Miss California: Carrie Prejean

[CuckingFunt]

What rights of the sexual is not accomplished through a civil union?

You'll find many, if you take the time to research.

I don't always agree with NOW as an organization, but they provide a pretty good (very basic) overview of some of the differences between legally recognized marriage and civil unions.



And this isn't an issue of rights affecting "the sexual," it is an issue of rights affecting a collection of people. An important distinction to make, and an important fact to remember.

[Oh, Gee!!]

gays should be able to marry one another because they want to, it's really that simple.

[angel_luv]

You'll find many, if you take the time to research.

I don't always agree with NOW as an organization, but they provide a pretty good (very basic) overview of some of the differences between legally recognized marriage and civil unions.



And this isn't an issue of rights affecting "the sexual," it is an issue of rights affecting a collection of people. An important distinction to make, and an important fact to remember.

Thanks for taking the time to post the link.

[coyotes_geek]

Sound off, Spurstalk.

Yea or nay: a bill banning gay marriage, but establishing civil unions?

Qua citizen, WH23 objects on the grounds of religious freedom and for the record inclines to Marcus Bryant's view that there is no longer any compelling state interest in marriage, and that the ins ution in the future might well fall under liberty of contract.

Qua believer, WH23 rues the desacralization of marriage and fears the exotic forms a more libertarian conception may take.

But WH23 votes as a citizen.

Yea.

Yea. I'd also vote Yea to just calling it gay marriage. As long as the rights are conveyed, I'm not too worried about the terminology.

[Spurminator]

Sound off, Spurstalk.

Yea or nay: a bill banning gay marriage, but establishing civil unions?

Qua citizen, WH23 objects on the grounds of religious freedom and for the record inclines to Marcus Bryant's view that there is no longer any compelling state interest in marriage, and that the ins ution in the future might well fall under liberty of contract.

Qua believer, WH23 rues the desacralization of marriage and fears the exotic forms a more libertarian conception may take.

But WH23 votes as a citizen.

Yea.

Agreed word for word.

[JoeChalupa]

marriage is just fine with me.

[jman3000]

Why can't we just call gay marriage, gay marriage and call hetero marriage, opposite marriage?

It makes sense to me.

[Summers]

We are friends and I greatly like and respect you. True though that we do disagree on a few things.

For me marriage is a sacred thing- something I will one day enter into solemnly with my spouse before God.

I believe that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman and I want to protect that sanc y.

Marriage to me is not just an agreement with the state, it is also a covenant with God.

Like Carrie Prejean said, it is my goal to be Biblically accurate, not politically correct.
I have to stand up for what the Bible defines as God's model for marriage and family- that a man will marry one woman and that children should follow marriage not preceed it.

I cannot in good conscience support sexuals marrying each other or adopting kids because I feel that is contrary to what God desires.

However, I have no interest in fighting over the more practical issues such as property ownership, insurance etc.
People who are common law are afforded certain benefits. And I think it would be hypocritical of me to deny sexual people the rights of a common law couple.
And I am not trying to deny them those.

My point is that, for me and those who share my faith, marriage is a sacred thing.
I don't think it is fair that I be considered a bigot because I cherish marriage as something special between one man and one woman and want to see it sustained as such.


Furthermore, I feel that by insisting on redefining marriage, it is the sexual community, who is being unreasonable.
What rights of the sexual is not accomplished through a civil union?

Good points, all, and perfectly reasonable desires for yourself. (For the record, it wasn't me who accused anyone of being a bigot.)

I don't think you really cleared up for me whether this is about the literal word "marriage". If you're in favor of any couple of consenting adults having the same rights as any other (and if the law bore that out, theortetically), then the difference between a marriage and a civil union is... whether or not you get married in a church? Is it which color paper your certificate from the courthouse would be? I'm not trying to be snarky; I honestly am trying to understand where the exact point of opposition is.

You and I have discussed religion in the past, so you know I no longer practice my faith, but I respect people who do. I think a solemn oath you take before your God is a beautiful thing. I really do, and I would never joke about such a thing (despite my le ). But that's your religious choice. My husband and I made a sacred vow to each other about 14 years ago and it's working out pretty well so far. (We make gorgeous children!). My marriage doesn't diminish the sanc y of anyone else's marriage, does it? Many people choose to have affairs, divorce, etc. Those people don't diminish what I think is sacred about my marriage. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? You have a standard for what you want your marriage to be, but not everyone wants to get married under the same conditions, nor should they have to.

And, btw, I like and respect you as well, and I appreciate that you and I can have this conversation without making it personal.

[jman3000]

meow?

[Summers]

meow?

Me? No, not intentionally, if it came off that way.

[DarkReign]

I personally don't care what it's called, but I do recognize that the word "marriage" has strong religious implications to a lot of people.

In much the same way that the word "gay" holds a different connotation to those who were alive prior to 1960?

