Marital Status of Prius Owners

This is what I don't get:

Marriage, will be marriage, in the eyes of the Catholic church, as it has been for centuries, REGARDLESS of how the Government sees it! There's no such thing as "dilution". If marriage suddenly means less to you and your wife because of what your neighbor is doing, YOU have issues. Marriage isn't contingent upon anyone else except for the parties involved.

Does a child molesting couple on death row who choose to get married "dilute" my marriage (if I was married in the first place :lol: )?

Of course not.

 

"This crowd is primarily liberal and pro homosexual as is shown in this thread so I don't think anyone here would ever process or think through an opposing viewpoint. That's expected, no surprise."


Actually, I'm far from it, and not pro-homosexual, but rather not anti-homosexual, and lean more to the right than most on here (I support the war effort, the reasons for such, and the GWB administration). I probably like the idea of it about as much as you do, BUT there isn't any good reason to discriminate against anyone. If two guys want to be happily married and enjoy the same benefits as anyone else, it not only feels horribly wrong to impose any barrier upon them, but more importantly, exercising laws that are arguably discriminatory is so totally against the idea behind this country, you know, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness...

Nothing good comes out of segregating people, or when other people start feeling they're better than others. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

 

No wonder so many people are buying the BT-Tech stabilizer bars!

- Bob R.

 

Your language is revealing. In a previous post, you say that to hetero men and women, marriage is "significant". Here, it is "sacred", held "highly", held "dear".

Presumably, gays desiring marriage would see it almost the opposite, or at least "south" of "highly". Yes, yes, now I remember, they want to "kill it". If THEY had the right to marry, it would be a "pittly [sic] victory. Why? "You're different in your thinking than [sic] us". So whatever feelings for each other "they" hold that they might call "love", can't possibly be emotionally valid, or equivalent in "quality" to what you feel for your wife.

And your beer/oil analogy is flawed not because most of those here are "a liberal crowd" not willing to consider it. It's worse than "apples and oranges". Find a college teacher of Introduction to Logic and show it to her/him. Or if he/she said it was flawed, would that make her/him a liberal homophile, too?

 

If private bus companies, railroads, airlines, restaurants, hotels, theaters, etc. had not been willing to brook "government interference", they should have been willing to obey the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Should the Federal government not have reinforced equal rights to use public accomodations in 1965?

Should we not have anti-monopoly laws? Regulation of financial institutions? Regulation of private broadcasters? Food producers and drug manufacturers? Should we repeal building codes and, for that matter, zoning laws?

And what is a "social engineering tax code"?

 

Gay marriage is very much a human rights issue. Whether you are black or white, fat or skinny, male or female, or somewhere in between, has absolutely no bearing on your eligibility to be human, or on your basic human need for a loving long term relationship. Focus on a marriage of the hearts, not of the parts.

 

The Hetero Sexuals are doing a great job of respecting marriage. High divorce rate, love those wife beaters (and yes the husband beaters). Cheating is a sport to some people married or not, gay or not.

Sometimes I wonder why gays want to get involved in the institution of marriage as it has never appealed to me (single mother of a wonderful daughter). But as one individual here stated there is an agenda out there....I just wonder who is on the recieving end......

PS; not really into all this "don't call it Christmas" crap either but that is what you get when you try to stuff the Christian Values down the throat of individuals who have their own set of values

 

Since there is no agenda, I'm probably mistaken as to how far it goes if someone were to change a law. I probably better ask.

If only 2 states adopted gay marriage, do you accept the determination of all 50 and leave the other 48 to not have it, and work with the 2 and be happy about that? (my guess on this one is no).

if adopted nationally, is it then being asked of Catholics to marry gay couples in the catholic church? How about any other church where such a thing would be offensive to the pastor or congregation? Are those folks now going to get the wrath of the ACLU for discrimination?

How about Bob Jones? He's been the justice of the peace for 22 years and a Catholic (or Baptist or pentecostal) for the last 40 years and it's wholy contrary to his personal convictions to perform the marriage of a gay couple. Does the gay community and ACLU sue this guy out of his job, or do you just let him be and go find another justice of the peace to do the marriage? (my guess is that you romp all over Bob's freedom of religious preference and the guy's out of a job).

