http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

Quote :

" Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it..."

It’s a long-ish read, and most people here are okay with the idea of the gays already, but I figure there’s still a few holdouts who cling to their backwards beliefs, that should get a lot out of hearing why a Republican-Conservative supports gays.

1/9/2010 1:19:38 PM

get those backwards fucks! Gotta get everyone thinking the same as us and anyone who doesn't gets labeled a moron

1/9/2010 1:21:55 PM

haha lol

damn those thought-police! first pushing for equality for the blacks and women, now the gays? what are they thinking????

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2010 1:24:13 PM

The problem is not that opponents of gay marriage don't "think like us." The problem is that they want to impose their thinking (and twisted sense of morality) on every other American through the use of government force. Of course, those people will say the same thing, as if they're going to be forced to participate in a same sex union.

1/9/2010 1:27:53 PM

exactly.

THe problem is not thinking. People can and do think whatever they want. The problem is when those thoughts eek out into policy that results in laws being put on the books designed to restrict civil rights. That’s unacceptable in this day and age.

But, if you hate gays, you’re still free not to associate with them, or invite them to your birthday parties, or give them dirty looks on the streets, or whatever it is you fancy.

1/9/2010 1:35:37 PM

i don't give a damn about gay marriage one way or the other.

^ do you ever have a post where you don't automatically assume you know the stance of the user you are responding to?

you're the only person to bring up hate in this thread, bucko. Get a grip.

1/9/2010 3:21:35 PM

I dont have a problem with a gay couple's relationship being recognized by the government. I think a word other than "marriage" should be used to define it because of the roots of the word marriage in religion but I think they should enjoy all the same rights, privledges, laws and consequences of it.

Had gay people pushed the same idea under a different word...rather it be union or something like that, I think it wouldve been passed a long time ago. as soon as you say "marriage" though, you stir the bible-beating pot. otherwise, they likely wouldve ignored you.

1/9/2010 3:29:41 PM

^privileges, Bible-thumping, and no, they wouldn't have ignored it.

^^Yes, he has plenty of those posts.

And it's not even clear that he's responding to anybody here with his mention of "hate" anyway.

But congrats on not giving a damn about civil rights. I hope your children are gay.

1/9/2010 3:40:25 PM

when it's called something different under the law, it opens all sorts of doors for the contract to be treated differently differently under the law in the future.

1/9/2010 3:45:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow

1/9/2010 3:53:45 PM

Quote :

"I think a word other than "marriage" should be used to define it because of the roots of the word marriage in religion but I think they should enjoy all the same rights, privledges, laws and consequences of it. Had gay people pushed the same idea under a different word...rather it be union or something like that, I think it wouldve been passed a long time ago. as soon as you say "marriage" though, you stir the bible-beating pot. otherwise, they likely wouldve ignored you. "

It’s possible but why would anyone settle for a separate but equal institution in this day and age? Why should anyone have to?

And marriage isn’t a religious term, it’s a legal term, and we have a secular gov..

1/9/2010 4:14:43 PM

Quote :

"And it's not even clear that he's responding to anybody here with his mention of "hate" anyway. But congrats on not giving a damn about civil rights. I hope your children are gay. "

I'm undecided on the children front. I would love them no matter how they came out. I am sorry your parents didn't, but at this point I cant blame them too much.

But good job assuming that my children coming out gay would some how horrify me. You're about as bright as moron

1/9/2010 4:26:41 PM

^ you realize i didn’t have you in mind when i made this thread?

And in a thread about gays, your very first post, unprovoked, is extremely hostile. You don’t see why in context, it’s easy to assume that you hate gays?

And your subsequent posts continue to support this assumption.

The only reason to think gays shouldn’t marry is if you also believe that they are lesser individuals than anyone else (of if you have some bizarre obsession with semantics, like the people DaBird describe).

1/9/2010 4:32:22 PM

^^I never indicated that it would horrify you if you had gay children.

Just pointing out that you might give a damn about civil rights if it affected you...as in, I hope you have gay children so that when they want to get married, you'll finally get it.

You seem to be the presumptuous one here, "bucko."

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2010 4:34:35 PM

^^ my first post wasn't hostile. It pretty much only took issue with you assuming anyone that may not support gay marriage hates gays and are automatically backwards thinkers.

That is an extremely close minded and ignorant point of view to take that is unfortunately pretty prevalent. It is also extremely hypocritical, but that is hardly a surprise anymore.

If someone doesn't want the institution of marriage to go outside of man-woman but takes no issue with gays having the opportunity to the same benefits as a normal married couple they are backwards thinkers? They look at gays as lesser individuals? Or maybe they just have a different point of view on marriage then you do. GASP.

Quote :

"Just pointing out that you might give a damn about civil rights if it affected you...as in, I hope you have gay children so that when they want to get married, you'll finally get it."

