Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

Ok so you saw him briefly for moments at a time only when he came to get kids. Yes I understand that. Makes more sense. I thought you meant you NEVER saw him again.

NO.

Unless you want to call looking at a van with tinted windows from the front door - - seeing him.

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

You are quite wrong just like many other people.

LEGAL marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Here is the REAL history of marriage.

(This particular site is the best compilation of all that I've read on the history of marriage.)

onespiritproject.com...

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Quit being so butt-hurt, literally. You're a mod taking EVERY single person's opinion the way YOU want to read it, instead of reading what is actually written. Every single reply you have made in this thread to someone else's post has been taken completely backwards and out of context. Don't be a jerk because you got your feelings hurt. For one your avatar is a Canadian flag, so you should have absolutely no say in America's policies what-so-ever, Second; If you don't like the way things are legislated (like myself and other American's) then don't move here or should you even care. Don't like marriage laws? Don't get married then, it's Federal bull# that doesn't have a place in America to begin with, if you love someone then love them with your heart and not some bogus piece of paper.

reply to post by Annee

Third, comparing gay marriage to slavery is comparing apples and oranges.

That is an interesting little tid bit of verbiage to stick into a "History of Marriage"

Don't you think?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Annee

 

Third, comparing gay marriage to slavery is comparing apples and oranges.

That is an interesting little tid bit of verbiage to stick into a "History of Marriage"

Don't you think?

FULL paragraph

Third, comparing gay marriage to slavery is comparing apples and oranges. Slavery was an instutition that placed one person in control of the other-- there was an innate inequality. The slave was not even considered a human being, but a mere possession and the consent of the slave to enter into this institution was not required. Marriage is an institution in which the consent of both parties is required and in which the parties are equal partners. Mr. Falwell's inflammatory rhetoric is fine, but his logic is lacking. (Of course, given Mr. Falwell's beliefs regarding the submission of wives to their husbands, there are those who would say that Mr. Falwell's ideal regarding marriage is not that far removed from slavery.)

onespiritproject.com...

reply to post by Annee

FULL paragraph

Yes... it certainly was, wasn't it?

(Second)

ATTENTION!!!!

Personal attacks, bickering, snide remarks and off topic material are not allowed.

Further such posts will be removed...with the potential of temporary Posting Bans.

This thread will be closed for a short time to allow members to be aware of this reminder.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

I think the government should get completely out of the business of "marriage". I think out biggest problem is merely one of syntax.

Marriage, to many, is a religious sacrament. Therefore, to separate church and state, the state should only sanction civil unions with all the rights and privileges that up until now marriage has been bestowed.

If you want to get married, don't see a JP, go to church. If you want a civil union, go to the JP. If you want both, go find a minister who is also a JP.

Too many people get to worked up over the word marriage and its religious overtones. By removing the word from the State's vocabulary and replacing it with civil union, you remove the main argument people have against "same sex marriage".

. . . . . . . . . . . . I think I won the Interwebz!

No pro-gay marriage folk wants to step into this particular arena? Could it be I might be completely correct and no one wants to admit it?

Originally posted on page 12:

Originally posted by blamethegreys
...I am 110% in favor of G/L couples being able to access the full rights and benefits that straight couples can have. As so many have posted here, it IS inherently wrong that after a lifetime together, an anti- family or judge can strip them of everything they and their partner have worked for. It's wrong that while pooling resources financially they don't get equal benefits on taxes and whatnot that a married couple get. [insert more examples here].

What I am absolutely against, however is the G/L community using the specific word 'Marriage'. I will lay out my argument for this, so please bear with me to the end. Once you have heard me out, feel free to unload or agree as you see fit. In this argument, I note that Deadeyedick tried to inject this position in his discussions with Annie, but the hook failed to set.

Many have argued that marriage is simply a legal contract with no real ties to religion. I submit that marriage is BOTH a legal non-secular contract and a religious contract. Each can be had independently, through non-secular marriage or as some have stated here, being married by spiritual authority without petitioning the government for permission. Typically however, the mainstream engages in both facets of this contract. This is the very core of what I am about to argue.

Annie stated that being gay wasn't akin to groupthink: That there is a broad spectrum of thinking and belief w/in the GLBT community. I agree. I spent the majority of my life in the SF Bay Area, and I have met and been friends with many G/L folks. I also have met some of the most militant, angry, anti-religious GLBT folks out there. As Phelps is to Christianity, these people are the flipside in this debate. To ease the wordcount, I'm going to use an abbreviation to refer back to this group: milgay. As in militant+gay. If it is offensive, sorry, not meant to be, it's a construct for this thread, nothing more.

Misoir posted these opinions back on page 3:

Same-sex marriage does have an effect upon everyone. For one it expands the definition of marriage, thus altering our understanding of the word and thus changing our language. Second it solidifies the acceptance of sodomite lifestyles as equal to that of heterosexuals, which are not equal; sodomy is unnatural and immoral - period. And third it allows for the legal right of sodomites to raise children, which is to inflict the acknowledgement of perversion and degeneracy at a young age; forever corrupting innocent people who should not even be exposed to such concepts.

