Keith Olbermann

[taheenee]

Trust me, I don't want to marry joe, guys are gross, I don't know how women put up with us, but that's a whole other discussion.

To you question, you can marry, just not another woman.

Which brings me back to my point of removing the word from the equation. There have been a number of people on this thread that have said unequivicoly that they would have no problem with civil unions that grant the same rights as mariage. I think that there are a whole lot of people out there that feel the same way. I would think that those effected would be most interested in the rights they are looking for rather than the word. After you get the rights, call it whatever you want.

So only people that marry in a church get to use 'marriage' or only hetrosexual couples get to use 'marriage'? I personally want the rights, couldn't care less what people call it. I'd personally call our life commitment to each other marriage regardless of whatever euphemism society decides to call it.

 

[Master Mason]

Kinda like how no black people could use the white's fountains and no white people could use the black's fountains?? that kind of equal?

No, that is not the same, no matter how much you want it to be. And from the opinion pieces I have read, that thought process is hurting your cause in the Black community.

 

[Goofyluver]

As already pointed out, my opinion carries some weight it was about 1/11.7M

And again, it is legally offered to all, some just don't want it the way it is currently offered.

It is not legally offered to all. Because even if you are homosexual and happen to live in one of the 2 states that allow gay marriage, once you step foot outside of those 2 states, you have no rights.

If you are married in CT, but move to Oklahoma...Oklahoma does not and will not accept your marriage as legal or valid.

If a heterosexual man is married in Oklahoma...but moves to New Mexico...that man's marriage will be recognized as legal and valid...simply because it is a heterosexual marriage.

There is no equality in inequality.

 

[Master Mason]

So only people that marry in a church get to use 'marriage' or only hetrosexual couples get to use 'marriage'? I personally want the rights, couldn't care less what people call it. I'd personally call our life commitment to each other marriage regardless of whatever euphemism society decides to call it.

Well, If I was a one man decision making machine, I would pass a law that says all references to marriage in the codes of the US are hereby converted to Civil Unions. Civil Unions would be open to any to legal adults that wish to form a Civil Union. Any existing marriages on the books would be grandfathered in and serve as Civil Unions for the purposes of the laws.

Then if you wanted to get Married, you should go find yourself a church that will marry you. But the state would issue Civil Union papers and no longer issue Marriage licences to anyone.

ETA after you have formed your civil union, I couldn't care less what you call it to yourself and your friends, but on the books it would be a civil union.

 

[taheenee]

No, that is not the same, no matter how much you want it to be. And from the opinion pieces I have read, that thought process is hurting your cause in the Black community.

Oh i've heard the same but i'm not understanding the difference in the situations. enlighten me please.

 

[Master Mason]

It is not legally offered to all. Because even if you are homosexual and happen to live in one of the 2 states that allow gay marriage, once you step foot outside of those 2 states, you have no rights.

If you are married in CT, but move to Oklahoma...Oklahoma does not and will not accept your marriage as legal or valid.

If a heterosexual man is married in Oklahoma...but moves to New Mexico...that man's marriage will be recognized as legal and valid...simply because it is a heterosexual marriage.

There is no equality in inequality.

Your just purposely attempting to ingore what I am saying.

NO man may marry another Man, and NO woman may marry another woman. EQAUL. As I said, I understand why they don't like it, but that does not make it unequal. There is lots of laws I don't like, but they are equal accross the board.

 

[taheenee]

Well, If I was a one man decision making machine, I would pass a law that says all references to marriage in the codes of the US are hereby converted to Civil Unions. Civil Unions would be open to any to legal adults that wish to form a Civil Union. Any existing marriages on the books would be grandfathered in and serve as Civil Unions for the purposes of the laws.

Then if you wanted to get Married, you should go find yourself a church that will marry you. But the state would issue Civil Union papers and no longer issue Marriage licences to anyone.

ETA after you have formed your civil union, I couldn't care less what you call it to yourself and your friends, but on the books it would be a civil union.

I agree!

 

[Uncle Remus]

So only people that marry in a church get to use 'marriage' or only hetrosexual couples get to use 'marriage'? I personally want the rights, couldn't care less what people call it. I'd personally call our life commitment to each other marriage regardless of whatever euphemism society decides to call it.

That's Master's plan, he wants the government to make the people call it
whatever they like even tho the federal government calls it marriage.

It's got somethin' to do with makin' everybody happy or somethin' like that, I ain't figured it out yet.

What if the religious come up with the idea that callin' marriage civil union is re-defining marriage again?

 

[Purseval]

And hey, if evangelicals are wasting their money fighting this, whose going to save all those babies they're going to adopt when abortion is made illegal? Whose going to scare teenage girls in front of abortion clinics? Got to get your priorities right, people.

Think of all of the progressive little lives that have been snuffed out since Roe v. Wade, probably enough to have easily shot down Prop. 8. Again, you showed those baby-having evangelicals who was boss

 

[Master Mason]

Oh i've heard the same but i'm not understanding the difference in the situations. enlighten me please.

