I don't know if you want an answer, or a long drawn out talk. Sometimes I notice that the 'questions' are really just sparks to start a discussion fire.xD

Truthfully I vote to allow gay marriage. And to those who don't like it, what's "worse", two woman who are deathly in love getting married, or two drunk lovers getting the knot tied in vegas, baby!

If its for the wrong reasons, duh, of course its bad, but so is normal marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

I see nothing wrong with two people who fall in love and want to devote their lives to each other.

We will never know what makes someone gay. People can voice their opinion, subject, intergect, judge, but truth is....no one truly knows....except God.

Some people are sadly ( and it breaks my heart) so busy, looking out their window of their sinful house at others and judging, which by the way, is wrong in God's eyes.

Two people who fall in love and want to commit to each other.....God bless them...and I bet he will.

The gay community gets slammed for being promiscious.....and then when they want to devote their love and lives to one partner....they are not permitted to.

They have a right, to be there when their partner is sick. To have access to the doctors, nurses and be fully involved in their care. Why? because they love them with all their heart and they have chosen each other to be life partners.

The shoes of a gay person, must be one painfully tight fit, with some in society so willing to throw rocks and stones and trying to prevent them from loving and caring about another individual.

I think we have far more problems then two people truly falling in love and caring about each other.

I have two friends who are partners and I could only wish, that everyone, could have the same, loving, devoted, loyal and caring relationship that these two wonderful people share.

---

Well Said

I am not a lesbian but in my opinion if you are attracted to someone, whether its your sex or not, and you want to marry that person I don't see anything wrong with it. (I wouldint do it but still)

"Marriage" used to be a religious term. Now it's a legal term. Don't hate the gays for trying to "ruin the sanctity of marriage" - hate the government for involving themselves in marriage long, long ago.

Gay people don't want to ruin the word, or invade your churches, or corrupt your nation. They want to be treated equally. A man and woman of any denomination get "married"; to forbid a man and a man or woman and woman from getting "married" is not equal treatment. THAT is the problem - inequality.

Maybe we should let all of-age, consenting adults get married, and the churches can think of a new word, a new ceremony, a new blessing. After all, it's the government who ruined the word and sanctity "marriage", not the gays. Punish the government by excluding them from something (if they can't tax you on it, it will drive them nuts), and while you're at it exclude anyone who's not a member of your church.

Hi, so I am straight.. and I have no problem with it at all... im sorry but you can't help who you fall in love with you know.

The problem is all these "christians", that is the problem. What about people who have a relegious belief that allows gay marriage. The christians won't allow them to practice their beliefs. It has to be their way or NO WAY. That is what turns me off about christianity. Other belief systems allow for a variety of beliefs. With christianity it is all or nothing. You either believe our way or you should just be dead. That is what burns me I thought America was a FREE country. People came here because they could not practice their beliefs freeley in England and other countries. Now it is the same here.

You want to make it a homosexual issue. But I'm sorry. I can't.. I am not talking about a disease either . . . The topic here is MARRIAGE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam DePecan

You want to make it a homosexual issue. But I'm sorry. I can't.. I am not talking about a disease either . . . The topic here is MARRIAGE.

---

And how marriage currently discriminates against homosexuals.

I really never have understood why straight couples feel so threatened by gay couples. If you get married in a church but do not get the state paperwork completed properly, you are not married in the eyes of the law. There is no requirement for a marriage to be blessed by a church, therefore it makes no sense that the state won't allow it.

How does it hurt me for my gay neighbors to marry? All it does is allow for right of survivorship when it comes to property and certain other next of kin rights. If your argument is because it will "harm" children - that make no sense. They can live together without the benefit of marriage without me being able to stop it. I would much rather my child observe people who commit to one another and build a life (straight or gay) rather than have them see partners as temporary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

And how marriage currently discriminates against homosexuals.

