Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I've gotten into this with Doug before as well. His reading of Loving is wrong, but he'll never tell.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I've gotten into this with Doug before as well. His reading of Loving is wrong, but he'll never tell.> We'll see.
Originally Posted By scottie People think that it is morally wrong because it says so in the bible. The bible is the word of God to a majority of our voting population The brutal truth is that gay people are going to hell. Why would we want to allow the condemned to marry the condemned? They are going to hell anyway. So are my loving buddhist aunts and uncles and others that have not been saved as well as my Grandma and Grandpa who were allowed to marry no matter if they could care less about what it says in the bible. If people didn't believe that homosexuality was a sin this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately a lot of people do, but I strongly disagree with this view. Unfortunately for gays, by nature's own statistics homesexuals will always be the minority. More people will realize homosexuals are people, friends and family members of heterosexuals that love them and want to support them. People want to be loved and share love just like anyone else has the privelege and right to in America. Just because I'm not gay, doesn't mean it doesn't affect me. It affects those that I love and those that I might love in the future. When I have a kid and by chance my child (because I believe it is chance) turns out to be gay, by God I want my child to be able to marry the person they love and not have to worry about my Christian friends or anyone else to look down upon them or feel they should have never had that right in the first place. We have more important things to worry about. But that's just my opinion.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip scottie, You scared me there at first. But.. <<When I have a kid and by chance my child (because I believe it is chance) turns out to be gay, by God I want my child to be able to marry the person they love and not have to worry about my Christian friends or anyone else to look down upon them or feel they should have never had that right in the first place.>> ...was magnificent. I’ve been a little uncertain at times about supporting gay marriage as opposed to a legally equal relationship that was called something else. But you are right… I’d want my child to be able to marry the person they love… whether straight or gay.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF RE #135: scottie, I think there's a lot of truth to that. Whether people want to admit it or not, there is a certain amount of "ick factor" here. RE #143: RoadTrip, I appreciate what you have to say. Will you be opposing the initiative here in MN to ban same-sex marriage? It would be cool to meet you sometime, given that we're "neighbors."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Will you be opposing the initiative here in MN to ban same-sex marriage?>> Absolutely. Even when I had my doubts about calling the relationships "marriage", I never would have supported a legal ban. I have a real problem with the government getting involved in what I see as a totally personal matter. <<It would be cool to meet you sometime, given that we're "neighbors.">> I think that could be fun. What part of the city do you live in? We just moved (two weeks ago) from Eden Prairie to Roseville. My wife and I both work at the U of M, and the commute from Eden Prairie was killing us.
Originally Posted By scottie It's always a very touchy subject and even some of my other friends (including my parents) who are pretty homophobic have recently admitted that even though they might not agree with the lifestyle, gays should have the right to marry. That way of thinking may not change the fact that my friends are still somewhat homophobic, but they would vote for it at the polls, and I think that is a step in the right direction. It may take a lot of time and many attempts but if the right to abortion is still legal, you have to think of the real possibility that same-sex marriage may become legal regardless our religious beliefs. Many people say they don't believe that they would ever have an abortion, but believe in protecting that right. I believe some of these people may feel the same way towards gay marriage. Enough to eventually make a voting majority.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 The title of this thread sounds like it could be a country western song.
Originally Posted By woody "even though they might not agree with the lifestyle, gays should have the right to marry." Fewer people would object to civil unions, but more would object to the redefinition of marriage to include gays. A marital relationship should be unique. It's an exclusive arrangement between a man and a woman that deserves it's own definition. "Many people say they don't believe that they would ever have an abortion, but believe in protecting that right." Maybe so, but I believe it is a right that deserves to be decided by the public at the local level or perhaps at the Federal Level. The judicial imposed right is draconian and it attacks people's ability to correct what they perceive to be a death sentence to unborn life. Also, the judicial order is more absolute (no ban against abortion, no parental notification, no ban against late term abortion, government funding for abortion, free abortions, abortion all the time) than the gun laws, which is actually in the Constitution as the 2nd Amendment. The whole thing is a mess.
Originally Posted By barboy Again, "only two things come from Texas...steers and queers....and I don't see any horns on you, so that just about narrows it down" Sergeant Hartman(Lee Ermy) from Full Metal Jacket.
Originally Posted By scottie <<A marital relationship should be unique. It's an exclusive arrangement between a man and a woman that deserves it's own definition.>> I'm trying to understand the reason why it deserves it's own definition between a man and woman. It seems that most people don't want to change the definition because they don't want gays to marry, not because they want the definition to be unique. Am I wrong to feel that way?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF RoadTrip: I'm just inside the city limits of St. Paul near the Woodbury area of I-94. I work in Eagan for "a major legal publishing entity." ;-) I've been to Roseville once. Seems like a nice area. Drop me a line sometime at bluedevilsf_at_aol.com. scottie: It's an issue of semantics. Thing is, though, civil unions by and large do not translate into absolute equality on part with marriage as far as rights go. I live in Minnesota, where there is no provision for registering domestic partners (that I know of, anyway). So, we have to jump through hoops to get some semblance of the rights married couples have. For example, if I put my partner on my medical insurance, which I will have to do next month, this is considered taxable income for me. There is no way around that. Not so for married couples. There are those who feel that there should be civil unions that accord everything marriage accords; they just don't want it called "marriage."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I work in Eagan for "a major legal publishing entity.">> A guy that used to work in my department at the U spent a few years working in the IT department at that publishing company (WP, I assume) before trying to become a .com millionaire. Last time I talked to him (probably 10 years ago) he was doing OK, having just landed Target as a client. <<I've been to Roseville once. Seems like a nice area.>> We really enjoy it. I grew up in Roseville. It was one of the Twin Cities premier suburbs during the 50's and 60's, and unlike some older suburbs, it has aged very well. <<Drop me a line sometime at bluedevilsf_at_aol.com.>> Will do.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I could care less if gay people want to marry. If a law is passed allowing them to marry fine. Likewise I don't have a problem with what happened in Texas. If the people voted against, then that's what happened. It doesn't effect me either way.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Obviously, neither of them conceived the child with another woman.<< But they still got pregnant, and they still have at least one kid who they carried successfully to term. The lesbian and the straight couple both needed help from someone outside the marriage in order to get pregnant, but the only one that you see as "bad" is the lesbian couple. That makes it obvious what your problem with gay marriage is.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Again, "only two things come from Texas...steers and queers....and I don't see any horns on you, so that just about narrows it down" Sergeant Hartman(Lee Ermy) from Full Metal Jacket.>> One of my favorite lines ever in a movie. My buddies always use it in various forms.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Bottom line is that gay marriage ALWAYS gets voted down by the people when they get a chance to vote on it. Why is that?? Bigots everywhere or people who understand that gay marriage is a horrible idea that will never be legal?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You would think that after all this gay talk the last few years gay marriage would pass in some state somewhere.. but noooo. Fact is, the homosexual community pushed to hard on this and have pissed people off who used to give them the benefit of the doubt. Civil unions is a perfectly fine compromise that even many right wingers would accept, but that isn't even good enough for many in the gay community. Also, once you legalize gay marriage, there is NO WAY to stop other types of marriages from happeneing. We have discussed this what... 200 times now?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The lesbian and the straight couple both needed help from someone outside the marriage in order to get pregnant, but the only one that you see as "bad" is the lesbian couple.> Even if they both needed the exact same help, the heterosexual couple needing help is the exception, while the homosexual couple neededing help is the rule. And I don't think either couple is "bad".
