Gay & Lesbian Marriage/Civil Union

[SBirn]

Yes, expressing any opinion about this issue that is not in "lock-step" with leftist liberals, is pretty much a taboo here in Alldeaf.

Don't be surprised when the mock outrage gets really loud. Oh, yeah, and when you are called names.

Like I'm not used to that? Big deal. Out the mouths of babes and the ignorant... Come on up to the current century.

I find Alldeaf freeing. It has few constraints. Don't mention religion (it causes too much fighting) and they're right!

As for the mock outrage, people do live in ignorance. I'm no different from you, Steinhauer. We asked the same questions you did with your wife but chose different paths.

Geesh. I've been on this path for so many years. It's tiring. I'm bringing people out of ignorance. In my community of educated and progressive people, we're totally accepted here. My hearing is more of a problem just because I get so frustrated with it. You and your wife can do things that my partner and I don't do - you can hold hands. A simple act of love can be deadly (not here) for us. You can gently kiss your wife. We do, too, but we're pretty careful and quick. It's absolutely ridiculous.

We should have the same rights as anyone else.

 

[Foxrac]

Like I'm not used to that? Big deal. Out the mouths of babes and the ignorant... Come on up to the current century.

I find Alldeaf freeing. It has few constraints. Don't mention religion (it causes too much fighting) and they're right!

As for the mock outrage, people do live in ignorance. I'm no different from you, Steinhauer. We asked the same questions you did with your wife but chose different paths.

Geesh. I've been on this path for so many years. It's tiring. I'm bringing people out of ignorance. In my community of educated and progressive people, we're totally accepted here. My hearing is more of a problem just because I get so frustrated with it. You and your wife can do things that my partner and I don't do - you can hold hands. A simple act of love can be deadly (not here) for us. You can gently kiss your wife. We do, too, but we're pretty careful and quick. It's absolutely ridiculous.

We should have the same rights as anyone else.

I don't think that support LGBT rights, especially marriage is left wing, but depends on your overall beliefs and there are many moderates support gay marriage.

If you favor gay marriage and gun rights, that's more libertarian.

 

[Frisky Feline]

Well, my wife and I got "married". It was an exchange between our parents. Her father gave her away at the altar. We now both have a son, we produced our son together. He is our biological son. My parents became his grandparents, my wife's grandparents became his grandparents. My brother and sisters became his uncle and aunts (and so did their spouses). My wife's sister became his aunt, and her husband became his uncle. Me and my wife's brother and sisters' (biological, and in law) children became his cousins.

So no ... I do not see it as the same thing. Very sorry.

what about the heterosexual couple who cant produce a baby. The way you used words that insults people who cant have baby. thereis no such thing about biological because too many biological were abused by biological family. so that's why I said, no such thing. Love is more powerful than biological. What do you think if lady who cant carry baby but put her eggs in other ladys ovary so does it consider a bicolgoical to you??

 

[Foxrac]

what about the heterosexual couple who cant produce a baby. The way you used words that insults people who cant have baby. thereis no such thing about biological because too many biological were abused by biological family. so that's why I said, no such thing. Love is more powerful than biological. What do you think if lady who cant carry baby but put her eggs in other ladys ovary so does it consider a bicolgoical to you??

I found his statement is insulting as well, but I rather to not argue with him because it won't change anything.

He can believe whatever he wants, but that's sad.

 

[SBirn]

I would comment but I am not allowed to discuss religion. I wonder what the official stance of the Methodist church is?

As far as regulating marriage (which is in the interest of the state) there are fertile male/female couples prohibited from marrying.

I don't know what the official stance of the Methodist church was and it didn't matter because the minister at least realized what was important. We were permitted to stand at the altar, play music and sign some lovely songs to each other, walk in to a stained-glass church with candles lit to show us the way to that alter and we both loved absolutely lovely. We were surrounded by friends and family of all faiths and orientation.

So someone from below prohibits people from marrying because they procreate. That's news to me. I believe it's ludicrous. Marriage is based on love and 21.5 years ago when we had our ceremony, we could procreate but opted not to as I opted not to with my now ex-husband.

 

[SBirn]

I found his statement is insulting as well, but I rather to not argue with him because it won't change anything.

He can believe whatever he wants, but that's sad.