Words have meanings, but those meanings do change. Marriage will change as well, I think WH23 said it is about a generation away from being normal across the nation.

I would agree with that estimate.

[DarkReign]

Yea or nay: a bill banning gay marriage, but establishing civil unions?

Nay. I see no reason to compromise. Marriage, as a term, means one thing to me. A contract between two (or more, do not care) consenting adults.

I do not need another term to distinguish the same principal of my definition. But I concede to the majority as this is not an issue of import to me. It is a social issue and should be dealt with at the appropriate local level(s).

Besides, this is only an issue of time. Time and social change will not be stopped by the time-honored traditionalist. For better or worse, it is true nonetheless.

[Yonivore]

Nay. I see no reason to compromise. Marriage, as a term, means one thing to me. A contract between two (or more, do not care) consenting adults.

I do not need another term to distinguish the same principal of my definition. But I concede to the majority as this is not an issue of import to me. It is a social issue and should be dealt with at the appropriate local level(s).

Besides, this is only an issue of time. Time and social change will not be stopped by the time-honored traditionalist. For better or worse, it is true nonetheless.

Marriage is a religious construct established by the churches and co-opted by government. And, so long as government's idea of marriage jibed with that of the church, everything was just peachy.

There's also the matter of the ambiguity introduced into the contract law by same sex marriages. Right now, you have people pretending to be gay -- so they can enjoy the same contractual benefits of some "gay-friendly" city governments. I don't think our legal system is prepared to resolve some of these issues.

[ChumpDumper]

Marriage is a religious construct established by the churches and co-opted by government. And, so long as government's idea of marriage jibed with that of the church, everything was just peachy.

There's also the matter of the ambiguity introduced into the contract law by same sex marriages. Right now, you have people pretending to be gay -- so they can enjoy the same contractual benefits of some "gay-friendly" city governments. I don't think our legal system is prepared to resolve some of these issues.

Yeah, straight people never married in order to receive some benefit or advantage from the government.

[Extra Stout]

Marriage is a religious construct established by the churches and co-opted by government.

That is so utterly ridiculous, it leaves me convinced that you simply regurgitated a talking point you received without even thinking about it. I'm not sure which source you should be most embarrassed about ignoring:

1) copious do entary evidence of human marriage in pre-Christian and non-Christian societies
2) one of those pieces of do entary evidence being the freaking Bible
3) plain common sense

[MaNuMaNiAc]

That is so utterly ridiculous, it leaves me convinced that you simply regurgitated a talking point you received without even thinking about it. I'm not sure which source you should be most embarrassed about ignoring:

1) copious do entary evidence of human marriage in pre-Christian and non-Christian societies
2) one of those pieces of do entary evidence being the freaking Bible
3) plain common sense

Yoni doesn't give a crap about facts. He either steals his ideas or makes them up.

[angel_luv]

Me? No, not intentionally, if it came off that way.

Your post was well written and gracious.

[Jacob1983]

I don't get why the ACLU hasn't come to the defense of incestuous and nonmonogamous relationships when it comes to marriage. They should have a say in the marriage debate in my opinion. The ACLU always has gays and lesbians' backs but they never stick up for polygamists and incest enthusiasts. I mean if gays and straight people can get married then any person should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Besides, you can't control how you feel. If we have to make everyone happy and equal when it comes to marriage then there should be no rules or limitations when it comes to marriage.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I don't get why the ACLU hasn't come to the defense of incestuous and nonmonogamous relationships when it comes to marriage. They should have a say in the marriage debate in my opinion. The ACLU always has gays and lesbians' backs but they never stick up for polygamists and incest enthusiasts. I mean if gays and straight people can get married then any person should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Besides, you can't control how you feel. If we have to make everyone happy and equal when it comes to marriage then there should be no rules or limitations when it comes to marriage.

are you really this ing stupid??

[Winehole23]

Tell me this, Jacob 1983: what's the compelling state interest in marriage?

[Jacob1983]

You do realize I was being sarcastic right? I was trying to make fun of the fact that the ACLU loves to defend gays and lesbians' marriage rights but they could care less about polygamists and incest enthusiasts' rights.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

You do realize I was being sarcastic right? I was trying to make fun of the fact that the ACLU loves to defend gays and lesbians' marriage rights but they could care less about polygamists and incest enthusiasts' rights.

I do, and that's why I asked

[scott]

This is important.

[Ignignokt]

That is so utterly ridiculous, it leaves me convinced that you simply regurgitated a talking point you received without even thinking about it. I'm not sure which source you should be most embarrassed about ignoring:

1) copious do entary evidence of human marriage in pre-Christian and non-Christian societies
2) one of those pieces of do entary evidence being the freaking Bible
3) plain common sense

ok, were there ever societies that allowed gay marriage?

[Extra Stout]

ok, were there ever societies that allowed gay marriage?

Who cares? The point being, that if a person opposes gay marriage, yet asserts things that are patently absurd to the most casual observer, he is at best useless to his cause.