Fair enough. Take what I said in context of this specific thread then. I don't care about the gay marriage issue when it comes to my responses here. I take issue with preachy hypocritical fucks who label anyone that doesn't pick up a sign and start marching for gay marriage rights as backwards, bigoted, etc. The fact that they don't see their own hypocrisy is comical at this point.

p.s. I don't care which way the gay marriage issues goes. Call it marriage, call it a union, call it whatever you want, doesn't hurt me one way or the other. I'm just not narrow minded enough to think if it does bother some that they are definitely backwards.


[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 4:48 PM. Reason : spelling ftl]

1/9/2010 4:45:39 PM

Quote :

"It pretty much only took issue with you assuming anyone that may not support gay marriage hates gays and are automatically backwards thinkers. If someone doesn't want the institution of marriage to go outside of man-woman but takes no issue with gays having the opportunity to the same benefits as a normal married couple they are backwards thinkers? They look at gays as lesser individuals? Or maybe they just have a different point of view on marriage then you do. GASP. "

I see, you are one of those people who have an bizarre obsession with semantics, but only when it comes to marriage equality.

You support gays being “married” but you don’t want to call it this. Separate but equal, right?

And if you had a shred of reading comprehension ability, my issue is with the people who would work to ban by law any type of union/marriage/whatever for gays, which is a real problem.

I used to be one of those people who wanted a different word for it, but in the framework of American politics, this position makes absolutely no sense. It’s dumb to have at a courthouse, for example, a different form for gays and straights, that are identical in every way, except for a find/replace of one word.

The problem is that the true bigots capitalize on this irrational concern by marketing anti-civil rights propositions, referendums, and laws as merely being about the word, when in reality, they are much broader to ban ANY type of equal rights under ANY term for the gays. So in effect, they garner the support of idiots (like you) who don’t care to take the time to see what a referendum is about, and might actually be against the referendum, but buy into the fear of the usage of a word.

And further, it’s sad that in a section of a message board dedicated to politics, you need it explained to you that issues should be viewed from a political standpoint.



[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2010 5:05:23 PM

Quote :

"I see, you are one of those people who have an bizarre obsession with semantics, but only when it comes to marriage equality."

Brilliant! Any other insights to my position that you want to be completely off base on; or are you taking a break?

Quote :

"You support gays being “married” but you don’t want to call it this. Separate but equal, right?"

Quote :

"I don't care which way the gay marriage issues goes. Call it marriage, call it a union, call it whatever you want, doesn't hurt me one way or the other."

Do I need to type it out a second time or now that I've copied it over and its at the top of the message for you do you get it?

And you mock my reading comprehension? What an absolute tool.

Quote :

"The problem is that the true bigots capitalize on this irrational concern by marketing anti-civil rights propositions, referendums, and laws as merely being about the word, when in reality, they are much broader to ban ANY type of equal rights under ANY term for the gays. So in effect, they garner the support of idiots (like you) who don’t care to take the time to see what a referendum is about, and might actually be against the referendum, but buy into the fear of the usage of a word."

I almost want to give you a cookie, because you nearly figured it out. You are on point about the actual bigots. But you have yet to make a distinction between the true bigots and others who oppose marriage being available to any combination of sexes. These two aren't necessarily the same group of people. There are absolutely overlaps and don't feel too special for realizing true bigots can and do use that to their advantage; its not rocket science.

Quote :

"It’s dumb to have at a courthouse, for example, a different form for gays and straights, that are identical in every way, except for a find/replace of one word."

Its dumb to you and doesn't make a bit of a difference to me, but it may not be dumb to others. Nor does it hurt anyone if one pair circles one word and the other uses another.

1/9/2010 5:57:19 PM

Nor does it hurt anyone if they use the same words!!

Oh snap! Now what?!

1/9/2010 6:12:11 PM

The problem with gays being married is that marriage is a sacrement of the church. The church is extremely clear that marriage is between a man and a woman and only a man and a woman. Gays can have a civil union all they want in a secular sense but calling them married is something they can't ever achieve.

It's really that simple.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2010 6:19:48 PM

^ haha so atheists, muslims, buddhits, etc. can’t be married? hahaha

Quote :

"But you have yet to make a distinction between the true bigots and others who oppose marriage being available to any combination of sexes. These two aren't necessarily the same group of people"

There you go again. You say you have no problem with the word marriage being used for gays, but you are using the word marriage here to specifically exclude gays. Either you don’t know what you’re talking about (which is very likely), or you are are a true bigot.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2010 6:35:15 PM

^^ LOL

1/9/2010 6:37:44 PM

Quote :

"marriage is a sacrement of the church when performed by the church"

The church (whichever one you consider to be "the" church) doesn't have a monopoly on marriage.

Gays are looking for (and should get) the legal privileges associated with marriage--not the religious privileges.

