults of either sex are allowed to use the same word. The conservatives want that they should have to use different words...and that's called discrimination, folks.

Perhaps if religion has the monopoly over a certain word in our language (and I'm not saying it does, but it seems to be what many others are saying), then perhaps that word and its "legal definition" sould be exorcised from the legal system altogether. Perhaps the government should only issue civil union licences and leave "marriage" out completely. If people want to be "married" in the eyes of some deity, then they can go to a church either before or after and be recognised by their church as "married" and be recognised by the state as "civilly united."

Can you see how ridiculous that is? Marriage and civil unions are the same thing, one's just a fancy word for the other. Religion invented neither the concept of nor the word "marriage." Humans have been pair-bonding since before the evolution of such authorities. If "marriage" belongs to religions, then it has no place in the government. So if a couple wants to get "married," they should go to a church, but if they want the legal status currently referred to as "marriage" then they should go get a civil union licence. This is what these people are suggrsting, and if they aren't suggesting that, then what they are suggesting is discrimination of homosexuals wishing to be known as "married." THEY want to use the word argument as a tool to somehow place the relationship of a man and a woman above that of a relationship between 2 men or 2 women by denying them the everyday term we use for permanent human pair-bonding ("marriage") and forcing them to use some diluted, sterilised version of it. That's their goal. To demean. If it weren't their goal, they wouldn't be so worked up over the word.

I personally don't care WHICH word we use to describe the legal status of being pair-bonded, as long as every couple of consenting adults of either sex are allowed to use the same word. The conservatives want that they should have to use different words...and that's called discrimination, folks.






One thing that confuses me here, is that with all of what you had to say you said, "Go to a church" within all of it which is the only line in your entire message that really goes against what you said.  The church, was started by christians, christians are who started the church. You may have a point that christians aren't who started marriage originally, as there is proof of ancient peoples such as the Egyptians, however Christians did start the church.  Therefore why would or should for the matter a Christian Church marry an aetheist couple? Or further more why would an aetheist couple want to be married in a temple of worship of God? 

One thing that confuses me here, is that with all of what you had to say you said, "Go to a church" within all of it which is the only line in your entire message that really goes against what you said.  The church, was started by christians, christians are who started the church. You may have a point that christians aren't who started marriage originally, as there is proof of ancient peoples such as the Egyptians, however Christians did start the church.  Therefore why would or should for the matter a Christian Church marry an aetheist couple? Or further more why would an aetheist couple want to be married in a temple of worship of God? 


I don't think you quite got the message of my post. Most of it was from an entirely hypothetical standpoint. If Conservatives want to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman for religious reasons, and if thy maintain that religion has the monopoly on the word "marriage" than "marriage" should only be a religious ceremony with NO legal ramifications. Meanwhile if this were to occur, if a couple wanted the rights and priveleges allotted to them under the CURRENT legal definition of "marriage" then they would have to be "civilly united" in a legal setting with or without the blessing of a church. Basically I am saying that the government cannot apply the term marriage to only heterosexual couples because that would be discrimination. So if they want to avoid that by saying that marriage is a religious thing, then marriage needs to be thrown out of the legal system altogether and replaced with civil unions for everyone... leaving the title of "married" entirely up to religious institutions and entirely optional. If they don't want this to happen, then they must allow the word marriage to apply leagally to both hetero and homosexual couples. Do you get what I'm saying. I don't care which term the government uses as long as both types of couple are allowed to use it.

I don't personally care whom specific churches decide marry, it doesn't mean that the law has to follow suit, and the reverse is also true.

I don't think "conservatives" want to define marriage so stringently, only the religious ones.

Did you not notice the sarcasm there, saver?


This was for those who would try and use the 'religious' angle..there are a number out there...

To me, it all boils down to one thing.

The term and concept of "Marriage" started as a religious.  At one time, the state had no involvement, and it was strictly between the couple and the Church.  In fact, many times in the past the state has gotten involved, and tried to say who could and could not be "Married".

This is why I would like to see the word "Marriage" taken out of the arguement.  Almost anybody can perform a marriage, and you can marry almost any 2 things.  There have been "Marriages" between dogs, cats, even corpses.  But the missing part is legal recognition.  This is because out of (respect/recognition/pressure) of the origin, it is still most often considered to be a Religious rite.

This is why I argue so passionately to simply remove the word "Marriage", and just give everybody equal access to the same rights.  Does it really matter if it is a "Civil Union", "Registered Domestic Partnership" or "Marriage"?  We all know that in casual conversation, all 3 will be called "Marriages".  So what does the legal name it is called matter?

