California Ghey Marriage

[Bill Bess]

Well, my two cents from an old conservative, none religious guy that raised two perfectly normal kids that are now productive contributors to our great Country.

First of all, people are free to do just about anything they want in this country as long as it is legal and somewhat moral. I personnally feel that gays have rights, but perhaps they have some strange wiring job in their brains that makes them feel they need to love the same sex in an unnatural way..I can't answer this question.
As far as marriage, please reserve this word for a man and a women union that want to raise a triditional family. When same sex folks can't reproduce on their own...I'll be fine with this whole thing.
In addition, we must teach our kids some good core values so you decide what is really the right thing to do. Remember, I'm old and conservative and think most of the libs are just lazy and don't want to work at anything that important and good.

Old Bill

[Tommy]

My thinking about the whole definition of marriage thing has led me to a conclusion different from anything I've seen here. My opinion is that government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Here's my thinking.

First, there is no legal barrier that stops any couple from living together, sharing assets, having sex and raising children without being married. If they conceive children, they are both ethically and financially responsible for raising them whether or not they are married. Courts will back that up. .... If they split up and fight over the children and shared assets, courts can resolve those disputes whether or not they were married. Marriage is simply not necessary for the most part.

What marriage does provide is a legal partnership between spouses that is defined by and can be changed by the government whenever it chooses. I believe the vast majority of first married people have no idea of the legal entanglement they are entering. I think those who want to have a legal partnership with their housemate would be much better off negotiating a prenuptial type agreement where both partners know exactly what to expect. That way the partners define the partnership rather than the government. (For example, I had no idea when I married that the federal government would later decide that half of my retirement pay would go to my former spouse and that matter would not even be subject to negotiation during the divorce.)

Marriage also gives spouses the right to speak for their partners should they become incapacitated or die. That same privilege could be easily provided by legal papers signed by the partners.

Lastly, as currently structured, marriage provides spouses with certain benefits such as Social Security retirement payments. I'll illustrate my problem with that with a hypothetical example. ... Suppose a man had a younger sister with Down’s syndrome. Both parents are dead and the man has been providing for his sister for his entire adult life. The man has never married nor had children with anyone. He’s concerned that there won’t be enough money to care for his sister during retirement of if he should he die before her. As he has no wife to benefit from the years of social security payments he’s made, he’d like to designate his sister as his beneficiary for social security and retirement benefits. Is it fair for the government to say he can only claim those benefits if he marries someone? I think not. I think a better system would be to allow each person who has earned spousal benefits to designate one person to receive those benefits. The choice of who that person is should be entirely up to the individual. The beneficiary could be a spouse, child, mother, friend or anyone they choose.

Marriage does provide the couple with an opportunity to stand before their community and announce their intention to live together in accordance with their cultural and religious beliefs. That's fine with me. But that doesn't require government involvement. We should turn the concept of marriage back over to religious and cultural groups and allow each to define it as they set fit. But government should get out of the business of defining what a marriage is, how it should operate and how it should end.

[CobraEd]

Ghey marriage would be ok as long as a ghey man marries a ghey woman . . . . . . . . . . THE PARTS GOTTA MATCH !!!!



.

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by MysteryTrain

I too, was worried about the "teaching gay marriage" in school issue, but basically that was all generated by one teacher in Massachusetts who read a book to her class (it was not mandated by the school or school system).

May I respectfully suggest you get involved in the school system. This was not an isolated incident. This was only the one which made it to MSM.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/11/01...-pledge-cards/

and although it was vetoed...

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026595

read the bill, it included language which would require history lessons in the religion of homosexuality.

[jhv48]

Gays should be allowed to marry legally.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to suffer like the rest of us?

[VRM]

In MA people said that 'activist judges' were going to ruin the state, and that marriage would never be what it once was. Well, now a few years later and only a few people seem really bent out of shape over it. Gay people getting married has not changed anybodies marriage, unless you are so much of a busybody that you can't function because you are constantly thinking about what other people are doing.