---

Marriage is not what is discriminating . . . It's political ideology. We need to NOT use marriage as a political weapon for anything that is convenient that may also be listed as discriminating. What if we did everything like THAT? The Kentucky Derby discriminates against the cattle industry. Yet the cattle industry is probably being bought-off by big ranchers, feedlots, the beef industry, McDonald's, Burger King, etc. Yet, no one wants to join together as a team and fight them for what they are doing when they discriminate against cows. Like for instance, how many cows do you see running in the event; which is well established as “The Kentucky Derby?” . . . NONE! Do you know why? . . . It's because the Kentucky Derby is NOT for cows; it's for horses!! Now, that doesn't mean that you can't run Elsie if she wants to run. Just don't be calling Elsie's race a horse race . . . Call it a Political Horse Race, A Bovine Run, or something else . . . Set aside a special day for cows to race, etc.; but you can destroy Horse-Racing by calling a cow-race a horse-race. It doesn't mean that the KDP (Kentucky Derby People) hate you. Furthermore, there is no use in practicing some kind Webster's Dictionary ignominy, just because you have the money, power, and political resources to do it. BTW, just in case you might want to equate this to Bull-Sh** then you are probably right . . . Thus, is the attack on the institution of marriage . . . All a bunch of BS . . . I don't mind telling you.

Fine. Don't let them marry.

But like I said in the other thread--then take away ALL of the privileges that come with marriage, since having those privileges (which, by the way, are provided by the state) discriminates against those who can not marry their chosen partner.

In other words--fine, don't let Bessy run the Kentucky Derby--but then don't act surprised when horseflesh starts showing up on menus because they lose their privileged status as protected from that since THEY are used for transportation and shows, not for eating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam DePecan

I was married to my wife for 31-Glorious Years. I found her laying face down on the floor in my bathroom; dead from a massive heart attack. If ONLY we would have been homosexuals then I would not have to be living every, every, everyday in hell here in this God-forsaking hell-hole called the United States of America!!! Because I am normal; I do NOT belong to any of those “special groups” and right now I wish that I could blow up the Federal Government. I wish that I could wipe Sacramento off the map, along with Sears, Wells Fargo, City Hall in San Francisco (BTW, where is Dan White when we really need him the most?) . . . And even Circuit City!!! You see, there is no one in Washington who finds it very rewarding to protect me from a Society and Government that sucks! I have no “special dictionary” of political words to grant me special privileges, like gay, closet, and hate. Am I phobic? . . . I am Federal-phobic! I am DEFINITELY afraid of your government. What will their dictionary say of the word, “Marriage” when their just-like-them-attorneys (free of charge) get through with it? Your guess is as good as mine. But for sure, “Marriage’ is about to become “ill-defined”. Now, do I hate anyone? Well, I told you the people who I can’t stand, because of what they did to me, due to the loss of my spouse. Are you telling me that ALL OF THEM are homosexualistic? I know what you are going to say . . . “Well, it’s you own fault! You shouldn’t have married someone who was going to someday die!” Do you know what? You are right.

---

You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -

Then don't act surprised when horseflesh starts showing up on menus...

I don’t know where you have been, but that so-called “horseflesh”; that you speak of; as well as unborn calves, and probably even cuts of canine have been showing up in potted meat, and little-boy wieners, since your great-grandmothers were legally single. That is what we have the United States Department of Agriculture, Meat Inspection Department for . . . To PROTECT US!! Unfortunately, for your grandparents, and all of those legally married loved ones before them; there will not be enough “protection” for their marriage to wind up being anything more than some kind of meaningless “political authoritative sanction”. For future generations, the term, “Marriage” will be simply worthless. That is why we need to protect the institution now, as it is. Someday we may not have it any more. What then? . . . Acupuncture? . . . Hmmmmm? . . . Wait a minute . . . That might be the answer. Don’t call it Marriage at all; since it is not marriage at all. Just call it “Unionized Acupuncture”. Let our spendthrift Congress, throw some U. S. dollars at it; and then put it to a vote. Find a plan, and stick to it!! (NPI)

Wait--so your definition of marriage isn't "two people who love each other and commit to each other, for the rest of their lives, through good times and bad, through sickness and health, for richer for poorer"?