1/9/2010 6:40:06 PM

Quote :

"The only reason to think gays shouldn’t marry is if you also believe that they are lesser individuals than anyone else (of if you have some bizarre obsession with semantics, like the people DaBird describe)."

its not semantics moron, marriage, as defined by our society (as evidenced by the need for this thread at at) is between a man and a woman. people who want gays be to be able to marry want to change this definition. I submit, its an obsession over semantics that have gays not able to join in a a civil union or whatever.

Quote :

"Gays are looking for (and should get) the legal privileges associated with marriage--not the religious privileges."

I agree they should and they would if they had simply approached the debate calling it something else other than marriage.

1/9/2010 6:47:42 PM

Quote :

"There you go again. You say you have no problem with the word marriage being used for gays, but you are using the word marriage here to specifically exclude gays. Either you don’t know what you’re talking about (which is very likely), or you are are a true bigot."

Are you so not able to realize that what you quoted was a description of two types of individuals?

One being actual bigots
One being others who have their own non-bigoted reasons for not wanting marriage to go beyond man/woman.

Or are you exceedingly stupid enough to not be able to discern between the two?

And are you also not able to discern the difference between me describing these types of people and me claiming to agree with them?

Its like having to explain the same concept over and over to a 5 year old.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 6:50 PM. Reason : i honestly think you've fallen to trolling now]

1/9/2010 6:49:03 PM

you: marriage is defined as between man and a woman
me: I want to change that definition to include same-sex couples
you: you can't marriage is defined as between man and a woman
me: ... *facepalm*

1/9/2010 6:49:26 PM

every time it is put to vote it fails. what do you want from me? I agree any person should be able to marry anyone they see fit, but the majority does not agree. I bet if you called it something different it would pass. just my $.02. but i guess they can keep beating their head against the wall if they want.

1/9/2010 7:06:05 PM

Quote :

"I agree they should and they would if they had simply approached the debate calling it something else other than marriage."

If anything other than the word "marriage" is used, then we'll have created two separate legal unions between consenting adults. Not desirable, and perhaps not legal.

Would you be OK if we changed the legal phrase "marriage" to "civil union"?

----

^ Are marriages performed by a legal official also "a sacrament of the church"?

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2010 7:13:22 PM

There are plenty of churches that support marriage equality. If marriage is a civil thing, then religion should have no bearing. If it is a religious thing, why should the government prefer one religion to another?

1/9/2010 7:18:05 PM

But...but...but.....

1/9/2010 8:06:17 PM

Bigotry is the only reasoning for wanting a separate institution for gays, equal or not.

1/9/2010 8:25:06 PM

Quote :

"Bigotry is the only reasoning for wanting a separate institution for gays, equal or not."

please. if you cant understand the opposition people have from a religious standpoint there is something wrong with you.

Quote :

"Would you be OK if we changed the legal phrase "marriage" to "civil union"?"

I couldnt care less what you called it. makes no difference to me. I dont have the before-mentioned religious hang ups on the issue. but I understand how others might.

1/10/2010 3:25:10 AM

Simply saying that it's because of religion doesn't make it not bigotry. People come up with all kinds of bs to justify bigotry, juts ask any white supremacist and he'll give you a rundown of reasons, including religious ones, that explain why whites are superior. He's still a bigot.

Your particular religious views are not justification for denying one group the same legal status that exists for another. There is a reason that we have a secular government that is not allowed to endorse religion.

1/10/2010 3:37:13 AM

Quote :

"DaBird All American 6408 Posts user info edit post every time it is put to vote it fails. what do you want from me? I agree any person should be able to marry anyone they see fit, but the majority does not agree. I bet if you called it something different it would pass. just my $.02. but i guess they can keep beating their head against the wall if they want. 1/9/2010 7:06:05 PM "

since when has a majority done the right thing? This is about civil rights, it has nothing to do with majority.

1/10/2010 3:54:22 AM

My Family Law professor (who is a homosexual) stated that it is a "half-win" for gays to be given a "civil union" as opposed to marriage. So they aren't going to shoot for something under a different name. He said the goal is to win the legal battle for marriage, but eventually to get rid of the entire institution of marriage as a whole. Being that the government shouldn't have a place in the institution of marriage, and it should be entirely a contract for relationships. The use of the term marriage just facilitated that contract. At that point, he said in his ideal vision, people could go to their church's and have their union "blessed" but it would carry no legal significance. Interesting perspective, not one that I see feasible in the near future (or even practical).

1/10/2010 9:19:11 AM

Civil unions don't carry the same weight as marriage, especially if you go out of the civil union state that isn't used to them... there are plenty of stories of couples being separated at hospitals where one of them dies alone, or the kids can't visit a parent during their final hours. The word marriage is just too legalistic a word in our society for any other word to in practice achieve the same effect, no matter how well intentioned.

