DOMA and Prop 8 - Page 36
+ Reply to Thread
Page 36 of 48 FirstFirst ... 2632333435363738394046 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 479
Like Tree248Likes

Thread: DOMA and Prop 8

  1. #351
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I do not think I have the energy to keep doing this right now. I never said (and do not believe) that laws should be based solely on the Bible as everyone is going to interpret the bible differently. You are lumping everyone that believes that the Government should not be involved in marriage into one large group when even though I can not explain myself very well, I am sure my reasons are different than Gloria's or RG.
    So you've never argued that allowing gay marriage would be changing the definition of marriage and that was bad......are you positive?

  2. #352
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    So you've never argued that allowing gay marriage would be changing the definition of marriage and that was bad......are you positive?
    No I am not positive. When I first started posting on this board I was still forming my opinions on gay marriage. I also did not personally know any gay people at the time I first started posting on this board. I can not tell you everything I would have posted on the issue 3 years ago.
    Last edited by AlyssaEimers; 07-14-2013 at 06:48 PM. Reason: typo - left out not

    ~Bonita~

  3. #353
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Couples in love (Both Gay and Straight) would have whatever civil service they wanted. In a church, in the woods, in a rented hall. You could call it marriage, a partnership, or whatever you wanted.
    And nobody registers it anywhere? Can non-romantic unions also be called marriage? Can three people get married?

    Does it mean anything specific?
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #354
    Prolific Poster ftmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Couples in love (Both Gay and Straight) would have whatever civil service they wanted. In a church, in the woods, in a rented hall. You could call it marriage, a partnership, or whatever you wanted.
    I think I understand what you are saying. Basically, you can have a legal partnership with anyone you want, and in addition, you can have a service which you could call whatever you want including marriage.

    I dont like it And here is why.

    1. What if I am 'married' and my 'husband' is my legal partner, but my sister is single and wants me to be her next of kin. It really doesnt simplify things for her. It only simplifies things for those who are not married but common law, which many places already give the benefits of marriage too, or for the rare cases where two people who are not married want each other to be their next of kin. I dont see it worth changing the system for these rare cases.
    2. Because it would have to be a reciprocal relationship (as stated above) if my husband had already entered into this relationship with a best friend, great aunt, whoever, when we got 'married' then it would have to be dissolved and redone for us, or maybe that would be too difficult so we wouldnt do it. Now I am 'married' to someone I have no legal ties to. Couldn't he go out and 'marry' someone else, or many someone elses without me ever knowing and no legal repercussions?
    3. I was married by a Pastor simply because he was a friend of DH's family, but lets pretend for a moment that I had been married by a civil servant, as it was not a religious ceremony. What would have been the point of that wedding? The point of my wedding was to be legally recognized as a family. Yes it was to celebrate that with family and friends, but it was more than that, and your way of doing things would take that away from us.

    I had more, but DD is having a freak out in her room right now, so I have to go. Apparently I am a rude mommy and I should be a kid now....oh, and she will never play with me again
    Kyla
    Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)

  5. #355
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ftmom View Post
    I think I understand what you are saying. Basically, you can have a legal partnership with anyone you want, and in addition, you can have a service which you could call whatever you want including marriage.
    Yes in my fairy land it would work that way. I understand it would have kinks to work out.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #356
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Its not "kinks" Bonita, its an entirely illogical proposal on every level.

    Further, don't we come to the debate board to debate real world issues? This is a DOMA and Prop 8 and gay marriage debate, and I can't even believe that we have wasted so many pages playing fairy land debate when you yourself can't even describe the way this fairy land would be workable in the real world! As pointed out, your fairy land legalizes INCEST!!!! That is the stuff of nightmares, not fairies!

    Forgive me if I bow out of future fairy land debating and stick to the actual real world situation in America, which is making equal rights available to gay couples who love one another and want to get married. Because THAT is an important issue to millions of Ameircans, whereas fairy land simply isn't.

  7. #357
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    Sorry -- I have been delving into the fairy land thing in an effort to understand what Bonita thinks will actually work. But I haven't read anything that actually seems feasible, or better, or easier, or even makes logical sense. I think it would only create more government bureaucracy, clog up the courts, and really confuse people. I think what you really want is a way to add people to your insurance, because the rest of it is already available to those who choose.

    And I agree.....the important thing is making these rights available now to gay couples in the real world. I am so grateful that New York made the right choice, late as it is in the game, but I am more proud of my homeland (Canada) for making it happen so long ago, and across the whole country as it should be.

    Legal marriage is important to so many of us, gay and straight....we all deserve it, and all that comes with it. There's no logical reason that straight couples deserve it and gay couples don't. To other arguments that have come up, we don't make our laws based on the Bible so that's not a compelling logical reason either.
    Jessica80 likes this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  8. #358
    Prolific Poster ftmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    I guess I just dont get the whole problem with changing the 'legal' definition of marriage. There are a lot of 'legal' definitions that are different then how I would define a word. If you dont agree with it, just think of it that way. You can go on saying that the only 'real' marriage is one that happens in a church, I really dont care! See that. Your definition doesnt matter to me, cause it doesnt effect me. Just like mine doesnt effect you.

    And if people are so concerned about all these single/unmarried people who are missing out on these benefits, then lets expand marriage instead of limiting it. Lets legalize gay marriage, cause it is the same as heterosexual marriage, and then lets add an amendment that two people who show a commitment by living together for a number of years, lets say 5, can apply for, and receive, the same legal benefits of marriage.

    Now if all you want is equal rights for everyone, that should make you happy, right?
    Kyla
    Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)

  9. #359
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    However.. we are not just being asked to allow a sin.. we are being asked to support it financially and in our words.. and are labeled if we do not agree with the behavior.
    I, for one, am long past caring whether or not (general) you approve of (aka support in your words) gay marriage. It would be nice to live in a world where we are all happy for each other in finding love and building families, but it's not neccessary. As for "financially support" I'm not sure what you mean other than that gay people would enjoy the same tax benefits and ability to add each other to their partner's insurance that we all enjoy. No longer being able to unfairly tax people or withhold benefits from them is hardly my idea of financially supporting someone.
    freddieflounder101 likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  10. #360
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    Agree with Alissa. I don't need you to SAY anything about gay marriage. I just want it to be legal, I don't want people fighting against rights for others, and I don't get how you're financially supporting anything unless right now they are financially supporting YOU.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions