WHO VOTED?

[Marcena]

I'm sorry, Michelle. Personally I think the entire issue shouldn't even be on the docket. What does it say how are we as a nation that we factor in such things when determining how to run a government?

Well...unless they outlaw marriage for EVERYBODY then I wouldn't have as big a problem with it.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

They banned same sex marriages in Cali.

Listen, in my book you can hate my lifestyle if you want. You can think I'm going to hell (and I might be worried - if I thought there WAS a hell). I don't care.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

I don't care what the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other religious text says about my lifestyle. Keep it out of my government.

Yeah, apparently the message America gave yesterday was this:

America is the land of opportunity where we accept people of all races to join in with our society!

But not you damned faggots.

It'll change though. Young voters overwhelmingly voted against it. There will be gay marriage everywhere eventually and all our citizens can be equal under the law; it's inevitable.

 

[Laguna Hallik]

Just as it is aggravating that such a thing could be passed in the United States, it is also a amazing thing to say about the US that with enough work and willpower the people have the ability to overturn that decision.

 

[Ezri]

This is true.

Prohibition also seemed like a good idea at the time I"m sure... LOL

 

[Marcena]

My friend Angela moved to Massachussess (sp?) out of high school so she could be with her fiancee. She joked around with me saying that they should change the state slogan to "It's what's in your heart, not in your pants!"

But anyway...definitly would've voted yes on prop 6 that would have legalized marijuana in the state of Michigan for medicinal purposes.

Any similar proposals out there? Thoughts?

 

[elliotbay]

I'm down with legalizing marijuana, though there were no measures about it this time in Oregon. Even for recreational use, although I don't think that'd fly with the rest of the voters. I've never tried marijuana or cigarettes, and I really have no desire to, but if others want to, I don't see why not. Besides, you could tax the heck out of it, and the government would be making some extra money.

As for marriages, I'm not entirely sure why the government is in the business of deciding who can and can't get married. It seems like mainly a contract between two people and, depending on your religious affiliation, God. In fact, if you're into polyamory, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed. Okay, so technically it's allowed, just you can be only actually married to one of them.

I think my favorite is the separate but equal argument, "Well, a Civil Union is really the same thing." That worked out so well in the past

But I agree with Michael in his optimism. By and large, the voters who are against gay marriage will die, whereas the ones who are for it will grow older, and raise children who also value the rights of homosexuals.

 

[Wraith]

My opinion is, and has been for some time, that it is not the purpose of the state to define a religious intent. A legal marriage is not a religious one, and I see no reason that same-sex partners should not have the same benefits as those in heterosexual long-term relationships.

Then again, I might be the odd one out. I know my fellow conservatives look at me oddly.

 

[Robb G]

If I am not mistaken one of the worries the folks who are against gay marriage in California were touting was that if you allow the state to redefine a legal marriage as between any sex partner, then because the public education system is also a state run institution it will eventually be forced to teach same sex marriage. The folks who don't mind what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home, would now have it being taught to their children, which may undermine a values system they are trying to teach to the child, and you cannot legally remove your child from a classroom when it comes to civil rights teachings. Example: jonny "my dad's in the klan" smith can not be removed from civics class during the week they teach black history even though the parent may not want the child to learn it.

I guess the recourse I would throw at that is, educate your child at home then. but frankly the whole public education system as it stands right now is a big joke as far as I am concerned.

i don't agree with either side as it doesn't affect me one way or the other, but i would like to see some studies concerning younger children being taught about sexual preference and the effects of that teaching.