And for those that have missed part of my prior postings, I am 100% in favor of such a law.  I deeply believe that same-sex couples deserve the same legal recognitions as heterosexual couples.  And if it means dropping a word and replacing it with another, as long as the goal is met that is fine with me.

To me, it all boils down to one thing.

The term and concept of "Marriage" started as a religious.  At one time, the state had no involvement, and it was strictly between the couple and the Church.  In fact, many times in the past the state has gotten involved, and tried to say who could and could not be "Married".

This is why I would like to see the word "Marriage" taken out of the arguement.  Almost anybody can perform a marriage, and you can marry almost any 2 things.  There have been "Marriages" between dogs, cats, even corpses.  But the missing part is legal recognition.  This is because out of (respect/recognition/pressure) of the origin, it is still most often considered to be a Religious rite.

This is why I argue so passionately to simply remove the word "Marriage", and just give everybody equal access to the same rights.  Does it really matter if it is a "Civil Union", "Registered Domestic Partnership" or "Marriage"?  We all know that in casual conversation, all 3 will be called "Marriages".  So what does the legal name it is called matter?

And for those that have missed part of my prior postings, I am 100% in favor of such a law.  I deeply believe that same-sex couples deserve the same legal recognitions as heterosexual couples.  And if it means dropping a word and replacing it with another, as long as the goal is met that is fine with me.


Great, I just think that if the government is already using the common word marriage as a legal term, then the same term should be allowed to gay couples because after all, this is the common word for pair-bonding. What the government cannot do, is designate the common word as strictly applying to hetero couples, and then assign some ridiculous synonym to homosexual couples. It's demeaning in its own way, and it's intended to be so.

I also would have to disagree that the concept of marriage started with religion. It has been said time and again that American law is based on Biblical law, but this is not accurate. American law is based on English law which is by and large based on Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which was present before the Anglo-Saxon conversion to Christianity. Before the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity, marriage was not a religious institution for English-speaking people (or in this case Old English-speaking people, lol). It was an agreement between two people (yes, a man and a woman) to cohabitate, and once they had cohabitated for a certain amount of time, they were considered to be married. After the conversion to Christianity, marriage became a predominantly religious institution, but every Anglo country has laws in place which outline the requirements for a "common law marriage."  I am not denying that our laws and society are heavily influenced by Biblical tradition, that would be insane. I am saying that simply because Christianity is the traditional and dominant religion in the US, and indeed in all Anglo countries, that doesn't give Christian authorities any mandate over our laws, and certainly not over our language.

I think what it boils down to, is that most people back in the 80's viewed homosexuality in a similar way that most of us view incest today.  It was thought of as disgusting, it was blamed for the majority of aids cases, in addition to the fact that it is against many religious beliefs.

So, if a man has a "relationship" with his sister, cousin, aunt or niece (and it DOES happen), then he probably understands what it felt like to be gay in the 70's and 80's.  However, incest couples could start "coming out" sometime in the future, and we will be expected to accept it.

When I think of it in these terms, I can see why some people who were against homosexuality in the 80's haven't been able to change their views over the years.  I don't think I could ever honestly support incest, even if society changed its views.

yes, same-sex marriages between two consenting adults should be 100% legal...and if the churches won't do it..a justice of the peace should be able to do it, legally, without the fear of losing their job..or being the target of anti-gay extremists out there....

There are STILL people here in America that think disabled people should not marry...again,that's wrong..as long as they are two adults who are able to consent and want to marry and be with each other. And as far as managing their home, finances, the possibility of them raising a child..there is help out there for them with those issues.

Nothing wrong with being gay.

I don't even know why people think it's bad.

So, if a man has a "relationship" with his sister, cousin, aunt or niece (and it DOES happen), then he probably understands what it felt like to be gay in the 70's and 80's.  However, incest couples could start "coming out" sometime in the future, and we will be expected to accept it.


The thing about incest is that in many countries, a cousin-cousin relationship isn't even considered as incest. I don't know what the "rules" or laws are regarding other familial relationships, but cousins marrying cousins certainly isn't against the law here.

No way I'm getting into yet another gay "marriage" debate.

No way I'm getting into yet another gay "marriage" debate.


I agree, I am bowing out as well.

It seems that to a lot of people in here, "Compromise" is something that only other people do.

The funny thing is, almost all of my "gay" friends think my ideas are a fair compromise.