How about God? From before the beginning of time, it's been His plan that a whole bunch of people not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuals is one on that list. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing the ACLU can't win this one. But, I'd also guess that any pastor that teaches this as it is out of the bible will be labeled as a hater and as having hate speech.

I think I'm seeing something in the thread that I didn't realize before. Most of you feel like adding gay marriages to the institution of marriage doesn't damage marriage for those of us who like it as it is because you're saying that we don't lose anything.. as in.. we don't lose our married tax status, or our married health benefits or something like that.

When I (or someone on with my viewpoint) says that lumping in gay marriage would ruin marriage for me (us), it has nothing to do with rights, governmental status, etc.. It has to do with equating a union that is morally offensive to me (us) into the same category. So, if you want all the junk that comes with marriage, find it in another label. Leave marriage alone, label it with another word.

A lot of comments about the divorce rate, blah blah blah.. I'm not defending that stuff either. All of that goes toward ruining the basic family building blocks of our society as well. Just because people are allowed to marry and divorce like they're coming through the turnstile at walgreens and do damage to marriage and the family doesn't mean we should lump in every other thing that will also do damage to the family.

If we can lump in gay marriage, why not other marriage. Are gays against a man marrying his mother and his granddaughter? How about a man marrying his brother and his son? As long as everyone is consenting, why have any restrictions on numbers or even on brothers and sisters marrying each other? If everything doesn't go, where do you get your standards and start saying no..

I really would be interested in your answers to these things, I hope someone will pick it up and lay it out.

 

I think you are just baiting people with these ridiculous questions and I won't be any part of it.

Andy

 

Bravo Squid! *applause*

I think what other people do is their own business, and more than anything else, love will find a way. We can keep arguing all we want about the sanctity of marriage, but more than what private parts the partners have is *LOVE*. Isn't that the sanctity that we should protect in marriage?

 

If you really think that way, that someone else's business makes you love your wife less or somehow devalues your marriage, then you've said something extremely revealing about yourself... If for you and your other to be happy, someone else must suffer, that's quite selfish.

 

Nobody else's marriage is any of YOUR business. Period.

 

Obviously, daronspicher, you did not read any of my posts, for you would have learned the answer to some of your questions.

Nonetheless, for the benefit of furthering the discussion, here goes:

It is already adopted in one state, perhaps soon in others. Let me just turn the question around on you: If _your_ marriage were only legal in two states, would you never visit the other states? What if your job required you to fly to an out-of-state meeting and you were injured... would your spouse have any say in your medical care in the state where you were not married?

This country once had division among the states over interracial marriage. History has judged that to be an ugly stain on our history.

You can expect that equality will continue to march forward on this subject, although it may take time.

As has been addressed before, NO CHURCH can be ordered by the government to marry or not marry someone. That is the wonderful thing about separation of church and state: The church can do it's thing, the state can do it's thing. We are really talking about 2 different types of marriage here: Civil marriage and Church marriage.

No church will ever be forced to marry a gay couple, just as no church today can be forced to marry a previously-divorced person or a person from another denomination. Christian churches do not have to marry Muslim couples, and vice-versa.

Also please note (yet again) that MANY churches ALREADY marry gay couples, and have FOR YEARS. Church marriage is not the issue here. Civil marriage is.

Same question, same answer.

God's view is for god to tell people through church (or mosque, or synagogue, or temple, or directly, or not at all). It is not the government's job to enforce "His plan" such that mankind can't even agree on what that plan is, or on whether or not there is a god. If you want the government involved in that sort of thing, I suggest you find a friendly theocratic nation and try life on for size there. I hear that the Taliban were highly effective at enforcing God's plan.

Yes, that's right. Thanks for noticing.

Actually, I'm quite willing to accept "marriage" as so-named, even though the heterosexuals have made a mockery of it, what with their instant no-fault divorces, 24-hour Vegas wedding chapels, rampant adultery and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, violence, etc. It's a really sullied institution, but I think we gay people can give it a fresh coat of paint, some new landscaping, and improve the stature of marriage considerably. Consider it the gentrification of marriage.