 

[Tzydl Zhitelava]

robb you are correct from what i understand. I frankly don't get the same sex thing myself. I am very conservative (which i realize is very far removed from most of my co-alliance-players' opinions) and yet this is one of the main things I cannot figure out or agree with. I've asked people who share my other conservative views to explain it to me and try to convince me of this no same sex thing and so far no one has convinced me. the fact that it would be taught in schools is also the point in which the parent should ask little johnny what he learned in school today. for instance....
conservative mom: what did you learn today?
johnny: we learned that we evolved from apes.
conservative mom: but you know that is a scientific opinion not a faith based reality?
johnny: oh okay thanks mom
conservative mom: what else did you learn?
johnny: we learned that some people have two mommies or two daddies
conservative mom: thats true some people do but you realize that is not how we believe you should live your life according to our faith based/conservative way of life, and people who live that way are no less a person than you or I.
johnny: oh okay thanks mom.

honestly if you're letting a public school system teach your kids morals and lifestyle then you've got way more problems than you think you do.

as for the polygamy...that's a nightmare...honestly...the country would be bankrupt...when some old fart dies off and 10 women step up to take equal shares of a retirement plan? and have 100 offspring who get benefits???? good heavens....

 

[Toddo]

As I've often said before, this is a semantic argument stemming from the fact that both religion and government have the same word for two separate things. When someone gets married they say their vows, thus marrying them in the eyes of God, then go back and sign a form that marries them in the eyes of the state. Frankly the government should not be issueing "marriage" licenses at all. Call it whatever you want, a "Floog" or "Wizflabble" license, as long as the state isn't using the same word as the church. I don't think anyone here is going to disagree that same-sex couples deserve the same legal rights, priveleges and protections that hetero couples enjoy, but the mistake is calling the state recognition of ANY union "marriage."

My Suggestion:
States change the text of their legal documents to replace all instances of the word "marriage" with another agreed upon word or phrase, (civil union, conjoinment, whatever) and let the word marriage mean "joined in the eyes of God". Pass laws that any two consenting adults can be joined by the state. If someone actually wants to be "married" they must then find a religious authority to marry them. This will allow same-sex couples to have all the rights under the law, and allow the people who believe that same sex unions are sinful to keep their precious, and at it's core religious, word.

-toddo

 

[Tzydl Zhitelava]

toddo...i kinda like that...there was a woman that got up in arms when she went to get her marriage license in mass and the form had been changed to read Partner 1 Partner 2 and she took offence to it and blah blah blah and i'm thinking uhhhhh my husband is my partner...?

frankly if i was married in the eyes of God and Civil Unioned in the eyes of the state that is NOT gonna hurt my feelings at all

 

[Mike Ventrella]

If I am not mistaken one of the worries the folks who are against gay marriage in California were touting was that if you allow the state to redefine a legal marriage as between any sex partner, then because the public education system is also a state run institution it will eventually be forced to teach same sex marriage.

Oh come now, Robb... a school forced to teach people to be tolerant? How dreadful that would be!

The folks who don't mind what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home, would now have it being taught to their children, which may undermine a values system they are trying to teach to the child, and you cannot legally remove your child from a classroom when it comes to civil rights teachings.

But that's true now with anything. If you don't want your child to learn evolution because of your religious background, take the child out of public school. Schools should not be in the business of adjusting their education to meet religious requirements -- that's unconstitutional.

And let's face it -- opposition to gay marriage is basically religious in nature. There's not a very strong legal reason to deny it.

As for the suggestion that we should allow churches to have the word "marriage" and governments to have "civil unions" and so on, I am certainly against that. Why should my marriage of 26 years be demoted to a different word just so people who find gay marriage creepy can continue to be happy?

The definition of marriage has changed over the years. It used to be arranged marriages, where the woman was property, and it used to prohibit people of different races from getting married, and it's changing again, in some states and in some countries. And somehow, the world has not suffered one bit from it!

 

[Mike Ventrella]

frankly if i was married in the eyes of God and Civil Unioned in the eyes of the state that is NOT gonna hurt my feelings at all

Yeah, but for those of us who don't believe in God, that means we can never call ourselves married. How is that fair?