What IS your definition of marriage then? I think, frankly, that my great-grandparents would be HONORED to have more people who truly honor what marriage IS join their ranks, regardless of sexual preference. I think what has them turning in their graves are the number of people who marry and divorce for stupid reasons.

You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -
__________________
This is purely my opinion

In other words, just admit that I am right; and it's your opinion that I am right. That's not just my opinion . . . It's common sense.

Isn't marriage an institution that is currently experiencing a 50% failure rate the way it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam DePecan

You dishonor your wife's memory with this tirade -
__________________
This is purely my opinion

In other words, just admit that I am right; and it's your opinion that I am right. That's not just my opinion . . . It's common sense.

---

Sorry, but I don't think you are right - I don't think it's common sense for you to post that you want to blow up more than a few buildings and people because of the loss of your wife - I still don't know what that has to do with gay marriage.

Quite frankly, I think that's a sign of mental instability to say nothing of the poor judgment involved in posting it on a public board.

Lots of people on this Board have grief in their personal lives - I don't see them posting rants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam DePecan

"I really believe that all gays want is a civil union. A civil union guarantees them legal rights in inheritance, health care, privacy issues, financial situations." Then let's call it "Choogalagga" or something. But let's NOT call it MARRIAGE. However, that is NOT what they want. They want to ruin the meaning of the word; thus, the word, itself. THAT is exactly what they want. They are one of the most powerful political groups ever in our glorious history. They know that eventually they will be able to get everything that they ask for. What are they going to ask for next? Don't think that the political scabs are not just sitting back licking their chops right now for all the wealth in power that awates them. There is more money in homosexual politics than Mobile/Exxon can pump out of the ground! . . . Don't think it's not!! Ha! The things that they are claiming that they are right now NOT entitled to dates back to whenever . . . Who cares??? . . . But not now. They get exactly what they want as a couple of whatever they want to choose next as a handle. In fact, I would hate to be the governing body that would dare go against them as what they are right now. I mean, would you want to face Je$$ie Jack$on in a Court-of-Law? You gotta be kidding . . . :eek:

---

What qualifies you to speak for "they." What THEY want; what THEY run and so forth -

Odd choice of opponents with Jessie Jackson - you have a racial issues, too?

Addressing your earlier post which is something about a trust fund and Attorneys working you over - why don't you post the specifics of that and give everybody a fair shot at trying to understand.

Or better yet, move the explanation to the legal board -

I will add that my late husband set up a trust and nobody's working me over or taking advantage of me -

[QUOTE=Wondergirl]Wills are contested by family members, and a gay partner very possibly will lose in court.QUOTE]



Sorry, but Wills are contested every day by straights, gays, parents, children, spouses. Some win and some lose - there is no "very possibly" in any category and gays are not at a disadvantage in a Will contest.

If the Will is properly and appropriately written, executed and filed and kept up to date anyone can contest but the Will will prevail.

And marriage most definitely does NOT give anyone the right to make medical decisions for another person - you can get info, you can assist the person with decisions but if they cannot not longer participate in those discussions you do not have the right to make the decisions.

If you want to have or give that right you MUST execute and file the appropriate documents - a living Will, a DNR, whatever makes you (and your partner) comfortable.

Does anyone remember Terri Shiavo who may - or may not - have made her wishes clear but never put it in writing and then her parents attempted to make the decision in place of her husband and the fight was on? Put it in writing, folks, put it in writing. Give the right to make medical decisions to your partner, your neighbor, your parent - but put your intentions and orders in writing and file it!

I've been there. At the lowest, most desolate, lonely, distraught point of your life you could be standing there saying, "But I'm the spouse. I have the right ..." and you could very well be wrong.

Odd choice of opponents with Jessie Jackson - you have a racial issues, too?

