On same sex marriage and proprietary brand names

[pocketfullofshells]

Leave the federal government out of the affairs of the states.

The states established the parameters of marriage to satisfy the sensibilities of its citizens. amych as have communities around the workd and across the ages. Equal proitection is a farce. Even those who fought for civil rights acknowledged this.

how did that idea work out for slaves?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

yes, we should, much as many of us were when no fault divorce was being force fed to us. we warned about that andwere ignored then too. so who was right about that ?

do youself a favor and avoid meaningless tangents like one's own specific marriage being impacted. societies around the world and across all history have developed and maintained the idea of marriage as highly beneficial to society.

And yet you sit here trying to prevent people from getting married....Because it does not fit your narrow minded view of what it should be...just like racist bigiots who said if whites and blacks did it would hurt the white race...Just put your hood on and be happy

 

[PLC1]

This sounds a little/ a lot like "seperate but equal" to me. I don't really care if gay people want to get married. I don't feel it undermines my own marriage at all. And if it is protection of the institution of marriage we are concerned about, we should be equally as up in arms when heterosexual people trash the institution as it is.

It's really not so much separate but equal, which we all know was never really equal. It's more calling it by a different name.

Lots of people object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is not really marriage, but on the other hand say that they're in favor of equal rights. Well, then, let's give everyone equal rights while protecting the word, marriage. Just call gay marriage something else, like "civil unions", and pass a law that civil unions are equal to marriage. Who could object to that? Gays would have equal rights, could have weddings, could call each other husband/wife/spouse and have the same rights and responsibilities accorded to straight marriages, while the straights who object to the word "marriage" applied to same sex couples could have it their way as well. It's a win-win for both sides of the debate.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It's really not so much separate but equal, which we all know was never really equal. It's more calling it by a different name.

Lots of people object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is not really marriage, but on the other hand say that they're in favor of equal rights. Well, then, let's give everyone equal rights while protecting the word, marriage. Just call gay marriage something else, like "civil unions", and pass a law that civil unions are equal to marriage. Who could object to that? Gays would have equal rights, could have weddings, could call each other husband/wife/spouse and have the same rights and responsibilities accorded to straight marriages, while the straights who object to the word "marriage" applied to same sex couples could have it their way as well. It's a win-win for both sides of the debate.

why? I don't think interracial marriage should be legal...so make them call it something else...Also no Muslims can get married...they can have civil unions...Only White Anglo Saxons should get to call it marriage....that does not at all sound like a sane argument...yet somehow we kowtow to these bible thumpers who think that they alone get to deiced what and who can marry who..who made there religion the one that gets to tell others what to do? fuck them...

when blacks where free'd we not give them a special name to make whites feel better.

when woman got the right to vote...we did not say they can't vote...but we will give them something that is the same but we want to call it something else...

lets not try to pussy out and water it down for people.....suck it up , gays are people and have equal rights ...have a problem..go fuck yourself.

 

[BigRob]

It's really not so much separate but equal, which we all know was never really equal. It's more calling it by a different name.

Lots of people object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is not really marriage, but on the other hand say that they're in favor of equal rights. Well, then, let's give everyone equal rights while protecting the word, marriage. Just call gay marriage something else, like "civil unions", and pass a law that civil unions are equal to marriage. Who could object to that? Gays would have equal rights, could have weddings, could call each other husband/wife/spouse and have the same rights and responsibilities accorded to straight marriages, while the straights who object to the word "marriage" applied to same sex couples could have it their way as well. It's a win-win for both sides of the debate.

I see what you are saying, and I'd be fine with such an arrangement. But I think the question of "If it is meant to be equal, why are we calling it different things" is a good one, and one I don't have a good answer for.

 

[BigRob]

there was a reason for the name "no fault". what it did was remove the requirement of a reason for divorce. so the concept of wedding vows (think 'til death' 'for better or worse' you get the idea). now simply being sick of banging this one is all it takes. is sheer hedonism reason enough ?

My point was just that wouldn't people just make up a fault before if they really wanted a divorce? It would clog the courts with a huge back and forth instead of just streamlining the process. I certainly don't advocate for divorce, but it has been happening for as long as marriage as been around it seems -- why not make it less of a process that we have to clog up court dockets with?

whoa Captain Hyperbole ! outside europe its still rare and its certainly not improved anything in its brief history. and given the state of things in europe its hardly a ringing success.

Sure it is rare, and will probably always be "rare" statistically. I guess I don't see that it should be measured on "what did it improve", and I'd think that the state of things in Europe cannot really be traced back to this issue as the cause.

 

[dogtowner]

My point was just that wouldn't people just make up a fault before if they really wanted a divorce? It would clog the courts with a huge back and forth instead of just streamlining the process. I certainly don't advocate for divorce, but it has been happening for as long as marriage as been around it seems -- why not make it less of a process that we have to clog up court dockets with?