 

[Tzydl Zhitelava]

that's a good point...See if we didn't have forums like this we wouldn't be able to see other points of view that would never occur to us no our own! and its civil here (no pun intended) i mean no one is barking at anyone else we're all just sharing how we feel. i like that.

 

[Toddo]

frankly if i was married in the eyes of God and Civil Unioned in the eyes of the state that is NOT gonna hurt my feelings at all

Yeah, but for those of us who don't believe in God, that means we can never call ourselves married. How is that fair?

I believe there's a Church of Atheism out there, I'm sure they'd be happy to marry you in the sight of Nobody. The point is that the term "Married" will no longer have any legal meaning or standing and thus no legally recognized rights or obligations. I'll never be able to say that I'm an ovarian cancer survivor and I'm not complaining that this is unfair. :lol:
-toddo

 

[elliotbay]

I think this is relevant to our current discussion.

If I am not mistaken one of the worries the folks who are against gay marriage in California were touting was that if you allow the state to redefine a legal marriage as between any sex partner, then because the public education system is also a state run institution it will eventually be forced to teach same sex marriage.

I don't know what it means to teach gay marriage in schools. To say that it exists? To tell children that they should all gay marry? I don't know that public schools "teach" heterosexual marriage either.

I agree, though, with Toddo, that the problem is semantic. But, I don't think of it as you can't say that you're married unless you have a religious service, but that you say you're married when you decide you should be married, be it after a service, or after a private pact. Marriage seems to me like a personal thing, and I don't see why states need to mandate how it must be done.

(edit for tag maintenance)

 

[Gunnar]

Personal Opinion here:

You can call it anything you want; so long as that license stands in my house someday that allows me to have the same rights as everyone else so that if something happens to my significant other, I can A) go in and see her in ICU/ER/Hospital and not have to wait outside like someone who never existed, B) Make decisions like everyone else can about her health welfare if she cannot make them herself and C) obtain medical benefits and other benefits like everyone else does?

You can call it Civil Union. You can call her my 'partner'. You can look at me funny whenever I hold her hand to walk down the street. I don't really care.

At home and wherever I go? She'll be my wife. And at the end of the day, that really should be what matters.

-Ali

*end soapbox rant*

 

[Tzydl Zhitelava]

i think the state is only in on it for health care and benefits...ie: ss#8888888888 dies who gets the benefits? its all about money for the state..otherwise they wouldn't care...the problem is that some christians think that america should be a theocracy....its not and it never should be....its a democracy...or republic? i can't remember what we are but we're not a theocracy.

in all honesty it doesn't matter that ___% of the people who "started" this country believed in God or not. They made the rules here so that no matter what you believe you have the freedom to do it/practice it as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

Besides if we ran the country as a theocracy some of us might get upset if the people in charge had a different god than us HEHEHEH

I mean if Mike was in charge would Cthulu be the deity we based our government on? HEHEHEHHEHEHE (that's a joke.... :? )

 

[Alavatar]

I don't know what it means to teach gay marriage in schools. To say that it exists? To tell children that they should all gay marry? I don't know that public schools "teach" heterosexual marriage either.

My only guess is that schools would have to teach gay sex education...

The only semi-strong, but not really, argument I have ever heard against gay marriage (besides the religious beliefs) was the fear of room-mates getting "married" for tax purposes then "divorcing" when they move out. Thus, allowing room-mates not only tax benefits, but also insurance benefits (medical/dental/vision from a company as well as Life), and the ability to make decisions for their "partner" when they are incapable.

But that argument can be applied today to room-mates who happen to be of opposite sex.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Yeah, given that straight people can get married now for all sorts of purposes it kind of defeats an argument that gays may do so for the same reason.

The argument I laugh most at is the one that says gay marriage will destroy the "sanctity of marriage". Yeah, we should all protect straight marriages that take place between two people who just met and then go to the First Church of Elvis in Las Vegas to get divorced two weeks later. Like that doesn't destroy the "sanctity of marriage"!