ONLY if the marriage contract is finalized within a religious context.
The law doesn't give a shit who stands where.
And we all know religion has no place in law...but that's only according to the Constitution.
Same-Sex Marriage, Where Do You Stand?
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
ONLY if the marriage contract is finalized within a religious context.
The law doesn't give a shit who stands where.
And we all know religion has no place in law...but that's only according to the Constitution.
And I bet you give both of them the same "rights" -- food, shelter, health care, etc.
Facetious
Moderated
:shy:I believe everyone should be able to marry if they want to despite what other people think as Love is Love!
It's sad people feel threatened by those who want to marry just because (shock, horror) they are the same sex.
Mankind needs to grow up as we are now in the 21st Century and not in the dark ages.
Based on...???
Gay marriage, then what's next? humans marrying animals or humans marrying objects. Where will it stop?
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
Rather interesting that many of the same people who are in agreement of there being laws against gay marriages are also many of the same types who bitch about there being too much guberment.
Yes, yes. There seems to be a correlation between those who are against gay marriage and those who are against abortion. But, they're for capital punishment.
So, to sum up: Homos can't marry, babies are a sacred life that must, at all costs, be preserved, but they are comfortable killing people as a punitive measure.
If abortion's a murder, what about masturbation ? Isn't it genocide ?
LOL! True!
That's not a conundrum, this is a conundrum!
You may now kiss the brides: Couple renew their marriage vows - after husband changes sex
Like many devoted couples, Barry and Anne Watson wanted to renew their marriage vows.
But nine years on from their wedding, there was one major difference - this time, Anne was marrying a woman called Jayne.
When Anne first found out that her husband Barry, a former bus driver wanted a sex change she was furious. The couple had been suffering problems in their marriage with Anne thinking that Barry had been cheating on her with another woman.
Happy couple: Husband and wife Barry and Anne at their wedding in 2002
And ten years later..: Jayne and Anne after renewing their wedding vows
'Anne came to accept me for who I wanted to be and love me as a woman', Barry, who has now changed his name to Jayne by deed poll, told the Sunday Mirror.
'Renewing our marriage vows was the perfect way to show how happy we are with our new lives.'
Anne, 53 admitted that she had 'grieved for the loss of Barry', but she added: 'There were sides to Jayne that I enjoyed getting to know - we can now have a laugh and talk about hair, clothes and make-up.'
Anne decided to go ahead with the second ceremony, proving to Jayne and to the world that she accepts her new spouse for who she is.
'To me, our second wedding was much more special than our first as I knew Jayne was finally comfortable with who she was,' she said.
Jayne told the newspaper that, as a young boy growing up, she quickly realised that she was very different from the other boys and enjoyed wearing his mother's clothes.
'Putting my own clothes back on felt like going back to a prison,' she said.
'It seemed normal to play hopscotch with the girls rather than play football with the boys.'
When Jayne was older she used to buy women's clothes and drive to other areas where no one knew him to walk down the streets in a dress and high heels.
Desperate to fit in, Jayne began dating women and in 1995 met Anne through a lonely hearts column. The two hit immediately hit it off.
At that time, Anne had been through a messy divorce, but instantly fell for Jayne's boyish good looks.
'Jayne was so sweet - everyone said he was my toyboy. I didn't care, we were in love,' she said.
Within six months they had moved into a house together in Halifax, West Yorkshire and in 2002, they cemented their love for each other by getting married.
However, amongst the happiness and joy, Jayne was still struggling with who she was.
'When Anne left the house, I'd dress up in a skirt and pearls. And on internet chat forums, I'd pose as a girl,' she said.
When Anne sensed that something wasn't right with her husband she confronted him and in 2008 Jayne confessed all to his wife.
'Telling the woman that I loved that I too wanted to be a woman is not easy,' Jayne said.
Anne said that at first she struggled to accept her husband. The first time she saw him in a dress, she started hacking at it with scissors. But her feelings towards her spouse have remained the same.
With the support of his wife, Jayne decided to start on a course of female hormones to soften her skin and reduce her body hair.
The couple re-affirmed their wedding vows last year and before the ceremony went dress shopping together, making sure their outfits didn't clash. On their special day, both women had their own bouquet.
While the couple do fall out - particularly when Jayne steals her wife's clothes and make-up - the pair are still very much in love.
'People may think I'm weird or a freak. But all that matters to me is that Anne loves me,' Jayne said.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-vows--husband-changes-sex.html#ixzz1j4C661Ht
My simple question is: Why do some of you get so up in arms when others believe that certain concepts, places, activities, etc... should be reserved for specific groups?
Some of you are using the term 'wrong' for those who feel that marriage should be reserved for straight couples, but is it 'wrong'. Is exclusion wrong? If it is, is this not the case across the board? It's a sippery slope, and I understand that, but some ideas should have boundaries. Is marriage one of them? From a tradition standpoint, I believe it is. From an insurance and rights standpoint, I think that same sex couples should get those regardless of marriage.