Sure it is rare, and will probably always be "rare" statistically. I guess I don't see that it should be measured on "what did it improve", and I'd think that the state of things in Europe cannot really be traced back to this issue as the cause.

if the judges were doing their job one could not.make up cause, it woukd have had to be proven.

and making it difficult us the point. make sure you understand what marriage means and keep your promises.

is it wrong to do the right thing ? isnt that what holds socities together ?

have we not learned what happens when the base and amoral ruules the day ?

 

[cashmcall]

Guess what , you are the one discriminated against people and Religious if you would wake up. If a church wants to marry 2 gay people...you say no my Religion trumps theres...so fuck them. And yes I mock your belifes...because your views they should be. Just like I mock the KKK hillbilly views.

Like I said before,
I really don't like talking about homosexual issues on any blog because it's such a touchy subject. I don't subscribe to any Darwinian ideas about why homosexuality exists in nature (the ideology Hitler used to justify slaughtering gays), and I don't subscribe to any idea that it's purely environmental either (an idea that minimizes the difficulty homosexuals who wish they could be heterosexual face). I do believe that most are "born that way," that a few choose it (like those "experimenting in college"). I also believe that some have become so out of a defense mechanism because of early childhood abuse. Either way, unless it is a conscious decision at some point (I've only seen a few cases of this) it is not their fault that they feel that attraction. Regardless of causation, I prefer to look at homosexuality through strictly religious eyes, which is actually the most charitable and fair way, in my humble opinion.

I have had homosexual friends with same-sex attraction (Can you really by "sexual" without being sexually active? The word homosexual insinuates that there is no choice in the matter.) since high school, and am still close to some. Under no circumstances is it OK to blame them for an attraction they cannot control. In my opinion, there is no sin in same-sex attraction unless it is acted upon. It is the action that is the sin, and people experiencing same-sex attraction are expected to live up to the exact same standard as the rest of us. Homosexual sex is just as bad a sin as pre-marital sex because God's law says that any sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a sin. That applies to everybody equally, though the rule is harder to follow for some than others. The attraction is a temptation, and are we not here on earth to face temptation in order to be tested and taught? We all have our mountains to climb.

Discrimination because of sexual orientation is unjust. It shouldn't be happening, but saying that they can't change the definition of marriage for the rest of us is not discrimination. They have no legal right to do it. I have no problem with civil unions or gay people living together and being able to be on each others' insurance, being able to visit each other in the hospital, etc. The only place where I care is that they don't get to change the definition of marriage, and I don't think it's best for them to adopt, though it's still their choice... BECAUSE I think that the best way to raise children is with parents of both sexes who love each other and create a healthy environment in the home. A manly lesbian is not adequately masculine to exert the masculine influence in the home. An effeminate man is not adequately feminine to exert the feminine influence in the home. And both mothers and fathers are needed to optimally raise children. But this is not much different from a child being raised in a single family home either. Both situations are not in the best interests of the children, and thus should not be the main plan for raising them. Raising kids is about doing what's best for the kids, and not about doing whatever you want to because of your desires, or because you want to prove to the world that it is possible and OK for a same-sex couple to raise kids without terribly scarring them. Isn't it selfish that you are even willing to take that chance?? Selfishness makes terrible parents. Yes, I am saying that it is selfish to knowingly adopt kids when you know it's not going to be the best situation for them.

Generally speaking, I am more Libertarian about homosexual rights issues than many conservatives, but that absolutely crosses my line when it comes to marriage and children. Everything else should be the same as for the rest of us. If someone indulges in their urges and commits the act of homosexuality, that is between them and their partner and God. I won't condone the action because ultimately it hurts them and their partners eternally, but I'm not going to openly scorn them either. Love the sinner, not the sin. Homosexual sex is a sin that they commit against each other. That attraction won't exist after this life and the relationship will not last into the eternities.
God does not "hate" anyone. It isn't our place to judge because everyone's situation is different and God knows where mercy is needed and where it needs to be withheld. If He created them that way then He knows how to deal with it and how to justly deal with the way they chose to act upon or deny that temptation.