Because that was the seperate by equal thing, and as I have now said many times, right now your rights are exactly the same as everyone else. NO one is allowed to marry someone of their same sex. It's equal. You don't like it, but that doesn't make it unequal.

 

[taheenee]

Think of all of the progressive little lives that have been snuffed out since Roe v. Wade, probably enough to have easily shot down Prop. 8. Again, you showed those baby-having evangelicals who was boss

That's just rude!!!

 

[Goofyluver]

Your just purposely attempting to ingore what I am saying.

NO man may marry another Man, and NO woman may marry another woman. EQAUL. As I said, I understand why they don't like it, but that does not make it unequal. There is lots of laws I don't like, but they are equal accross the board.

I understand your argument...and I am not ignoring what you are saying.

I do not believe that argument holds weight...for exactly the reason I have previously stated.

You, as a heterosexual man are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. Heterosexuals...just by definition...generally enter into relationships with the opposite sex. As a heterosexual...you are then allowed legally to marry your loved one.

However, homosexuals are denied the right to legally marry their loved ones...simply because the people who they love happen to be of the same sex.

Until homosexual couples are granted the same rights as heterosexual couples...the legal right to marry who they want and love...then it CANNOT be equal.

You are able to do something they can't.

It doesn't matter if you don't have the right to marry a man...because you would never want to marry someone of the same sex. You already have the right to marry the person you love.

A homosexual person does not have that right. Period.

 

[Master Mason]

That's Master's plan, he wants the government to make the people call it
whatever they like even tho the federal government calls it marriage.

It's got somethin' to do with makin' everybody happy or somethin' like that, I ain't figured it out yet.

What if the religious come up with the idea that callin' marriage civil union is re-defining marriage again?

NO that is not my plan, my plan is listed below. It's the same thing I have been saying all along. The federal government should not be calling it marriage, the marriages should be left to the churches.

Well, If I was a one man decision making machine, I would pass a law that says all references to marriage in the codes of the US are hereby converted to Civil Unions. Civil Unions would be open to any to legal adults that wish to form a Civil Union. Any existing marriages on the books would be grandfathered in and serve as Civil Unions for the purposes of the laws.

Then if you wanted to get Married, you should go find yourself a church that will marry you. But the state would issue Civil Union papers and no longer issue Marriage licences to anyone.

ETA after you have formed your civil union, I couldn't care less what you call it to yourself and your friends, but on the books it would be a civil union.

 

[Purseval]

Every single person who voted for Prop. 8 is equally responsible.

That's not the point Keith Olbermann was trying to make, which gets us back to the beginning of the thread and as good a place as any to end it, unless I see something new pop up. Let others have at it for a while.

 

[Goofyluver]

Think of all of the progressive little lives that have been snuffed out since Roe v. Wade, probably enough to have easily shot down Prop. 8. Again, you showed those baby-having evangelicals who was boss

 

[Purseval]

NO that is not my plan, my plan is listed below. It's the same thing I have been saying all along. The federal government should not be calling it marriage, the marriages should be left to the churches.

Actually, when I went down to Peru to get married (one of those nasty interracial marriages I would have voted against if I had lived 80 years ago, according to one poster) that's exactly how they run things. Peru is an extremely religious country but, according to the government, you are considered "married" the minute you sign your license. Everything else is just a ceremony.

 

[Goofyluver]

That's not the point Keith Olbermann was trying to make, which gets us back to the beginning of the thread and as good a place as any to end it, unless I see something new pop up. Let others have at it for a while.

I wasn't responding to Keith Olbermann. I was responding to your post.

 

[Master Mason]

I understand your argument...and I am not ignoring what you are saying.

I do not believe that argument holds weight...for exactly the reason I have previously stated.

You, as a heterosexual man are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. Heterosexuals...just by definition...generally enter into relationships with the opposite sex. As a heterosexual...you are then allowed legally to marry your loved one.

However, homosexuals are denied the right to legally marry their loved ones...simply because the people who they love happen to be of the same sex.

Until homosexual couples are granted the same rights as heterosexual couples...the legal right to marry who they want and love...then it CANNOT be equal.

You are able to do something they can't.

It doesn't matter if you don't have the right to marry a man...because you would never want to marry someone of the same sex. You already have the right to marry the person you love.

A homosexual person does not have that right. Period.

And if I suddenly had a change of heart, or wanted a marriage of convience with someone of the same sex, I couldn't have it either, so yes it is equal.

Again, I understand why the gay community doesn't like it, but it is infact equal.

But your not going to agree with me and I am not going to agree with you. So lets stop going round and round on this.

 

[Goofyluver]

And if I suddenly had a change of heart, or wanted a marriage of convience with someone of the same sex, I couldn't have it either, so yes it is equal.

Again, I understand why the gay community doesn't like it, but it is infact equal.

But your not going to agree with me and I am not going to agree with you. So lets stop going round and round on this.

Fine.

Unless you say something else and I get a wild hair.

 

[Master Mason]

Fine.

Unless you say something else and I get a wild hair.

I hate it when I get those