same-sex marriage ban overturned

[Tiger Al 0]

NO GAY MARRIAGE.

But I do think we need to be able to draft an agreement between two people that would allow for the same legal responsibilities to be shared by any 2 people, regardless of sex. But to call the agreement a marriage is a slap in the face to marriage. Any two people should be able to draw up a legal agreement that states they have rights to their belongings, inheritance, and decision making powers in case of emergency. I think that would suffice for most gay people. Just don't call it marriage and dress up like Tinkerbell to have a wedding.

BINGO!!!*

* For the most part.

[Tiger Al 0]

Another debate that's raged on AUN and across society seemingly forever...but to re-state my opinion once again:

I think government should only be in the legal contract business, and domestic partnerships should be handled legally like business partnerships. I.e., from the government standpoint, contractual partnerships cannot be affected or limited because of race, gender, religious belief, ethnicity, number of partners, sexual orientation, etc.

If such partners also want to join into something they call religious wedlock, that falls under the domain of their particular religion and not the government. Religions may establish for themselves what they want to call "holy matrimony" within their beliefs, and the government's only involvement would be to safeguard individuals from abuses and outrages such as occurred in the polygamous Texas cult in the name of "marriage". (Of course, the problem in that and similar cases is that the victims were neither consenting nor adult.) Such religious marriages, however, would have no civil standing any more than being "baptized", "confirmed" or "bar mitzvah"ed carries any legal significance.

BINGO!!!

[tiger88 934]

NO GAY MARRIAGE.

But I do think we need to be able to draft an agreement between two people that would allow for the same legal responsibilities to be shared by any 2 people, regardless of sex. But to call the agreement a marriage is a slap in the face to marriage. Any two people should be able to draw up a legal agreement that states they have rights to their belongings, inheritance, and decision making powers in case of emergency. I think that would suffice for most gay people. Just don't call it marriage and dress up like Tinkerbell to have a wedding.

I can agree with that.

[Defense(clap clap) 4]

I think most anti-gay marriage folks would be surprised to realize that most gay couples could really care less what you want to call their union. They just want the same rights that all of us straight folks get when it comes to that.

My opinion - the govt should only be involved in the rights given to two consenting adults and the church should be the one to decide to call it a "marriage" or whatever you want to.

And to say that it's a slap in the face to marriage is just ridiculous in my opinion. With a divorce rate in this country at 50% - http://www.divorcerate.org/ - I don't know how anyone could say two adults that love each other and want to get "married" would be a slap in the face to that insitution.

I say if you won't let two gay people get married, you shouldn't let those that are married get divorced. If it comes down to religion as to why they shouldn't be allowed to get married, what about those that made a promise before God to have and to hold, etc.? Why should they get off the hook when you have two loving individuals that just want the same rights as those who broke that promise?

[CCTAU 3,350]

Yes. Yes. It's all about the loving individuals. There is not natural defense of gay love. It has never been proven to be genetic and it has never been even remotely the norm for any two sex species. So have legal rights, but don't refer to it as just "two loving people." This is why the legal union will never get off the ground. People like you want to force us to recognize it as natural "LOVE". We try and look at it from a logical standpoint of having legal rights and then we get slapped for not wanting to call it marriage. So I retract my suggestion. Make all gay love illegal and burn anyone caught doing it at the stake...

[Defense(clap clap) 4]

Yes. Yes. It's all about the loving individuals. There is not natural defense of gay love. It has never been proven to be genetic and it has never been even remotely the norm for any two sex species. So have legal rights, but don't refer to it as just "two loving people." This is why the legal union will never get off the ground. People like you want to force us to recognize it as natural "LOVE". We try and look at it from a logical standpoint of having legal rights and then we get slapped for not wanting to call it marriage. So I retract my suggestion. Make all gay love illegal and burn anyone caught doing it at the stake...

Please explain to me how you know that two men or two women can't love each other. How can there be a natural defense of any love? It's just like having faith. You either love someone or you don't. You either believe or you don't. The only way to prove it is to say you do or you don't. It's not like you can run some scientific test that shows if someone loves someone or they don't.

And I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I'm accepting the fact that this is reality.

I don't even know why you brought that up because it has nothing to do with the argument in the first place. A man and a woman who don't love each other can get married and have all the benefits that brings. There's no way to prove they do or don't love each other before they get married. Just like there's no way to prove that a man and another man can't "natually" love each other.

I have two gay men that are close to me in my life, and there's no way in hell you can convince me that they aren't in love.

[Shire5k 19]

Yes. Yes. It's all about the loving individuals. There is not natural defense of gay love. It has never been proven to be genetic and it has never been even remotely the norm for any two sex species. So have legal rights, but don't refer to it as just "two loving people." This is why the legal union will never get off the ground. People like you want to force us to recognize it as natural "LOVE".

What is your definition of "natural love"? Love is just an emotion that originates from the brain...just like any other emotion. Any person can feel love, unless they have some sort of mental health issue. To say gay people can't feel love because they love people of the same sex...eh...that holds no water.

[CCTAU 3,350]

And all of the Tinkerbell dress crowd comes out to play. That's why nothing will ever done in this area. A bunch of libs will always say it's never enough. If you want all or nothing, then I vote NOTHING.

[Defense(clap clap) 4]

And all of the Tinkerbell dress crowd comes out to play. That's why nothing will ever done in this area. A bunch of libs will always say it's never enough. If you want all or nothing, then I vote NOTHING.

As for the never enough argument, no logical person is going to want to give someone the right to marry a goat or wherever your headed with it.

Your arguments are weak and you have to resort to name calling. You're a real winner.

[Shire5k 19]

And all of the Tinkerbell dress crowd comes out to play. That's why nothing will ever done in this area. A bunch of libs will always say it's never enough. If you want all or nothing, then I vote NOTHING.

That was...logical.