Free will is the key to understanding our purpose here on earth. We are dealt our flawed stack of cards and we prove ourselves by how we use them. Some people have enormous trials, some trials are self-inflicted, and some people have only minor problems, but we will get what we earn. Same-sex attraction is one card I'm glad I didn't get. But understanding the discussions that inevitably happen politically concerning gay rights means that we need to understand the principles, and frankly, IMO, the answers are just not clear without religion on this particular issue, which just makes it harder to discuss with moral relativists.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Like I said before,
I really don't like talking about homosexual issues on any blog because it's such a touchy subject. I don't subscribe to any Darwinian ideas about why homosexuality exists in nature (the ideology Hitler used to justify slaughtering gays), and I don't subscribe to any idea that it's purely environmental either (an idea that minimizes the difficulty homosexuals who wish they could be heterosexual face). I do believe that most are "born that way," that a few choose it (like those "experimenting in college"). I also believe that some have become so out of a defense mechanism because of early childhood abuse. Either way, unless it is a conscious decision at some point (I've only seen a few cases of this) it is not their fault that they feel that attraction. Regardless of causation, I prefer to look at homosexuality through strictly religious eyes, which is actually the most charitable and fair way, in my humble opinion.

I have had homosexual friends with same-sex attraction (Can you really by "sexual" without being sexually active? The word homosexual insinuates that there is no choice in the matter.) since high school, and am still close to some. Under no circumstances is it OK to blame them for an attraction they cannot control. In my opinion, there is no sin in same-sex attraction unless it is acted upon. It is the action that is the sin, and people experiencing same-sex attraction are expected to live up to the exact same standard as the rest of us. Homosexual sex is just as bad a sin as pre-marital sex because God's law says that any sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a sin. That applies to everybody equally, though the rule is harder to follow for some than others. The attraction is a temptation, and are we not here on earth to face temptation in order to be tested and taught? We all have our mountains to climb.

Discrimination because of sexual orientation is unjust. It shouldn't be happening, but saying that they can't change the definition of marriage for the rest of us is not discrimination. They have no legal right to do it. I have no problem with civil unions or gay people living together and being able to be on each others' insurance, being able to visit each other in the hospital, etc. The only place where I care is that they don't get to change the definition of marriage, and I don't think it's best for them to adopt, though it's still their choice... BECAUSE I think that the best way to raise children is with parents of both sexes who love each other and create a healthy environment in the home. A manly lesbian is not adequately masculine to exert the masculine influence in the home. An effeminate man is not adequately feminine to exert the feminine influence in the home. And both mothers and fathers are needed to optimally raise children. But this is not much different from a child being raised in a single family home either. Both situations are not in the best interests of the children, and thus should not be the main plan for raising them. Raising kids is about doing what's best for the kids, and not about doing whatever you want to because of your desires, or because you want to prove to the world that it is possible and OK for a same-sex couple to raise kids without terribly scarring them. Isn't it selfish that you are even willing to take that chance?? Selfishness makes terrible parents. Yes, I am saying that it is selfish to knowingly adopt kids when you know it's not going to be the best situation for them.

Generally speaking, I am more Libertarian about homosexual rights issues than many conservatives, but that absolutely crosses my line when it comes to marriage and children. Everything else should be the same as for the rest of us. If someone indulges in their urges and commits the act of homosexuality, that is between them and their partner and God. I won't condone the action because ultimately it hurts them and their partners eternally, but I'm not going to openly scorn them either. Love the sinner, not the sin. Homosexual sex is a sin that they commit against each other. That attraction won't exist after this life and the relationship will not last into the eternities.
God does not "hate" anyone. It isn't our place to judge because everyone's situation is different and God knows where mercy is needed and where it needs to be withheld. If He created them that way then He knows how to deal with it and how to justly deal with the way they chose to act upon or deny that temptation.

Free will is the key to understanding our purpose here on earth. We are dealt our flawed stack of cards and we prove ourselves by how we use them. Some people have enormous trials, some trials are self-inflicted, and some people have only minor problems, but we will get what we earn. Same-sex attraction is one card I'm glad I didn't get. But understanding the discussions that inevitably happen politically concerning gay rights means that we need to understand the principles, and frankly, IMO, the answers are just not clear without religion on this particular issue, which just makes it harder to discuss with moral relativists.

Guess what you and Christians don't own Marriage...its not yours to define. get over it. If predates you, and it will outlive you.

 

[cashmcall]

Guess what you and Christians don't own Marriage...its not yours to define. get over it. If predates you, and it will outlive you.

I'm not trying to define anything..my guess is, a whole lot of non-believers in California didn't like the idea either...your the one that needs to get over it...Face the facts, It's not just Christians.

 

[dogtowner]

well all religions recognize the importence of marriage and know it to be between a man and a woman but thats not what the homosexuals are interested in. they want the goodies that thier chosen lifestyle does not qualify them for.

their unions do not benefit society so why should they be encouraged ?

 

[Cruella]

Well if voters put back slavery should we becuse the states decided they want to?
Peoples rights are not subject to the will of the people based on what state you live in. What if Someone decided that if your married and christian its now void in a state...would you say thats there right? what about Hillbilly Miss...republicans down there still are against interracial marriage..should that be able to be banned?