I'm glad you all are here, including Steinhauser. I'm not arguing . Steinh. is shutting down his own lineage by making the statement that those who can't procreate can't marry (some). The reason religions push being able to have children is to allow the lineage and religion to flourish. But I said C and I (ooops, almost said can then I thought of my age ) could have children so should be allowed to marry. I suppose we can always adopt to continue our name except I'm almost 60, so that would be awfully tiring. The ability to procreate has also become a wedge and it simply is not necessary. With all the children in the world who need good and loving parents, there's an arrogance of sorts that one must carry on one's bloodline. I love my adopted niece. I guess my sis and bro-in-law shouldn't have been allowed to get married. But they got my niece. I love my two nieces from China. I taught them their first sign, "stupid," and they'll never forget me and their loving parents were laughing.

Foxrac, dag gummit, you are right. I looked up Civil Unions. Then create another bloomin' word. Marriage polarizes people. FF, I'm always learning.

 

[SBirn]

...

If you favor gay marriage and gun rights, that's more libertarian.

Not going into the left wing baloney. Labeling gets dangerous (said the one who labels). After what you taught me, I must favor gay marriage. Gun rights are more important where I live now than where I lived before and it's safer here.

I don't like this thread being so separated. It saves discussion and people getting upset but it's also very isolating.

 

[Frisky Feline]

everyone is learning and so am I.

 

[Steinhauer]

I have never viewed the "same sex marriage equal rights" baloney to be about equal rights. I have simply viewed it as an outright attack on people of faith. The conundrum from the left has been ....so what? There are gay Christians!

And to a certain point, that is absolutely true. Then, after a certain point, it becomes a flagrant lie. There were no polarizing, or adamant differing views, 20-30 or even 2,000 years ago concerning what marriage is. It is between one man and one woman.

To delve even further in this issue. What constitutes a marriage? A man and a woman, in love with each other, and living with each other, are not necessarily married.

The State of Virginia was the first State to regulate marriage after the American Revolution. Up until that point, marriage was a religious institution. Now, it is a governing matter. What happened to separation of church and state?

To add further to this, since when has a religious opinion held lesser value than a secular one in the public square?

A big clue, is when their voices are censored, omitted, or considered hate speech ( all done by the left of course ).

 

[Foxrac]

I have never viewed the "same sex marriage equal rights" baloney to be about equal rights. I have simply viewed it as an outright attack on people of faith. The conundrum from the left has been ....so what? There are gay Christians!

And to a certain point, that is absolutely true. Then, after a certain point, it becomes a flagrant lie. There were no polarizing, or adamant differing views, 20-30 or even 2,000 years ago concerning what marriage is. It is between one man and one woman.

To delve even further in this issue. What constitutes a marriage? A man and a woman, in love with each other, and living with each other, are not necessarily married.

The State of Virginia was the first State to regulate marriage after the American Revolution. Up until that point, marriage was a religious institution. Now, it is a governing matter. What happened to separation of church and state?

To add further to this, since when has a religious opinion held lesser value than a secular one in the public square?

A big clue, is when their voices are censored, omitted, or considered hate speech ( all done by the left of course ).

Oh wow, Did I attack on people of faith?

Some religions support gay marriage.

It looks like you aren't make any sense.

 

[SBirn]

I have never viewed the "same sex marriage equal rights" baloney to be about equal rights. I have simply viewed it as an outright attack on people of faith. The conundrum from the left has been ....so what? There are gay Christians!

And to a certain point, that is absolutely true. Then, after a certain point, it becomes a flagrant lie. There were no polarizing, or adamant differing views, 20-30 or even 2,000 years ago concerning what marriage is. It is between one man and one woman.

To delve even further in this issue. What constitutes a marriage? A man and a woman, in love with each other, and living with each other, are not necessarily married.

The State of Virginia was the first State to regulate marriage after the American Revolution. Up until that point, marriage was a religious institution. Now, it is a governing matter. What happened to separation of church and state?

To add further to this, since when has a religious opinion held lesser value than a secular one in the public square?

A big clue, is when their voices are censored, omitted, or considered hate speech ( all done by the left of course ).

Hey hey hey! You're accepting propaganda on who and what the GLBT community stands for, Steinhauser. It has nothing to do with any attacks on faith. Believe what you want (in god, be spiritual).

