Same-Sex Marriage

[xxTyeTye]

Who's God? Your God? Since when did we draft a Constitution that said your God gets to be everybody's God?
BECAUSE THAT IT THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD!

One, every one does not feel this way so you cannot use that as you excuse against same sex marriage, cuz then your saying if some said that there god dosnt think white people should get married there valid.

Two i do believe he is the on and true god however, i believe he would let me marry because he loves me and made the way i am.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

blondforeva

I'm against same sex marriage. Here r reasons y:
1.) It's against GOD's will, he does not want homosexuality in this world, and as a Christian, I will follow that. But, I also have no desire 2 like someone who is the same sex as me.
2.) It's just grose
3.) It's not right, or healthy

1) Says who? where? My bible mentions only gay peds as sinners. Look at the New Testament, and you'll find that the greek word they use for "homosexuals" is unknown. The homosexual-heterosexual continuum didn't exist in Rome. The only words they had were for the acts of sex they had. And, homosexuality back then was a boy and an adult... pretty sick.

2) That's a personal opinion. Butchering cows is pretty gross, that doesn't make it bad.

3) This makes no sense with logic. If it were unhealthy we'd see warnings against it.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

I have a brilliant idea...
Make it customary for people to get married in their own faiths but just stop giving out State and Federal Marriage licenses altogether. This way LGBT/Homosexual marriage can be performed and Heterosexual unions can be dane as well, without any interference fro the State whatsoever.

So instead of trying to define marriage for a law, how about we just get marriage out of the hands of the United States Feds and States and give it back to families to define it for themselves. This also makes it easier on churches regarding homosexual and Lesbian couples from getting into court cases due to churches denial to marry these couples as by law churches have the right to refuse marriages to same sex couples.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Vasilius Konstantinos

I have a brilliant idea...
Make it customary for people to get married in their own faiths but just stop giving out State and Federal Marriage licenses altogether. This way LGBT/Homosexual marriage can be performed and Heterosexual unions can be dane as well, without any interference fro the State whatsoever.

So instead of trying to define marriage for a law, how about we just get marriage out of the hands of the United States Feds and States and give it back to families to define it for themselves. This also makes it easier on churches regarding homosexual and Lesbian couples from getting into court cases due to churches denial to marry these couples as by law churches have the right to refuse marriages to same sex couples.

The only problem with this is the 1,300 rights given to married couples. Shared taxing, work healthcare, inheritance rights, child-parent rights, medical action rights, medical visitation rights, insurance rights, renting autumobiles, loss of consortium, and many many many other rights dealing with property, children, and medical/legal action on behalf of the partner. Some things just have to be dealt with in the legal process.  

[xXSilent MorningStarXx]

I am not gay myself, but I think gays should have the right to be married. They're people as well and everyone is different on the inside and outside. So they should have the choice to be married or not. I mean, how would you feel if some one told you that you couldn't marry the person you loved? Not so good, huh!?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

xXSilent MorningStarXx

I am not gay myself, but I think gays should have the right to be married. They're people as well and everyone is different on the inside and outside. So they should have the choice to be married or not. I mean, how would you feel if some one told you that you couldn't marry the person you loved? Not so good, huh!?

Well, theoretically they still can get married, and they aren't denied marriage (in some churches), they're just denied legal recognition.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Rainbowfied Mouse

Vasilius Konstantinos

I have a brilliant idea...
Make it customary for people to get married in their own faiths but just stop giving out State and Federal Marriage licenses altogether. This way LGBT/Homosexual marriage can be performed and Heterosexual unions can be dane as well, without any interference fro the State whatsoever.

So instead of trying to define marriage for a law, how about we just get marriage out of the hands of the United States Feds and States and give it back to families to define it for themselves. This also makes it easier on churches regarding homosexual and Lesbian couples from getting into court cases due to churches denial to marry these couples as by law churches have the right to refuse marriages to same sex couples.

The only problem with this is the 1,300 rights given to married couples. Shared taxing, work healthcare, inheritance rights, child-parent rights, medical action rights, medical visitation rights, insurance rights, renting autumobiles, loss of consortium, and many many many other rights dealing with property, children, and medical/legal action on behalf of the partner. Some things just have to be dealt with in the legal process.

everything you listed is stuff we could remedy without having the Feds or the State to interfere with if each system would be willing to undergo a change for our own privacy.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Vasilius Konstantinos

Rainbowfied Mouse

Vasilius Konstantinos

I have a brilliant idea...
Make it customary for people to get married in their own faiths but just stop giving out State and Federal Marriage licenses altogether. This way LGBT/Homosexual marriage can be performed and Heterosexual unions can be dane as well, without any interference fro the State whatsoever.

So instead of trying to define marriage for a law, how about we just get marriage out of the hands of the United States Feds and States and give it back to families to define it for themselves. This also makes it easier on churches regarding homosexual and Lesbian couples from getting into court cases due to churches denial to marry these couples as by law churches have the right to refuse marriages to same sex couples.

The only problem with this is the 1,300 rights given to married couples. Shared taxing, work healthcare, inheritance rights, child-parent rights, medical action rights, medical visitation rights, insurance rights, renting autumobiles, loss of consortium, and many many many other rights dealing with property, children, and medical/legal action on behalf of the partner. Some things just have to be dealt with in the legal process.

everything you listed is stuff we could remedy without having the Feds or the State to interfere with if each system would be willing to undergo a change for our own privacy.

How would one remedy such a plan?  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Rainbowfied Mouse

Vasilius Konstantinos

Rainbowfied Mouse

Vasilius Konstantinos

I have a brilliant idea...
Make it customary for people to get married in their own faiths but just stop giving out State and Federal Marriage licenses altogether. This way LGBT/Homosexual marriage can be performed and Heterosexual unions can be dane as well, without any interference fro the State whatsoever.