And the MBLA jokes ...show how low and sad you are. First of all all people are legally able to marry one person...that is Equality.. So there is at least some equality there. Not that I could care if Mitt wants to marry 5 or 10...like I care. Also if your not of age, then you are not able to give consent. Your same poor argument could also be made that when they lowered the age to vote to 18...whats next 2 year olds can vote?

Shocked you did not bring up bestiality like Rand Paul and the other nuts...Because we all know all rights given to people christians don't like then must apply to animals. Atheist have the right to sue in court? whats next Dogs can sue? Do Horses have the right to arms? oddly only when it comes to sex do right wing bible thumpers start thinking of how all laws somehow will end in sex with dogs or something. Mindless nonsense.

PS Animals can not consent...in case your wondering....thus there can be no Animal Marriage or animal sex.



By the way Minnesota passed a law saying all Christians can be executed...Please support it , you know...states rights.

Wow, you actually responded to one of my posts. I thought for sure you've had me on "ignore" since I joined here.

Let's get something understood. I don't hate gays and I'm not a homophobe. Two of my best girlfriends were gay men. I could care less who gay people choose to love or live with. I'm also fine with calling gay partnerships civil unions. But homosexuality is not normal. Any more normal than people who are born mongoloid. What about the rights of mongoloids? Are they allowed to marry and procreate? Actually, they do have sex drives and can procreate, something gays can't do with their partners.

What I don't get is how less than 2% of the population can have such a large impact on all of our institutions and turn our laws, social norms and traditions on it's head. The gay people I know are not on board with what the gay lobby does. They don't go to gay pride parades and act like perverts. They are decent people.

And don't discount the MBLA. Age discrimination in a society that sexualizes their children, including making homosexuality taught in kindergarden, shouldn't they also be included in your argument of civil rights? Girls can get abortions and abortive drugs without their parents knowledge at the age of 12. Why can't boys also have sex with who ever they want at whatever age their partners are?

You talk about legal rights and Federal benefits. What about brothers and sisters getting married? Or brothers and brothers getting married? Why is incest frowned upon by society. What about their rights to equal protections? If they choose to spend their lives together, why can't they enjoy marriage too?

This whole gay marriage thing is a farce, and only opens the floodgates to more litigation and the undermining of society.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

well all religions recognize the importence of marriage and know it to be between a man and a woman but thats not what the homosexuals are interested in. they want the goodies that thier chosen lifestyle does not qualify them for.

their unions do not benefit society so why should they be encouraged ?

Again no they don't...thats why some churches marry gay couples...because they don't care about you and your views...because they are irreverent.You have this idea because your church hates gays...that all do. Stick you head and the sand and just ignore the real world. Equality is not just for your religion and your church. Its funny how you guys bitch about freedom and shit...but you really only care about your own. you don't give two shits about anyone elses who is not like you.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I'm not trying to define anything..my guess is, a whole lot of non-believers in California didn't like the idea either...your the one that needs to get over it...Face the facts, It's not just Christians.

no one fucking cares what you or they like. People did not like slavery ending, or Blacks voting, or inter racial marraige. No one fucking cares...Rights are not given based on a poll. Equality is not based on if some other church deems you worthy of marriage when your own did. One day people will look back and think how the hell did people even justify preventing it in the first place..See the problem is the only defense you have is your own personal backward belifes...And those have no legal meaning.

 

[dogtowner]

Wow, you actually responded to one of my posts. I thought for sure you've had me on "ignore" since I joined here.

Let's get something understood. I don't hate gays and I'm not a homophobe. Two of my best girlfriends were gay men. I could care less who gay people choose to love or live with. I'm also fine with calling gay partnerships civil unions. But homosexuality is not normal. Any more normal than people who are born mongoloid. What about the rights of mongoloids? Are they allowed to marry and procreate? Actually, they do have sex drives and can procreate, something gays can't do with their partners.

What I don't get is how less than 2% of the population can have such a large impact on all of our institutions and turn our laws, social norms and traditions on it's head. The gay people I know are not on board with what the gay lobby does. They don't go to gay pride parades and act like perverts. They are decent people.

And don't discount the MBLA. Age discrimination in a society that sexualizes their children, including making homosexuality taught in kindergarden, shouldn't they also be included in your argument of civil rights? Girls can get abortions and abortive drugs without their parents knowledge at the age of 12. Why can't boys also have sex with who ever they want at whatever age their partners are?

You talk about legal rights and Federal benefits. What about brothers and sisters getting married? Or brothers and brothers getting married? Why is incest frowned upon by society. What about their rights to equal protections? If they choose to spend their lives together, why can't they enjoy marriage too?

This whole gay marriage thing is a farce, and only opens the floodgates to more litigation and the undermining of society.

its more importent for some to feel all smug in their ivory towers of hedonism than making sense.