Why does a gay person being content with a particular solution give it any more or less legitimacy?  As though you couldn't have found thousands of women in 1890 who wouldn't have said they'd be content not to have the vote, as though you couldn't have found thousands of blacks in 1820 who wouldn't have said they'd be content to just have stricter laws about how slaves were treated.

Personally, I don't give a flying crap what gay people are content with -- I only care about what my sense of human decency dictates.

Personally, I don't give a flying crap what gay people are content with -- I only care about what my sense of human decency dictates.


Real Translation:  I only care about what *I* think is right.  Compromise is not an option.  Anything other then 100% agreement with me is wring.

Note:  This is not aimed personally at the poster, but at the sentiment expressed.

Real Translation:  I only care about what *I* think is right.  Compromise is not an option.  Anything other then 100% agreement with me is wring.

Note:  This is not aimed personally at the poster, but at the sentiment expressed.


Exactly right, where significant issues of morality are concerned, "compromise is the language of the devil". 

If some advocate slavery, and others don't, is it desirable to reach a compromise wherein slaves must be treated reasonably well?  If some advocate women's sufferage, and others are opposed, is the desired outcome an agreement that women with advanced degrees are permitted to vote?

Refusal to compromise is NOT to be confused with refusal to dialogue.  Taking a position on something without accepting responsibility for persuading others is naive and immature.

Refusing to compromise but at the same time being open to dialogue may forward progress.  Advocating compromise yet storming off petulantly when others fail to immediately praise my brilliant solutions accomplishes nothing.

So if I don't want any Christians working at my company, I ought to be able nix them?


As long as your company does not receive any government funding or contracts, yes.

As long as your company does not receive any government funding or contracts, yes.

Ditto Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Sikhs, or natives of the Aleutian Islands?
You do realize the "private sector" exclusion from the 14th Amendment (Plessy vs. Ferguson) was one of the pillars of Jim Crow, don't you?  And furthermore, you do realize that in order to allow a company that does not "receive any government contracts" to discriminate based on race, religion, or ethnicity the Supreme Court would have to overturn Brown vs. Board of Education?
??? ??? ???

Ditto Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Sikhs, or natives of the Aleutian Islands?
You do realize the "private sector" exclusion from the 14th Amendment (Plessy vs. Ferguson) was one of the pillars of Jim Crow, don't you?


This is the type of situation that puts me in a quandry.

I am against all forms of discrimination.  But at the same time, a small business should have the right to hire whoever they want to hire.  And I know that when I have been in the position to vote yes/no on a new hire, I have never made a decision based upon anything more then their qualification, and how well they would work with others in the organization.

Quite often though, discrimination can be percieved, even when there is none.  Where I work, there are a total of 9 employees.  All 9 of us are white, and 6 of the 9 are male.  Are we discriminatory?

Now let me throw in something else.  6 of the 9 are the owner, his sons, and their wives.  The actual number of non-family employees are 3.  And on my side of the business, there are only 3 of us.  My boss, his daughter-in-law (our secretary), and myself.  And as far as I know, there has only been one "minority" employee here, and he was a Persian who moved out of the area right as I moved here.  In fact, it was his place that I took.  Turnover is rather low.

I have seen it in action in California, where some lawyer will file a law suit against an employeer like my boss, claiming he discriminates.  And it becomes a tricky thing to defend against.  We have a low turnover, having only hired 1 new employee since I started working here (he replaced a guy who retired).

And there is one more thing to throw into the mix.  In the last 3 years, I have seen maybe 5 people bring in resumes.  3 were white guys, 2 were white gals.  We have had a handfull of people come in and ask if we were hiring, about 20% of them black.  And none of the "walk-ins" without a resume were in any way qualified.  Being a small business, we can't take the time to train somebody who knows nothing about computers.

This is just the reality of small-business.  I am more then likely going to be the manager here in less then a year (the owner is retiring).  I know that if somebody came in when I needed somebody, I would hire them if they are qualified.  I could not care less what they look like, who they sleep with, or anything else.  As long as they look presentable, speak clearly, and can do the job.

So, what of the minority owned businesses that ONLY hire minorities?  Are they also wrong for doing so?


Which ones, for example?

This is the type of situation that puts me in a quandry.

I am against all forms of discrimination.  But at the same time, a small business should have the right to hire whoever they want to hire.  And I know that when I have been in the position to vote yes/no on a new hire, I have never made a decision based upon anything more then their qualification, and how well they would work with others in the organization.

Quite often though, discrimination can be percieved, even when there is none.  Where I work, there are a total of 9 employees.  All 9 of us are white, and 6 of the 9 are male.  Are we discriminatory?