Whether or not you agree with these, the milgay faction absolutely believes that gaining the equal status of "Married" does legitimize their practices and lifestyle. They do feel that it will indoctrinate younger generations to accept GLBT as a social norm. And their ambitions don't stop with marriage.

While the vast majority of GLBT folks would see marriage rights as the winning touchdown, milgay folks see it as first and goal. To them, the core issue is religious discrimination. Being afforded purely equal marriage status would move the moral battlelines to the front doors of any church which denies GLBT membership, marriage services or any other "exclusionary" practice. Because marriage is this two-sided coin, the changes made to the civil rights of marriage will very easily lead to challenges and reinterpretations of the spiritual (read: freedom of religion) side of marriage.

Stemming from inclusionary marriages will be legal challenges to:
→excommunications
→denial of sacraments
→refusals of marriage services
→acknowledgement of existing gay marriages
→participation in ceremony/covenants

The milgay's goal will be to force religion to integrate their lifestyle in whole or tear down any who would stand against them. Sorry to put it out there, but I have heard it from the horses mouth. It only takes one, and there are certainly many more than one.

The only solution to ensure others' rights are not threatened is to separate the facets of marriage. To Caesar goes the term Union, to religious organizations the term Marriage. This way a GLBT couple may have marriage through an accepting church.

I cannot see any other path which doesn't lead to more battles.

Originally posted by Annee

BS. Its just not acceptable to you.
It is not about "detailing" on a scale - - - how devoted a person is to living which ever of the 3100 Christians sects there are in America.
You're not gonna see Atheists - Mormons - Muslims - - etc getting married in a Christian church.

Your response makes me all sad inside Annee. I have known you to be a logical intelligent participant in religious debates, but this tactic ("BS, it's just not acceptable to you") seems out of form.

I brought it up because there are millions of people that are self-admittedly atheist, agnostic or just 'spiritual' who marry in a christian church simply because it's their parent's church, and they get the service cheaper, or free. I run out fingers counting friends I know who would fall into this category.

So I respectfully disagree, your original "52% of christian marriages end in divorce" statement is deceptive, and you justify it by using deceptively slippery logic. In geology, if I want to study the slip on fault X, I measure the slip on fault X. I don't measure all similar faults in the region to find an average. If I did, my data would be completely skewed.
If measuring average slip on all regionally similar faults was the goal, I wouldn't title my work "Average slip results on Fault X". Again, that would be grossly inaccurate.

No but really, why so silent on my posting from page 12?
You didn't even dignify it with an outright dismissal or nuthin!

Originally posted by blamethegreys

Your response makes me all sad inside Annee. I have known you to be a logical intelligent participant in religious debates, but this tactic ("BS, it's just not acceptable to you") seems out of form.

OK - - I apologize for the short rude quip.

I brought it up because there are millions of people that are self-admittedly atheist, agnostic or just 'spiritual' who marry in a christian church simply because it's their parent's church, and they get the service cheaper, or free. I run out fingers counting friends I know who would fall into this category.

I'm not buying this at all. It speaks of desperate "reaching".

Why would an Atheist get married in a Christian church.

No - just No.

reply to post by Kali74


First of all I did read the the title of the topic and..........believe it or not.........I read your Original Post as well. I did not read further than that at the time I made my reply. Furthermore, why would you expect me to? You posted a wall of text and I responded. Are you saying I should read through an entire thread before I type up my response?

Secondly.....get over yourself. Apparently you did not notice that I was quoting no one with my initial response. I was dramatizing what you so dis-eloquently stated. All my little references to "you" or "your" were directed at no one in particular....they were directed toward the community as a whole. Next, I never implied that you were gay. One more false assumption on your part.

I am disappointed. Out of all the sentences that I typed all you can manage to quote and counter-argue is my nonsensical dramatic sentence and merely one sentence that I said that had any meaning. You completely disregard the points I made so you can engage in your slovenly rhetoric and continue to promote it. Once again.....Laughable.

Here is a challenge: Tell me why you cannot offer a response to the statements that I made that you so conveniently ignored. I have no desire to further engage in a dialogue with a person that responds to only one sentence of substance that I said.

So you want to revoke the privileges to a group of people whom the greater portion of society deems normal
because a small percentage of people can't have their way.

Makes sense to me.

reply to post by XaniMatriX

Second of all, no person on this planet is alive today to tell us of the day that marriage was invented, so any theories or guesses or stories people have towards that subject today are irrelivent, since no one knows for sure....anymore.

Please excuse me for quoting only a portion of what you said. It is this portion that I am responding to.

That is nonsense. Allow me to provide an analogy: No person on this planet is alive today to tell us of the day that fire was "invented"(IE. Mastered), so any guesses or theories or stories people have toward that subject are irrelevant since no one knows for sure.....anymore.