Odds are you are the one who is somewhat "racially confused". I do have an issue with Jesse Jackson's ideology of the meaning of the word "Reverend" that he insists on politically, rather tax-freely, attaching to the front of his name. With all due respect for Mr. Jackson as a man; not much as a politcian; I address him as Mr. Jackson. Why? . . . Since you are making such a mysterious issue about his race or race, in general; what do you call him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam DePecan

Marriage is not what is discriminating . . . It’s political ideology. We need to NOT use marriage as a political weapon for anything that is convenient that may also be listed as discriminating. What if we did everything like THAT? The Kentucky Derby discriminates against the cattle industry. Yet the cattle industry is probably being bought-off by big ranchers, feedlots, the beef industry, McDonald’s, Burger King, etc. Yet, no one wants to join together as a team and fight them for what they are doing when they discriminate against cows. Like for instance, how many cows do you see running in the event; which is well established as “The Kentucky Derby?” . . . NONE! Do you know why? . . . It’s because the Kentucky Derby is NOT for cows; it’s for horses!! Now, that doesn’t mean that you can’t run Elsie if she wants to run. Just don’t be calling Elsie’s race a horse race . . . Call it a Political Horse Race, A Bovine Run, or something else . . . Set aside a special day for cows to race, etc.; but you can destroy Horse-Racing by calling a cow-race a horse-race. It doesn’t mean that the KDP (Kentucky Derby People) hate you. Furthermore, there is no use in practicing some kind Webster’s Dictionary ignominy, just because you have the money, power, and political resources to do it. BTW, just in case you might want to equate this to Bull-Sh** then you are probably right . . . Thus, is the attack on the institution of marriage . . . All a bunch of BS . . . I don't mind telling you.

---

Let's use this Kentucky Derby analogy and look at it a different way.

Let's say the straight couples are the ones currently in the traditional Kentucky Derby racing thoroughbreds.

Now let's suppose that gay couples also want to run a race, and they also want to call it the Kentucky Derby but use bovines. It will run the same length and have the same regulations except that the participants are different. It is obvious to everyone that this race is not the same as the other race, but it allows the participants to race and reap the benefits like the traditionalists.

The original race is not impeded by this second race. The two enhance each other by allowing each type of participant to race and has the side effect of spreading good sportsmanship to everyone.

The only problem with the analogy is that the Kentucky Derby is most likely a corporately owned entity and there would be copyright infringement issues. However, since married couples are not a collective and do not own the rights to the word marriage - that does work.

Marriage is neither an ownee nor an owner. Marriage, by definition; can ONLY take place when a man marries a woman. Sex is NOT marriage. This might be where all the confusion is erupting from. It might be that the various definitions of "sex" and "sexual acts" are over-shadowing the institution of marriage; thus, opening up a whole, wide-array of the meaning of marriage. It is true that "honeymoon" may lead to this kind of thinking. I am happy for that, myself. What about the Wedding Cake? . . . Could you see what kind of fiasco could be created if the "sex" part of marriage was not taken so seriously but instead the Wedding Cake region would be so stressed? I mean that could lead to questions like, "Why can't we have German Chocolate Cake?" . . . Or, what makes the Hetero-Bakerismic Couples think that they can control the icing on the cake and the Homo-Bakerismic Couples have to eat the Wedding Cake withOUT any icing? It's not fair! What exactly is a Wedding Cake, anyway? They are not the ONLY ones who can have Hetero-Cup-Cakes . . . We should be served "Gay-Fond-do!" . . . In other words, just remove the "sex part" from the marriage and it's not worth mentioning redefining the meaning of the word; MARRIAGE. As far as complaing about something that married couples should keep in mind . . . Both the male and the female must have a Social Security Number, or they can not reap the same benefits on the Standard Form 1040 Income Tax Return. The IRS is not concerned about your certificate of marriage. The IRS is more concerened about the number they are calling you!!! . . . AND the two numbers that the Social Security Department has assigned to the two citizens filing the joint tax return. That is the new government that took over when we were caught "blinking". THAT is much more significant than the bouquet of flowers for the "best whatever . . . man???" ...