So instead of trying to define marriage for a law, how about we just get marriage out of the hands of the United States Feds and States and give it back to families to define it for themselves. This also makes it easier on churches regarding homosexual and Lesbian couples from getting into court cases due to churches denial to marry these couples as by law churches have the right to refuse marriages to same sex couples.

The only problem with this is the 1,300 rights given to married couples. Shared taxing, work healthcare, inheritance rights, child-parent rights, medical action rights, medical visitation rights, insurance rights, renting autumobiles, loss of consortium, and many many many other rights dealing with property, children, and medical/legal action on behalf of the partner. Some things just have to be dealt with in the legal process.

everything you listed is stuff we could remedy without having the Feds or the State to interfere with if each system would be willing to undergo a change for our own privacy.

How would one remedy such a plan?

Shared Taxing could be remedied by private tax companies who would vouch for your status; work health care is usually a private company who could alter its own text to allow such a change; inheritance is already dealt with usually by a private lawyer or a private law firm so there is not much difference nowadays; child parent rights already deal with separated families and a biologically proven father via blood tests; medical rights, again, private lawyers or a simple alteration in text to allow in a private company...

Do you see where I am going with this? It would not be difficult to have private companies change things around, and also allow the IRS to do so, if we as a people demanded this. It could work.  

[Pumona]

Vasilius Konstantinos,

I think your ideas will happen in the future but, it will be awhile before it happens. As they say One step at a time.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

@Vasilius - Private corporations [such as Disney] already do healthcare for both partners. However, my concern with your system is preventing discrimination and fraud. If the corporation is against gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or just any two sets of people, what could be done? How will the government know if the private corporation dealing with taxes is working?

It just seems a little too libertarian to me. I've never been a fan of small government, and that just seems too small.

@Pumona - I actually disagree... I don't see standards like these ever happening in America. sweatdrop
There is a happy medium between big and small government, and that just seems too small.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Like with the race issue, what would really drive matters in this is a shift in public opinion on homosexuality. This shift is already underway. What Vasilius describes is possible if public opinion changes (more so than it already has). No company today would hang up a sign that says "No Blacks," not because it's illegal, but because it would face boycotts and business would flee in droves to competitors. Why? Public opinion on race has changed overwhelmingly against practices like this. When it comes right down to it, laws have a big problem working where there's money to be made. Take, for example, our immigration laws. We have laws on the books that say you can't hire people who are in this country illegally. Businesses do it and they do it all the time. There's money to be made in it. If there were money to be made in segregating businesses, you'd better believe that businesses would find a way to do it. Instead, public attitudes and the distribution of economic power have changed to the degree that not only is there no money to be made excluding blacks, there's significant money to be lost doing it, and in some cases there's even money to be made tailoring products to appeal to blacks.

Enter the homosexuality debate. Because of social attitudes, right now there's money to be made for some companies to "stand up for traditional marriage." Particularly, that would apply in the insurance field as well, where any excuse to minimize your payouts benefits the bottom line. If a company, though, said "we won't pay out claims to blacks," they would lose a lot of customers. When attitudes in the US change enough, companies won't be able to maintain the exclusionary anti-gay policies anymore either. Attitudes on homosexuality have already changed dramatically, the main impediment now is that they've changed largely as a result of the young. The young, statistically, have less money than older demographics, who still cling to the more exclusionary attitudes. So, give it 20 years and companies would correct their stances naturally, not due to the law, but due to the attitudes of their customers. Never underestimate the power of 20 years worth of old homophobes dying and 20 years worth of tolerant people growing up and earning money to spend.

So, Vasilius' method can work. It just requires that we wait and give people time to change. The big government method, however, still leaves the incentives for companies to cheat, and is subject to the public changing it to suit their prejudices of the times. You might be no fan of small government, Mouse, but which would you prefer; a small government which is anti-gay, or a big government which is anti-gay?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Well, as I also said, there's a happy middle. Unfortunately I can't control the government size, but if we payed taxes through private corporations... well, I'd just be fearful of the company having that power.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Rainbowfied Mouse

It just seems a little too libertarian to me. I've never been a fan of small government, and that just seems too small.

...and this is where people lose me on their views. I have never understood anyone, no offense, who wants the government to control any facet of their life directly or closely indirectly. I know they control some facets, such as the ability to draft if necessary; taxes; etc. but why anything else? Let the Feds defend our borders but not my health care, my retirement, my income cap, my choices in living conditions, my choices of how I raise my children, my child's education, my choices of vice or virtue or my wages I set for employees. it just baffles me to give feds any control in personal decision making.

You do realize this is the same Federal system who runs the Department of Motor Vehicles right? I mean if the Feds were in control of every beach in the United States there would be a shortage of sand in a week...  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Vasilius Konstantinos

Rainbowfied Mouse

It just seems a little too libertarian to me. I've never been a fan of small government, and that just seems too small.

...and this is where people lose me on their views. I have never understood anyone, no offense, who wants the government to control any facet of their life directly or closely indirectly. I know they control some facets, such as the ability to draft if necessary; taxes; etc. but why anything else? Let the Feds defend our borders but not my health care, my retirement, my income cap, my choices in living conditions, my choices of how I raise my children, my child's education, my choices of vice or virtue or my wages I set for employees. it just baffles me to give feds any control in personal decision making.

You do realize this is the same Federal system who runs the Department of Motor Vehicles right? I mean if the Feds were in control of every beach in the United States there would be a shortage of sand in a week...

As I said, there's a happy middle. Going to far to either end seems wrong, I trust a group of people to try to reasonably make agreements on things, rather than an individual. But I support the individuals civil freedoms.