1/10/2010 9:41:46 AM

Quote :

"He said the goal is to win the legal battle for marriage, but eventually to get rid of the entire institution of marriage as a whole."

They got dat 190% gay agenda!


Who knew James Dobson was right all along?

1/10/2010 9:50:49 AM

Quote :

"It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals. Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. ... What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? ... The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate. … We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. … So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand."

[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

1/10/2010 11:28:31 AM

Quote :

"He said the goal is to win the legal battle for marriage, but eventually to get rid of the entire institution of marriage as a whole."

I'm not sure that I want to get rid of the whole institution, but I do reject the idea of marriage personally and I'm not totally sure what purpose it serves. If you're in a committed relationship with someone, nothing should change when you get married. There's nothing sacred (read: magic) about the ceremony. It isn't any more of a commitment than one you could make outside of marriage.

I guess if "the institution of marriage" is all the laws and incentives that come along with marriage, then yes, I'd be for getting rid of that. The government does not need to be in the business of regulating personal relationships.

1/10/2010 11:45:27 AM

$100 says you are married within 10 years.

and it is more of commitment than you can make outside of a ceremony because it has legal ramifications of breaking it. it protects both parties from potentially fraudulent situations/clusterfucked situations.

1/10/2010 5:05:36 PM

You people really have no clue what it truely means to be married. When you are married you have an agreement between the two individuals and God. You don't get married to have your relationship "blessed", you get married to make an eternal promise to God to be true to your spouse. Ever wonder why the divorce rate and such is so high in today's society, it is in direct relations to people not understanding the true meaning of marriage a society with dying morality.

1/10/2010 7:25:52 PM

maybe Obama should read the article in the OP since he opposes gay marriage

1/10/2010 7:41:40 PM

Quote :

"When you are married you have an agreement between the two individuals and God. You don't get married to have your relationship "blessed", you get married to make an eternal promise to God to be true to your spouse."

Someone needs to pull out a God damned history book. Maybe in the United States marriage has traditionally been a Christian institution, but for fucks sake, if two butt fuckers want to call their union the same thing I call my union, it doesn't make a God damn bit of difference or have any impact whatsoever on my wife and I. None. I find the hypocrisy of the "liberty" party regarding this topic to be laughable and sad at the same time.

1/10/2010 7:59:31 PM

Quote :

"Ever wonder why the divorce rate and such is so high in today's society, it is in direct relations to people not understanding the true meaning of marriage a society with dying morality."

then the consistent position for you would be to agitate for the abolition of divorce. otherwise, we should acknowledge that marriage as an institution in our society will not be hurt by the addition of gay marriage.

1/10/2010 8:10:47 PM

MA has the lowest divorce rate in the country, lower than pre-ww2 times, and it has had marriage equality longer than any other state in the nation. Whether religion has anything to do with that is hard to say for sure, but hardly a church in Boston doesn't have a "everyone welcome here" sign up with lots of churches that are involved in gay marriages.

1/10/2010 8:16:44 PM

Quote :

"You people really have no clue what it truely means to be married. When you are married you have an agreement between the two individuals and God. You don't get married to have your relationship "blessed", you get married to make an eternal promise to God to be true to your spouse. Ever wonder why the divorce rate and such is so high in today's society, it is in direct relations to people not understanding the true meaning of marriage a society with dying morality."

I'm atheist. I guess I should tell my wife we're not married anymore.

bigun20:

Quote :

"The problem with gays being married is that marriage is a sacrement of the church."

Are marriages performed by a legal official also "a sacrament of the church"?

1/10/2010 8:36:14 PM

Probably best just not to pay attention to people that don't realize that the legal aspect of marriage is the only thing that really matters when it comes to things like, oh i don't know, the law.

1/11/2010 12:45:15 AM

Quote :

"There are plenty of churches that support marriage equality. If marriage is a civil thing, then religion should have no bearing. If it is a religious thing, why should the government prefer one religion to another?"

1/11/2010 2:22:33 AM

marriage began as secualr until the church hijacked it. stop saying it's a fucking religious institution

1/11/2010 11:12:49 AM

Trolled

1/11/2010 11:16:03 AM

when the gay marriage law got overturned here in maine (thanks to our fucking retarded refferendum system) one of the big wigs in the catholic church who was organizing against it was pretty much "hurrr we totally support gays having the same legal rights under the law, but they cant be married!! Marriage is religion only!!" its symantec bullshit. They should just toss marriage as a legal institution entirely and dole out the benefits in some other fashion.

Make deductions for children claimable by whoever, as long as they can prove custody. For legal stuff where you need a partner (ex: insurance or whatever) you should be able to choose whoever you want.

It would prevent people from being denied certain advantages under the law, and get rid of the retarded semantec debate.

1/11/2010 11:23:38 AM