EPTWashington State Votes to Approve Gay Marriage - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Ungrateful
United States71 Posts
Meanwhile Im going to get married to my dog...Dogs have rights too and I want to marry my dog and she wants to marry me also. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:57 Ungrateful wrote: I don't see what the big deal is...Nothing was stopping a gay couple from living together before but now that they have a slip of paper saying that its "official" so its a big deal? Meanwhile Im going to get married to my dog...Dogs have rights too and I want to marry my dog and she wants to marry me also. The big deal is when you're married you gain additional rights. One is pretty damn special, like oh I dunno being able to visit your loved one while they're sick / dying in the hospital. Also your second comment wasn't amusing, it was pretty bland. | ||
|
MrMotionPicture
United States4327 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:49 bode927 wrote: To me, I believe it's a church thing before its a religious thing. To me, marriage means a sacred covenant that a man and a woman make together before God. If I believe that, I have the right to vote against it just as much as you have the right to vote for it if you want to. Except as I said before, the concept isn't something that religion owns its a general term for a commitment two people make as life partners. By your reasoning then if someone doesn't believe in God then they can't marry.....oops religions already perform ceremonies for couples with one or more atheists! Marriage existed before religion so they can't claim it EXCEPT in the context of their own religion. Christianity defines marriage = man woman before God. Thats OK! Do your thing, if Christianity doesn't want to preform THEIR version of the ceremony for gay couples because it doesn't fly with their construct of it then whatever we can't tell them what they can or cannot do. This has to do with what the government can or cannot do and they should have 0 say in if gays can get married. Other peoples constructs say that its perfectly normal and fine for them to marry. On the issue of "call it civil union" No. Why? Because then it still is regulating them to second class citizen status because they can't get married they have to have a "union". The notion itself, while maybe not the biggest deal being one of semantics, still has a connotation of "not being normal". | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:51 steev wrote: You silly kids being fooled into thinking gay marriage is actually an important issue. While the public is all worried about giving this tiny group some rights, these crooks are trying to STRIP US OF ALL OUR RIGHTS. SOPA, PIPA, and NDAA are actual issues. We need to protect the rights we already have. So stop with this gay marriage nonsense. It doesn't matter to the 99% of us. These issues are not mutually exclusive. Besides this about basic discrimination and as such should be paramount. Yes those acts are atrocious but they affect everyone equally. The problem with the marriage legislation is that it artifically separates the community based on outdated beliefs. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:59 PanN wrote: The big deal is when you're married you gain additional rights. One is pretty damn special, like oh I dunno being able to visit your loved one while they're sick / dying in the hospital. Also, the ability to file taxes jointly, which roughly doubles the total income the two can earn before being taxed at higher rates. This is especially a benefit when one spouse takes over non-income generating tasks (household chores, shopping, cooking, etc.) | ||
|
Blennd
United States266 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote: Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. 1. It almost certainly wasn't originally a religious idea, and even if it was it predates Christianity by at least a few dozen millenia,and 2. It definitely isn't a religious rite in the eyes of the state, seeing as how atheists and are able to get married. You and your church are free to keep records of which government marriages you recognize as valid and which you don't. But forcing the entire population to adhere to your specific church's definition of marriage is you shoving your beliefs down our throats, not the other way around. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
 I am very passionate about some issues and have trouble keeping things civil. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45006 Posts
Three cheers for civil rights, equality, and common sense! ^^ | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
My thing is that although I do not necessarily believe two homosexuals marrying is true marriage, just because of the family/society I have been raised in, I really don't have a problem with it. It may not be what i think of as marriage, but if Rent is Too Damn High wants to marry a shoe, or a monkey, or a man, who cares. Let them have it. I frankly think that the "everything but marriage" law is adequate, but I'm not the one effected by it. If the minority sees it as discrimination, and I don't have to change anything to end it, why not do it? In closing, I am definitely for this law, even though I really do associate homosexuals with being in union rather than marriage. | ||
|
Ryder.
1117 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote: No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes. Playing starcraft doesn't contribute in any way to you reproducing. In fact, you could say it is a hindrance as time spent playing starcraft could be used searching for potential mates. So if you are gonna use this 'primary function intended by evolution' maybe you should stop being counter productive get off this forum and go reproduce... Reading through your posts just solidifies the fact that there is no valid reason against being homosexual, since you continue to bring up stupid arguments, and as soon as someone shoots you down for that you bring up another... | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45006 Posts
| ||
|
Sroobz
United States1377 Posts
Good job Washington! Let's keep the anti-ignorant movement going! | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:54 bode927 wrote: That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it. Marriage is already determined in government sorts of situations. No one is saying that a government document fully encompasses all aspects to marriage, but marriage will always have a legal/government component to it. When two people get married, they don't simply say they are married and leave it at that. They get a marriage license, etc. Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Only 2 Republicans were for gay marriage. Sigh. Reality really does have a liberal bias. I wish they wouldn't hold us back. They are supposedly "conservative". The issue I have is that they are purpotedly the party of individual freedom. Well it seems that small government exists is the mantra in every case except marriage. | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:12 Probulous wrote: They are supposedly "conservative". The issue I have is that they are purpotedly the party of individual freedom. Well it seems that small government exists is the mantra in every case except marriage. Well, the terminology is convoluted. Conservatives generally are for the past, the good old days of family values. In this sense, their super conservative family value rhetoric holds to their name. Guns, etc. In terms of fiscal policy.... yeah, it's a different beast. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
I've never understood the civil union vs marriage thing. You'd support the SAME legislation if they called it "civil union" rather than "marriage"? You'd vote no because of one word? That's very shallow in my opinion. Seperation of church and state. Equal rights. The only argument against gay marriage (besides that stupid "it's against nature even though it happens in nature") is one based on religious values. Luckily, gays and lesbians wouldn't have to get married at a church! So that solves your problem! Seriously, i can't stand when people actually think straight people are on some higher pedastal then gays. My best friends parents are gay/lesbian, and they are some of the nicest people i've ever met. They arent married so they don't have the same legal rights as straight people in their same situation. That isn't fair. GOOD JOB WASHINGTON! | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On February 09 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote: I'm not sure what you are saying  My point was simple. If straight people have the right to completely shit all over the concept of marriage and what it is traditionally supposed to be, why can't gay people? Who says gay families are inherently less stable than staight ones? Edit: Are you saying that no-one should get married? No, I'm saying that that the laws which allow people to shit all over the concept of marriage need to be changed to be rather less . . . liberal. This means making it much harder to enter and leave marriage, and absolutely no government subsidies towards any form of alternative lifestyle, and frankly, restricting it to those who would be able to have children in principle. That is, fertile/infertile men + women can get married, but post menopausal women cannot/same sex couples cannot. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On February 09 2012 14:07 Froadac wrote: Maybe it's just how I think, I would think that in a traditional sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. I always thing homosexuals are in unions or whatnot with each other. My thing is that although I do not necessarily believe two homosexuals marrying is true marriage, just because of the family/society I have been raised in, I really don't have a problem with it. It may not be what i think of as marriage, but if Rent is Too Damn High wants to marry a shoe, or a monkey, or a man, who cares. Let them have it. I frankly think that the "everything but marriage" law is adequate, but I'm not the one effected by it. If the minority sees it as discrimination, and I don't have to change anything to end it, why not do it? In closing, I am definitely for this law, even though I really do associate homosexuals with being in union rather than marriage. Shoes can't get married because they can't sign legal contracts, thats a pretty reasonable line to be made for marriage The real question is why polygamy is illegal if all loving and consenting adults should be allowed to be married. | ||
| ||