Now let me throw in something else.  6 of the 9 are the owner, his sons, and their wives.  The actual number of non-family employees are 3.  And on my side of the business, there are only 3 of us.  My boss, his daughter-in-law (our secretary), and myself.  And as far as I know, there has only been one "minority" employee here, and he was a Persian who moved out of the area right as I moved here.  In fact, it was his place that I took.  Turnover is rather low.

I have seen it in action in California, where some lawyer will file a law suit against an employeer like my boss, claiming he discriminates.  And it becomes a tricky thing to defend against.  We have a low turnover, having only hired 1 new employee since I started working here (he replaced a guy who retired).

And there is one more thing to throw into the mix.  In the last 3 years, I have seen maybe 5 people bring in resumes.  3 were white guys, 2 were white gals.  We have had a handfull of people come in and ask if we were hiring, about 20% of them black.  And none of the "walk-ins" without a resume were in any way qualified.  Being a small business, we can't take the time to train somebody who knows nothing about computers.

This is just the reality of small-business.  I am more then likely going to be the manager here in less then a year (the owner is retiring).  I know that if somebody came in when I needed somebody, I would hire them if they are qualified.  I could not care less what they look like, who they sleep with, or anything else.  As long as they look presentable, speak clearly, and can do the job.

Right.  The law courts cannot order a business to hire a member of a certain race or religion because the business doesn't have one employed.  The courts cannot tell a business how many people it must employ.  That would be silly.  It is also the right of a business owner to hire his or her friends and family rather than draw from the general public.  It is when the company opens employment application to the general public that it must observe the 14th Amendment.  You cannot say, "Help Wanted--no Irish, Jews, or Blacks need apply."  If you're running a computer shop and the white male applicant knows everything about computers and the black female applicant knows much less, you're in the clear hiring based on qualification.  If Jane Doe is black, and she can prove she is more qualified than Joe Shmo, but the company hired Joe Shmo because he's a white guy, she may have a civil rights case barring other factors.
Of course, bias in hiring practices goes on all the time.  Much of it is unfair, and much of it probably violates the 14th Amendment.  Unfortunately, many such cases are simply unprovable.

So, what of the minority owned businesses that ONLY hire minorities?  Are they also wrong for doing so?

If they are discriminating based on race, religion, or ethnicity, yes, they are violating civil rights.  There have been such cases, I can't cite any off the top of my head.

There are many in my area (mostly hispanic owned taquerias, groceries and such) that will not hire even a bi-lingual caucasian....my parents live a few doors down from one and my younger brother applied.....he never even got a call back though he is bilingual.....6 months later, they were STILL looking for help ::)

Keep after 'em.  You might get on the O'Reilly Factor.  Would you like to meet Bill O'Reilly and go on national TV as a victim of reverse discrimination?  How does that sound?
:D

I kinda sympathize with ethnic restaurants in wanting to hire cooks of their own ethnicity.  I know this has been brought up before, but when you go to a Japanese restaurant and you see that your food is being cooked by Mexicans, it somehow seems less authentic.  Same goes for Italian restaurants with Indian cooks, Mexican restaurants with white cooks...

Maybe I'm just a little too picky, but if there are many others like me, chances are these restaurants lose business if they seem unauthentic to customers.

I kinda sympathize with ethnic restaurants in wanting to hire cooks of their own ethnicity.  I know this has been brought up before, but when you go to a Japanese restaurant and you see that your food is being cooked by Mexicans, it somehow seems less authentic.   Same goes for Italian restaurants with Indian cooks, Mexican restaurants with white cooks...

Maybe I'm just a little too picky, but if there are many others like me, chances are these restaurants lose business if they seem unauthentic to customers.




ya, I always hate whenever we go to a hibachi restaurant, expecting a japanese sous chef to come over and cook for us....and then it ends up being some white guy named Frank.



Erin :)

ya, I always hate whenever we go to a hibachi restaurant, expecting a japanese sous chef to come over and cook for us....and then it ends up being some white guy named Frank.



Erin :)


LMAO!  Yep I know exactly what you mean... but if they only hired japanese cooks, that would be discrimination... kinda hard to find a happy medium there I guess..

LMAO!  Yep I know exactly what you mean... but if they only hired japanese cooks, that would be discrimination... kinda hard to find a happy medium there I guess..


I never much care anymore, to me it has always been about the food  ;D

yeah one time it was my fathers birthday and we all went to bennihanas and he asked what part of japan the chef was from and he said he was from mexico