Again, my personal stance is there are certain things in this life not everyone should qualify for. Where you choose one route to go in life, you leave behind and sacrifice other possibilites, but you can cry foul afterwards. If you decide to be a vegan, you can't get mad over not having hamburgers. You either get over it, or go have a hamburger and not be vegan anymore. I also, if I was gay, would not want to be associated with heterosexual concept or idea. I personally would want something set for me and my lifestyle. If my lifestyle is different, why the hell would I want any thats the same? I think that there can be a ceremonial practice and rights therein given for especially for gays. I honestly think that should be considered.
Some of you are using the term 'wrong' for those who feel that marriage should be reserved for straight couples, but is it 'wrong'. Is exclusion wrong? If it is, is this not the case across the board? It's a sippery slope, and I understand that, but some ideas should have boundaries. Is marriage one of them? From a tradition standpoint, I believe it is. From an insurance and rights standpoint, I think that same sex couples should get those regardless of marriage.
Again, my personal stance is there are certain things in this life not everyone should qualify for. Where you choose one route to go in life, you leave behind and sacrifice other possibilites, but you can cry foul afterwards. If you decide to be a vegan, you can't get mad over not having hamburgers. You either get over it, or go have a hamburger and not be vegan anymore. I also, if I was gay, would not want to be associated with heterosexual concept or idea. I personally would want something set for me and my lifestyle. If my lifestyle is different, why the hell would I want any thats the same? I think that there can be a ceremonial practice and rights therein given for especially for gays. I honestly think that should be considered.
Gay marriage, then what's next? humans marrying animals or humans marrying objects. Where will it stop?
It's here and now, brotha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2010/03/love-thing-a-history-of-people-who-married-inanimate-objects
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
Then we truly would be separating homosexuals from heterosexuals - which is kind of the point of the want to lift the gay marriage bans. To me, this would be akin to "colords only" drinking fountains.
Homosexuals are just regular people - to deny them of any basic right that the rest of us are given is brutally archaic thinking.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I did read the whole post. I found it lacking, as did your second summation of the same idea:
I'm sorry, but your logic does not fly. Does the government flat out deny a vegan's right to a hamburger when they 'decide' to be a vegan? No. No it does not. And again, this is why I find (both, now) your original post lacking: that you, 'if you were gay', would not want to be married just because 'it's for straight people' is an incredibly weak argument in opposing gay marriage. Now as for the traditional argument, or the religious one as it's more accurately called, I'll say this: as long as the State has any hand in marriage, this argument needs to go out the window entirely. If the State should step aside from institutional marriage altogether, well, that's another story to which I'd absolutely support a church's right to choose whom to marry by their belief structure. But as it is, the State does have a hand in institutional marriage and even offers benefits along with it. So, out the window it goes.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume two things, which I apologize for if I'm incorrect: that you, Mr Jones, are American and have not studied our recent history regarding black segregation - as StanScratch already alluded to. I say this because those that pushed the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" used the same argument you are. If you haven't studied it, please look into it.
I'll give you the legal ending in any case:
Having a separate marriage institution in the form of 'civil partnerships', for those States that even go that far, are no different a segregation, logically or morally, than we tried before. It's simple discrimination for no other reason than a conservatism spawned by a dark ages-relic of make-believe we call religion.The US Supreme Court said:
Ah, this is a point I will concede to you, Mr Jones. Morality is indeed subjective, isn't it? If one took the morality of the Bible, after all, most in modern society would shudder.
All moralities not being equal (but who's to judge), I'd like to ask you (and anybody who opposes gay marriage) a straight question: why?
I'd also like to point out that my dialogue with you is not meant to be adversarial, but is actually a means of respect. I wouldn't be addressing your points otherwise.
I believe the topic is 'Same sex marriage: where do YOU stand'. Not where does the gov't stand, and how do you take the gov'ts view. I am American, and black, and an Alabama resident. I think I know a bit about segregation and civil rights. This is not the same issue.
The major difference is one regards rights due to race. The other due to lifestyle. One is concrete. The other is debatable in origin philosophy. To compare the civil rights movement to gay marriage is grossly uneven, as gays are still treated as people... blacks weren't. Gays are not starting with no rights as individuals, they have rights. This is about coupling, which in itself is a choice. Being black and human is not a choice, one can argue that being gay is, and being in committed relation is as well. With that said, we are dealing an ideaolgy differences with a specific institution: marriage. The question is: who qualifies to take part in it, and where does the line get drawn. I've stated my position on that.
Marriage should be reserved for hetero couples
The rights that come with marriage should be available to all couples willing to be legally coupled
There should be an union equivalent to marriage made especially for gay couples
This is my stance. My personal view on it.
The major difference is one regards rights due to race. The other due to lifestyle. One is concrete. The other is debatable in origin philosophy. To compare the civil rights movement to gay marriage is grossly uneven, as gays are still treated as people... blacks weren't. Gays are not starting with no rights as individuals, they have rights. This is about coupling, which in itself is a choice. Being black and human is not a choice, one can argue that being gay is, and being in committed relation is as well. With that said, we are dealing an ideaolgy differences with a specific institution: marriage. The question is: who qualifies to take part in it, and where does the line get drawn. I've stated my position on that.
Marriage should be reserved for hetero couples
The rights that come with marriage should be available to all couples willing to be legally coupled
There should be an union equivalent to marriage made especially for gay couples
This is my stance. My personal view on it.
Similar threads