Are you seeing my point? The very reason that "marriage" has existed long before recorded history(IE. writing) is a testament to the fact that cultures considered "marriage" as between a man and a woman with specific goals that were expected by the community that the married couple were apart of.

Do you truly believe that a small tribe of hunter-gatherers would threaten their existence over something so petty as sexual preference? They did not.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by dazbog

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I agree. However, this has been part of many governments for quite a long time now. Let's see if those who are against gay marriage agree with us, that no couple need ask permission nor receive special status for deciding to marry the person they love.

Bloody outstanding ! The OP & Mod have stated their mutual agreement on the focus of this long standing emotionally charged issue. I've gained ! Of late, a very rare worthy post. Of course after the first few pages it goes South, fore then we slide into the emotional quagmire of feelings. Thank you both.

Not really sure what your point is.'

The OP - - was basically taking the position of Equality - - - by removing privileges of Legal marriage of Heteros.

Something - - I'm pretty sure the majority of that group would not willingly accept - - and go down "kicking and screaming".

Yeah yeah - - there's a few of both Hetero and Homo - - that think government should stay out of marriage. But I doubt it has any support of significance.

LEGAL marriage needs to be the same for all.

I have no skin in this game. I was simply stating my appreciation for their even handed unemotional evaluation of a delicate subject. THAT was my POINT ! The balance of this thread IMO is a waste of time, much akin to your inane prattle on my post. It's not complicated. Reread it if you must. It was intended for them. I do not care about your thoughts or opinion ! I hope that offers some clarification.

Originally posted by dazbog

I have no skin in this game. I was simply stating my appreciation for their even handed unemotional evaluation of a delicate subject. THAT was my POINT ! The balance of this thread IMO is a waste of time, much akin to your inane prattle on my post. It's not complicated. Reread it if you must. It was intended for them. I do not care about your thoughts or opinion ! I hope that offers some clarification.

Not really.

If you have no skin in this game. Why post?

Wouldn't that be considered senseless prattle?

I'm just chewing my cud today, and a thought occurred to me.

Would gays still want to get married if there were no heterosexuals around?

I mean, in a certain sense, this is bonding envy at work, isn't it?

The whole concept of marriage originated from the existence of male and female and the bonding of two opposites.

If there was only one sex in the world, from the beginning of time, say men only, and they popped out from eggs layed by father men, who didn't need to copulate to produce offspring, but just self-fertilized like some other creatures on earth do, then would homosexuals even arrive at the "idea of marriage" from a one sex world?

If a unisex creature could not conceive of the idea of marriage, there being no underlying reproductive motivator for union to stir up the idea in mind, then can't we conclude that homosexuals needed heterosexuals to introduce them to the concept of marriage?

And if homosexuals could not come up with the idea of marriage on their own, but needed to see heterosexuals doing it first, to then get the idea to copy, we can conclude that marriage is not at all natural to unisex creatures, and it's just jealousy at work that creates the desire to have something that your neighbor has, because your neighbor looks so cool having it.

The logic then suggests to us, that homosexuals don't really want marriage, what they want is what other people have, whatever that might be, and the real underlying current at work is envy and not love at all.


In which case, should we be supporting envy in society?

Something to think about.

Without heterosexuals to lead the way, homosexuals would never have formulated an idea like "marriage".

Originally posted by GreatOwl
Without heterosexuals to lead the way, homosexuals would never have formulated an idea like "marriage".

Shakes head.

It scares me sometimes - - how absurdly creative some can be in their homophobia.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Kali74

 

Actually the Federal Government never had any business creating a contract between itself and legal consenting adults.

It should have left this up to the states. There's no need for it be validated at the "federal level", since marriage is not dictated in the Constitution as a Federal thing, it needed to be deal with by only the states.

SInce they decided to create an entire legal system surrounding a religious practice, they should create an equal system for same sex couples or those who do not wish to marry under the banner of religion.

'Giving people the right to do what they already have the right to do, only gives others an excuse to legislate those rights away'.

~Tenth

Nope... no multiplier, remove the states rights to recognize a civil union. So many birds... so many stones.

It started off as a religious ceremony and there is supposed to be a separation between church and state.

If the origin is not of concern... how about arguing incentive based discrimination that aims to pin tax burdens against a doctrine? I mean CMON!!!

It's not that I disagree with the ideals and all the justifications for many of these laws. I suppose money is sustenance and the government gets hungry, add a few laws and the IRS likes finding more leverage on collecting debts.. As well...

I suppose that 'legalizing' marriage finds merit when reciting vows. Or, the other way around.... pss
Talk about "Social Contract" going mainstream...



I heard marriage suck anyways...

reply to post by Kali74


I have an idea, stop dropping to your knees and asking permission to do everything. You want to live with someone? Just do it. Who cares if it's "official"? Anything that requires you to bow down and beg is nothing but lapdog training. You are a human with rights. You are not a dog with a master. You do not need Government to tell you when, where or how to live your life.