Unless you can tell me several facts about how WE do not have equal rights, your argument doesn't have a fact on which to stand. Here's one for the road for you:
-- In NC, we're not allowed to be married. Do you understand the implications of this? I stated some. Don't answer this at a federal level, I'm specifically writing about the state level.

Let me PM you and I will not fight or debate you about religious opinion. Because if your goal is to shut us down, you may get that. IF you cannot have an open mind about what I say (I do have an open mind about it), don't bother reading it.

I think I can quickly address what happened to the separation of church and state: It doesn't exist and years ago, when I saw what McCarthy did to the pledge of allegiance I was irritated. It is not just you who questions this.

You haven't been attacked by any of us here based on religion and there's a reason AD does not allow thread discussions of it.

Lots of oys all around. Take a deep breath.

Peace,
-- Sheri

 

[shel90]

If gay people want to call it a marriage or a civil union, I am all for it. I feel that if two people who love each other, their union should be recognized just as a heterosexual couple's union is recognized.

About those who want to prevent it, is that fair? As far as I am concerned, what rights are being violated? If gay marriage/civil unions become legal, it will have NO effect on the rights of the marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I don't get. Why are people who are against gay marriage worried about what rights they should have or shouldn't have? How does that affect their own lives? I think it is just plain fear. That is not enough justification to prevent a same sex couple having the same rights as a heterosexual couple has.

However, people of religion faith are able to practice their beliefs, go to church, and all that which they have a right to. No problem there. It is when their faith or beliefs extend to dictating on how others should live their lives is wrong, in my opinion. Live your lives the way you want to and leave others alone. What's wrong with that?

 

[SBirn]

If gay people want to call it a marriage or a civil union, I am all for it. I feel that if two people who love each other, their union should be recognized just as a heterosexual couple's union is recognized.

About those who want to prevent it, is that fair? As far as I am concerned, what rights are being violated? If gay marriage/civil unions become legal, it will have NO effect on the rights of the marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I don't get. Why are people who are against gay marriage worried about what rights they should have or shouldn't have? How does that affect their own lives? I think it is just plain fear. That is not enough justification to prevent a same sex couple having the same rights as a heterosexual couple has.

However, people of religion faith are able to practice their beliefs, go to church, and all that which they have a right to. No problem there. It is when their faith or beliefs extend to dictating on how others should live their lives is wrong, in my opinion. Live your lives the way you want to and leave others alone. What's wrong with that?

I'm way stepping over a line here but hugs in the air . I didn't expect to see you here. Your response was great and simple and right on.

Steinhauer sent me a great article from MIT and he can correct me if I'm wrong but it did boil down to what I said here - it's all about the money that's why we're being held back.

I think since I've been in the thick of this for so many years and worked in two different Fortune xxx companies to get DP benefits and we did but boy were we verbally attacked (less so in the second company), walked my soles off down 5th Avenue in too many marches, and dealt with all the ignorance from people that I'm pretty drained.

I reached a point years ago when I didn't think we'd progress as a society in this issue due to the same argument still used it's all about rhetoric and propaganda. But people seem to be waking up in many ways. It is the ignorance that holds people back and as more and more people come out of the stuff closet, it's allowing more and more people to say, "Hey, you're no different than I am!" That was my drive despite my being scared (when I was younger). I'm not pushing my views on you. I just want to not have to worry about my partner being taxed to death if I predecease her. A trust will help with some but not everything. There are still a lot of holes. So in our case, it would be better if she predeceases me. Steinhauer, think about that please. Why would any human want to put someone else through that. I don't wish it on you or anyone else.

Hey, Shel, Foxrac told me we can't go to civil unions because we would not be equal under the law. I wrote civil unions out of my own ignorance or perhaps the definition has just changed but FR is right . I looked it up.

Humble thanks, Shel.

-- Sheri

 

[Calvin]

Mod note:

While political has a role in this Civil Union... I had to remove those links that is directly political related. Feel free to share those in PMland, I don't want to close this thread again but if this continues then I'd have no choice but to lock it.

Again, I think it is wise to keep the judgements to yourself, people can love anyone freely they want and it's their business. I have friends who are in GLBT community and I'm happy for them as its their choice even thou I'm straight doesn't mean I am against that. People have their preference and should earn the respect as anyone else.

Thank you.