15 years ago a lawyer friend of mine pointed out the MA General Laws that forbids marriage to certain relatives, people under a certain age, and to multiple living spouses. The MA Constitution says that everybody is equal under the law with no distinction for gender. I suspect it was intended to give women the same legal rights as men, but the judges in MA had no choice - they could not define marriage one way for straight people and another way for gays.

So Perry, your argument about pedophilia is irrelevant (for MA anyways) because we already have laws against it, and they are not likely to be overturned. Pedophilia is not related to being gay. There was a study done in Denver a few years ago that concluded that only 2% of molestation cases (where the perp was identified) were carried out by gays or lesbians. So maybe straight people and priests are the problem.

For me the whole thing comes down to freedom. I have gay friends, and I support their right to be treated exactly as I am under the law. I support their right to live their lives as they see fit provided they do not interfere with anyone elses right to do the same.

Steve

[J. T. Toad]

Steve,

I didn't read where anyone made any connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. Please stay on topic.

Maybe if it were stated as such...

If homosexuals can marry, why can't polygamists? Why can't cousins marry?

Jerry Lee Lewis estate would be entitled to reparations!

"On December 12, 1957, Jerry married his third cousin, Myra Gale Brown. A lot of ink has been spilled about his close blood relationship with Myra, and the fact that she was only thirteen and still believed in Santa Claus when the pair were married."

http://oldies.about.com/od/rockabill...rryleemyra.htm

[VRM]

Is anybody here left handed?

BTW, why is everybody spelling it 'ghey'?

[CobraEd]

Because Gay means "Happy", . . . . . . and Ghey means "Homosexual". Gotta get the english language back to norm.


.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by CobraEd

Because Gay means "Happy", . . . . . . and Ghey means "Homosexual". Gotta get the english language back to norm.


.

Thanks,
I just looked it up - according to what I found 'ghey' is used by kids these days to indicate something is lame or pathetic, but it is intended to not offend gay people because it is spelled differently. Sounds kinda dumb.

I think it is being used incorrectly here - I'll stick to using 'gay' until Websters picks it up.

[Fred Douglass]

....have you checked my Photo Gallery (especially the "micro yachting scenes)? Hot I yam, but it's only with wimmen that I go swimmin'! Arooogle!
I HAVE lost 60+ lbs. of late, so, having read yer posts, I'm breaking out the Superglue. Eeeeyeeee-wah!

[VRM]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

Shouldn't polygamy be legal then?

What about pedophilism?

Why legislate morality at all?

Have their "rights" actually been hindered without the "certificate" of marriage?

Personally, I can't understand why they would want the extra tax burden unless they solely want to subvert the religious beliefs in marriage in the first place.

It's a semantic argument which has dire legal consequences. It'll be overturned just for the way the prop. was written. My apologies to Jamo.

Polygamy is not between two consenting adults, neither is pedophilism. For legal issues 7 spouses on a health plan are not the same as 1 spouse on a health plan. Laws against pedophiles protect our young. Religion has is not the primary concern with either of those.

Whose morality do you legislate? You don't want mine and I don't want yours. We are better off with legislation that keeps people from harming each other, and provides penalties for when they do.

Gays who cannot get a marriage certificate are not viewed equally under the law as somebody who can. There are plenty of benefits to having a marriage certificate that have nothing to do with religion.

Somebody asked before when this topic came up a couple of years ago about why a church should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for gays in MA. Actually, they are not. Churches are private entities that are still free to have their own rules about who they will marry and who they will not. A JP, however, will issue a legal marriage certificate to any two people who meet all the legal criteria. One of my best friends was given a JP licence for one day to perform the ceremony for my wife and I. Neither of us is religious (my friend is Jewish, but he did not perform a Jewish ceremony).

So what harm does gay marriage cause?

Steve

[392cobra]

Freddie,
It is good to hear that your looks have improved over the last 6 years.
Every little bit helps.

It's good to see you back and posting again.You add a lot...just not sure what it is a lot of.

Before..


He was a fine looking dog.

[427 S/O]

JT, vrm dosen't understand if one law is passed for a particular group, the other particular groups have a right to seek comparable justice. If this incorrect, tell me where I'm wrong.....

