I am more disturbed

[luvsTink]

I can only assume that gay marriage threatens something for some people...I just can't figure out what that is.

I need some clarity and I am interested how folks that want to ban marriage between two consenting adults finish this sentence:

Gay marriage should be illeagal because.....



I am not sure that saying that it is tradiion or been a law a long time is enough rationale for me. Clearly, women not voting was on the books a loooong time and a tradition as well. But, here we are...voting and everything.

If I don't agree with the laws and I am from another state, can I be sad? Just want to check in with those that say we shouldn't/can't be upset with a vote....want to make sure if my feelings should be different.

Anne

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by GaryAdams
just get over the schoolyard thinking.your never going to change a thing if you have to be childish about a loss.

Just thinking out loud - you can also be childish about a win.

look at the otherside,people cant understand why someone would want a same sex marriage?

If that's a question, I don't get it. BUT, if it's a statement - the other side has EVERY right to feel that same sex marriage is wrong. But why does that belief need to be inflicted on everyone? If same sex marriage were completely legal and goverment sanctioned, how would that affect those people that don't believe in it? Would it somehow encroach upon their rights?

why does someone need validation? what does that validation really give them?if they are really in love why do they need someone else to approve of it?

First of all, you'll notice how out of context this could completely apply to both hetero as well as homosexual couples? If you're posing that question regarding homosexual marriage, let me post the same question to you regarding heterosexual marriage.

But regardless, I can tell you EXACTLY why they want validation. Besides the very obvious emotional reasons of wanting everybody to know that they're two committed adults in a monogamous relationship - they want it because they then can share health care benefits, they serve as spouses in any life insurance settlements, all other insurance policies, pension funds, social security, home ownership - all of those rights that heterosexual couples probably take for granted.

Unless or until someone can prove that homosexuality is the same as race, i.e. it can't be chosen (and Anne Heche disproves the genetic theory) then there is no discrimination. And even if there was, then each state is free to re-define marriage. If it were a right there wouldn't be laws defining it.

Anne Heche disproves nothing. Anne Heche proves that bisexuality exists as well.

There is no way to scientifically prove that homosexuality is a pre-determined state. You want proof that gay people don't choose to be gay? You prove to me that a baby born today will have Alzheimer's disease in 70 years. Let's then go a step further.... perhaps we should just Constitutionally restrict certain rights of Alzheimer's patients. They're just vegetables trying to feed off the system, and take advantage of our tax dollars.

Sound foolish? That's about how foolish the constitutional banning of gay marriage sounds to me. There's no logical thought process to it because it doesn't affect ANYBODY any more than my wife's and my marriage.

 

[Keli]

Originally posted by CheshireVal
I see this as legislation of hate and intolerance. I'm ashamed to be an American today.

I don't agree that this is legislation of hate or intolerance and I also disagree with your last sentence. I am thrilled to be an American, today as I have always been in the past.

 

[Amberle3]

Since I'm in Canada I obviously didn't see the ballots, but I have some questions:

I did something about this question on the news last night, and somehow the way the question was worded made me think it was designed for a "yes" answer - I think what I heard was something along the lines of "should marriage be between a man an a woman" or some such thing. Now when I heard that, same-sex marriages didn't even occur to me.

Would the results have been different if it had been worded the other way around: Should the law be changed to allow for same-sex marriages?

And would the results be different if they were to limit these to civil marriages and not church marriages? (which would be contested in years to come anyway, but it's one of those "one small step" things).

Just curious. Like I said I didn't see the ballots.

 

[PolyConFan]

Originally posted by disneyjunkie


So 11 states can tell us how the majority of Americans feel?

If the same candidate won ONLY the following 11 states, those 11 states would tell us who our next president would be. So, yes...11 states can speak for America:
California 55
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Illinois 21
Michigan 17
New Jerse 15
New York 31
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Pennsylvania 21
Texas 34

Total: 280

 

[ToriLammy]

Originally posted by MaryAnnDVC
At the risk of sounding like former President Carter discussing issues with Amy , I asked the kids last night if they thought marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and they all (16, 14 and 11) said "no". At least I know I did something right in raising them.

Let's hope that the younger generation will be more accepting of people and a future vote will be in favor of same sex marriages.

As I stated on another thread my two teens (18 and 19) voting for the first time both voted against a definition of marriage and the amendment here in Oklahoma. Unfortunately our three votes were not enough to make a difference but that is the key to the future.

 

[delilah]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
I really don't get this country. Scared of progress and happiness. Looks like its going to be four more years of nothing.

Actually four more years of war, high gas prices, high unemployment. I wonder how high gas will be in four years. Two years ago, our gasoline bill was about $200/mo. This past bill was $500! We live in a rural area, we have to drive, nothing is close. My husband works in downtown Indianapolis, I work in Franklin, IN, but, I have two offices, which are 15 miles apart. (I live less than 2 miles from the second office, but my son attends parochial school across the street from my Franklin office). We could move to Franklin, but, it wouldn't change how much we drive, not really. I would drive less, but he would drive more.

 

[Tinks]

I don't agree that this is legislation of hate or intolerance and I also disagree with your last sentence. I am thrilled to be an American, today as I have always been in the past.

This is exactly how I would have felt if the tables were turned. Disappointed, but still happy to be an American and have the right to try and change things in an election.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by GaryAdams
so just what are you saying chad?

do gay couples need validation from others?

have you ever been in love?did you need someone else to approve of it?

help me out here, just what are you saying?


why dont you just get down to the point and say its all about the benefits?

i mean really if its just about validation or approvel from others is it really that important?

its a shame that someone would need a privilage to make themselfs feel better.





well has it been proven to be right?