We totally agree on the first 2/3rds of your statement, but you have yet to show how allowing gay people to marry will damage "the family". Hint: Gay people already have families, nuclear and extended. They have children, aunts and uncles, and grandparents. They are caregivers and breadwinners. They even drive Prii.

I'm sorry, but the 3-point bonus award to the first person to bring up polygamy has already been given out, so you get no extra points. However, it is quite interesting to note that several of the things you mention were done with God's blessing in the Old Testament. It wasn't until more recently that the definition of marriage was changed to modern secular standards.

I hope that lays out some of it for you.

- Bob R.

 

Congratulations... that's quite possibly the most asinine analogy I've ever encountered.

 

Oh c'mon Bob, that's a WEEE BIT militant don't you think? :lol: Might you actually hold some sort of prejudice against heterosexuals? Of course, we're also talking what, 95% of the population vs. 5%, whereas the 95%'ers have had hundreds of years to "evolve". If all of a sudden, tomorrow, same sex marriages = different sex marriages, I'm sure there are some same sex couples that would run down to 24-hour Vegas wedding chapels, exhibit rampant adultery, and pretty much everything the concept of different sex marriage has brought (although it's arguable that marriage itself brought this, I think, more like a resultant of the range of human behavior)... I'm sure after enough time goes by, the proportions will be precisely the same...

In this respect, you seem to be no different than daronspicher, just from a different perspective.

Unless, of course, that part of your post was exaggerated to illustrate a point...

 

You got it... Just riffing on the tone of the post I was replying to.

Why, some of my best friends are heterosexuals.

- Bob R.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok, I admit, sometimes I just skim though content and don't really get the full context...

I have, actually, come across some REAL militant homosexuals (when I lived in NYC, figures eh? :lol: ), I mean, we're talking the kind that despise hetero's and call them demeaning names like, "Breeders!" :lol:

 

For some reason you reminded me of the comic strip Adam and Andy http://www.adamandandy.com

Their likeness to my relationship is scary! I don't think gay couples relationships are all that different from straight couples. You have the extremes on both sides.

Andy

 

What a great conversation! Thanks for starting it, Schmika.

Dan and I met on a dating Website in Jan. '03. Alternated driving 138.5 miles (Dan's an engineer – does it show?) weekends for over a year of dating before deciding to live together. Broke the news to Dan's old-fashioned and bigoted father but told him not to worry. Dan's work would cover my health care costs, under their "damned gay agenda" partners policy. Let him stew a bit before telling him we were engaged. I guess that reduced the sin factor to acceptable levels. :huh:

Married March 2005 in Hawaii, on a hill overlooking a beach my family used to camp on. Pastor of the church I grew up in officiated. 50 relatives and friends enjoyed a small luau (anything under 100 guests is a tiny luau), dancing and singing. My new father-in-law, whose beloved elder brother was one of the few soldiers who survived the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Hickam Airfield, was much impressed by my Uncle James, a retired Lt. Col. (Air Force). They often exchange e-mail.

Threw a picnic bash when we got back to the east coast. Used the town's maritime museum, served over 100 guests crab cakes, pit beef sandwiches, and tubs of rum punch. Our lawyer and pre-marital counselor were invited. Dan's cousin, Steve, was there but didn't bring his long-term partner. It's not fair, that they can't enjoy throw the same parties, or enjoy their families' and government's support of their union, as Dan and I could.

Dan and I don't fight. Our ways are either alike or compatible. I like to cook, Dan likes to eat. Whoever's got the helm of the sailboat is the skipper. Dan remembers the physics and math I've forgotten, I advise him on biotech and pharmaceutical stocks. No kids to argue over, no dog to walk. His and hers bathrooms. Although we consult one another before changing any current set-ups, I get the final say on interior décor, Dan's in charge of the garage, boat and cars. He's a recovering Catholic, I joke about being a lapsed pagan. We walk to the closest church, which happens to be Lutheran, for Easter and Christmas services. Dan's a disillusioned old-party Republican, I'm a pragmatic Democrat. Haven't run afoul of anything worth fighting about.

We'll drive Foxy north this summer to Newport, RI. One of Dan's cousins' kids is marrying a guy who's career Navy. He's African-American, her background is Irish. Should be interesting.