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 427 S/O

JT, vrm dosen't understand if one law is passed for a particular group, the other particular groups have a right to seek comparable justice. If this incorrect, tell me where I'm wrong.....

They have a right to petition for redress. It does not mean that they are going to get it.

[427 S/O]

That's what I said?, I didn't think I was wrong.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 427 S/O

That's what I said?, I didn't think I was wrong.

That right exists already for anybody that chooses to use it. The legal status of gay marriage has nothing to do with the legal status of pedophilia. So what is your point?

[1ntCobra]

I think a lot of the problem here has to do with the word marriage. I see it having one meaning in terms of government and another for religion. In the government sense it is a legal contract between 2 parties that gives them certain legal rights and obligations. In the religious terms it is defined by the religion and deity or deities involved.

Perhaps the government should replace the word marriage with civil union for all cases, that involve heterosexual and homosexual relationships. By using a separate word for each situation, we have separation of church and state.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

Shouldn't polygamy be legal then?

...

Well it is accepted by some religions and governments. I not interested, one wife is enough for me.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Tommy

My thinking about the whole definition of marriage thing has led me to a conclusion different from anything I've seen here. My opinion is that government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Here's my thinking.

First, there is no legal barrier that stops any couple from living together, sharing assets, having sex and raising children without being married. If they conceive children, they are both ethically and financially responsible for raising them whether or not they are married. Courts will back that up. .... If they split up and fight over the children and shared assets, courts can resolve those disputes whether or not they were married. Marriage is simply not necessary for the most part.

What marriage does provide is a legal partnership between spouses that is defined by and can be changed by the government whenever it chooses. I believe the vast majority of first married people have no idea of the legal entanglement they are entering. I think those who want to have a legal partnership with their housemate would be much better off negotiating a prenuptial type agreement where both partners know exactly what to expect. That way the partners define the partnership rather than the government. (For example, I had no idea when I married that the federal government would later decide that half of my retirement pay would go to my former spouse and that matter would not even be subject to negotiation during the divorce.)

Marriage also gives spouses the right to speak for their partners should they become incapacitated or die. That same privilege could be easily provided by legal papers signed by the partners.

Lastly, as currently structured, marriage provides spouses with certain benefits such as Social Security retirement payments. I'll illustrate my problem with that with a hypothetical example. ... Suppose a man had a younger sister with Down’s syndrome. Both parents are dead and the man has been providing for his sister for his entire adult life. The man has never married nor had children with anyone. He’s concerned that there won’t be enough money to care for his sister during retirement of if he should he die before her. As he has no wife to benefit from the years of social security payments he’s made, he’d like to designate his sister as his beneficiary for social security and retirement benefits. Is it fair for the government to say he can only claim those benefits if he marries someone? I think not. I think a better system would be to allow each person who has earned spousal benefits to designate one person to receive those benefits. The choice of who that person is should be entirely up to the individual. The beneficiary could be a spouse, child, mother, friend or anyone they choose.

Marriage does provide the couple with an opportunity to stand before their community and announce their intention to live together in accordance with their cultural and religious beliefs. That's fine with me. But that doesn't require government involvement. We should turn the concept of marriage back over to religious and cultural groups and allow each to define it as they set fit. But government should get out of the business of defining what a marriage is, how it should operate and how it should end.

Well said, and that's the core of the issue. Government (and business and insurance and credit and...) should not be involved in or based on marriage.

But it is.

And gays make a damn good argument when they ask "why" when told they can take some additional steps (designating beneficiaries, for example) to balance out what they lack from not being married.

A bit like Rosa Parks asking "why in the phuk should I sit in the back?"



Others...folks want to drag in exaggerated points of discussion about pedophiles should be prepared to respond to other side of the spectrum I should think.

Hmmmm....I guess we'd better outlaw the Catholic Church. Everyone knows them priests are all gay and attack children. Sure as hell seems like it to we hetrosexual Orthodox Christians at least. Yup...Catholics are all gay. The Pope is gay.

In other words...stay on point in this thread.