Let's cut through the bull****. This is what's at stake with the gay marriage amendments.

1) Do you believe a person in a long standing gay relationship, who has built a home, built a business, took care of their partner for many years, shared life experiences, etc. should be barred from their partner's hospital bed, have half their home and business sold out from under them, have their written will challenged and discarded in court, lose all parental rights to a child they may've loved and raised, etc?

Yes or no.

That's it.

 

[Teejay32]

The people who oppose gay marriage often don't see it as being discriminatory. They just don't. If the same question was on the ballot in MA it probably would have passed here too....considering that the Democratic candidate for President from MA agrees with it, it's not hard to fathom.

I think the problem will take care of itself in time too.

 

[Indyman]

And really, Tony, if I want to marry my car, what's it to you?

Sure, you'll marry your car today, but at the first sign of trouble you'll dump that car for a new sexier car, or you'll start coveting you neighbor's acr just because they drive it with the top down. Worse yet, you'll buy a second car and marry it, too, and leave the first car out in the driveway while the new spouse goes in the garage. Or maybe you'll just have an affair with your bike on the weekends. It would be a traveshamockery of marriage as we know it.

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by Indyman
Sure, you'll marry your car today, but at the first sign of trouble you'll dump that car for a new sexier car, or you'll start coveting you neighbor's acr just because they drive it with the top down. Worse yet, you'll buy a second car and marry it, too, and leave the first car out in the driveway while the new spouse goes in the garage. Or maybe you'll just have an affair with your bike on the weekends. It would be a traveshamockery of marriage as we know it.

 

[bubie2.5]

1) Do you believe a person in a long standing gay relationship, who has built a home, built a business, took care of their partner for many years, shared life experiences, etc. should be barred from their partner's hospital bed, have half their home and business sold out from under them, have their written will challenged and discarded in court, lose all parental rights to a child they may've loved and raised, etc?

Yes or no.

That's it.

I don't think you'll find any answers here.

 

[caitycaity]

I hear ya RM.

I don't know what country I live in anymore.

ditto.

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by Amberle3
Would the results have been different if it had been worded the other way around: Should the law be changed to allow for same-sex marriages?

And would the results be different if they were to limit these to civil marriages and not church marriages? (which would be contested in years to come anyway, but it's one of those "one small step" things).

From what I've heard, the wording allows for "civil union" to come into play...someday. In some states.

Frankly, I'm disappointed as well. I've heard from a friend in Ohio that Ohio's ban actually hurts unmarried male/female couples as well.

 

[sha_lyn]

You know if I had been asked about this a few yrs ago I would have supported the "definition of marriage".
I'm kind of imbarrased to say part of what changed my mind was a TV movie. The one with the lesbian couple that had a child (one of them had artifical insemenation) and then she died (cancer?) a few yrs later. There was a battle between the grandparents and the "other" mother. That movie really got me to thinking.

I have a good friend who's father came out of the closet when she was a teen. He has been with his partner for a little over 20 yrs (several yrs longer than he was married to her mom). They are as "married" as any heterosexual couple I know. However If something happens to one of them, it is very possible that the other would not end up with their home, personal effects and business bacause their union is not "legal".

While I guess in some waya I understand the "marriage" thing (being I was raised southern baptist) I don't understand why anyone would oppose a civil union between same sex couples.

 

[Mom2Em]

IMHO, I am VERY proud to be an American... I am excited that over 60% of the American people voted!! Isn't that awesome?!

As for some of the issues passed, I find that I may not agree with everything but I RESPECT the right of the people to vote how they believe. I do believe that some votes cast were based on moral beliefs but I also think some were cast with the issues in mind. Some people voted by party, as well. But who am I to judge the reasons?

Please, remember, as much as we are responsible for voting, we are also responsible for educating ourselves and getting involved with the issues we feel strongly about.

 

[froglady]

Originally posted by sha_lyn

While I guess in some waya I understand the "marriage" thing (being I was raised southern baptist) I don't understand why anyone would oppose a civil union between same sex couples.

I agree; I feel that a gay relationship (unless it involves my DH) has no effect upon my marriage. I suspect that many people, even the majority of people, are not against same sex civil/social unions...they just have a problem with the word "marriage" being used, not the legal/emotional relationship. It's unfortunate that our vocabulary isn't able to keep up with social changes, and that there isn't a different term that is able to EQUALLY convey all of the social, legal, and emotional meanings involved in the word "marriage."



The baby boomers and elderly have seen their lives and "traditional" values changed and reshaped so many times, and have had terminology redefined so often, that they may be having a hard time accepting and adapting to more right now.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by CRB#33
You're ashamed to be an American ????

I do not agree with the idea of the homosexual lifestyle, but I sure don't "hate" any of them.

The far right is no better than the far left.

They are both intolerant and hateful in their own ways and this country needs to realize this.

The far right thinks they're right and everyone else is wrong.

The far left thinks the exact same thing.

We should be proud to be Americans and have the freedom to vote to whichever side we wish.

And that doesn't make ANY OF US WRONG.

And the truth shall set you free!

 

[Crankyshank]

I was supposed to be in my best friend's wedding this June. She was so happy and so excited that she found someone that "got her" and loved her in return.

She's seriously considering cancelling her wedding. She doesn't see the point of getting married now when it's just a matter of time before it becomes invalidated.

That makes me sadder than anything else.