If you're willing to pay back all the tax breaks you got when you were married in the name of fairness and keeping the word "marriage" to its original definition, well, then I'll accept your argument, Sam.

Otherwise--you're just grossed out by the idea that two people can love each other, regardless of gender, in the way that is usually only thought of as heterosexual.

Words get redefined all the time. Pull out an OED sometime and just look at the original definitions of words. One of my favorites is the word "nunnery". You think of that as a convent, right? I mean, how could anyone mistake it as something else! And a convent is a HOLY place!

Well, when Hamlet tells Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery", he's telling her to go to a whorehouse.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Why do word definitions HAVE to stay the same? I mean, look at the word "cool". Even 50 years ago, "cool" meant "not quite cold, not quite warm". Now it means all sorts of things, from "okay" to "that's really neat" to "calm and collected".

How DARE those people in the last 50 years change the meaning of the word! I mean, that just puts forest streams and light breezes into SHAME! It ruins the sanctity of a refrigerator --and omg, what about coolers? Are they just "okay" now?

The definition argument holds no water for me. Words mean what society thinks they mean, no more, no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam DePecan

[F]Marriage is neither an ownee nor an owner. Marriage, by definition; can ONLY take place when a man marries a woman. Sex is NOT marriage. This might be where all the confusion is erupting from. It might be that the various definitions of "sex" and "sexual acts" are over-shadowing the institution of marriage; thus, opening up a whole, wide-array of the meaning of marriage. It is true that "honeymoon" may lead to this kind of thinking. I am happy for that, myself. What about the Wedding Cake? . . . Could you see what kind of fiasco could be created if the "sex" part of marriage was not taken so seriously but instead the Wedding Cake region would be so stressed? I mean that could lead to questions like, "Why can't we have German Chocolate Cake?" . . . Or, what makes the Hetero-Bakerismic Couples think that they can control the icing on the cake and the Homo-Bakerismic Couples have to eat the Wedding Cake withOUT any icing? It's not fair! What exactly is a Wedding Cake, anyway? They are not the ONLY ones who can have Hetero-Cup-Cakes . . . We should be served "Gay-Fond-do!" . . . In other words, just remove the "sex part" from the marriage and it's not worth mentioning redefining the meaning of the word; MARRIAGE. As far as complaing about something that married couples should keep in mind . . . Both the male and the female must have a Social Security Number, or they can not reap the same benefits on the Standard Form 1040 Income Tax Return. The IRS is not concerned about your certificate of marriage. The IRS is more concerened about the number they are calling you!!! . . . AND the two numbers that the Social Security Department has assigned to the two citizens filing the joint tax return. That is the new government that took over when we were caught "blinking". THAT is much more significant than the bouquet of flowers for the "best whatever . . . man???" ...

---

Actually the legal definition of marriage is: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally. Forms of marriage include: monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, same-sex, pragmatic (arranged), romantic and forced.

What are you talking about as far as IRS is concerned? Are you saying that I can legally file a joint return with another person, not my legal husband, as long as we list both SS numbers? How do you propose handling the "check the box if you are married filing jointly" question and the fact that lying is a Federal crime ?

Here's part of the IRS Reg: "You may only file a joint return if you are married at the end of the tax year (December 31) and both of you agree to file and sign a joint return.1 The box you check on your return is “Married filing jointly.” Same-sex couples and domestic partners cannot file joint returns. You qualify as married even if you are separated as long as there is no final decree terminating your marital status."

You are giving very strange, totally incorrect and also very illegal advice - I am beginning to get the feeling that those people you wish you could bomb or kill may be following the same Laws you prefer to ignore.

I have no idea what your sex equals marriage equals chocolate cake rant is about - there are marriages without sex for a variety of reasons. Does that make them invalid or non-existent marriages? Was that your point?

A lot of people say that nothing can stand between two lovers. People are (supposedly ) created equal, so what right do we have to judge others? I thought when we ended slavery, it was supposed to the end of judging others because they are different. I am straight, but why should straight people be against same-sex marriage? It hardly affects straight people, I think. So why not live and let live?