I am more disturbed

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
Well, unfortunately, 2/3 of Ohio disagreed with you, and now we can't have civil unions either, for anyone, gay or hetero.

Then I'll cross Ohio off my list of potential states to move to. That's too bad. But, that's democracy.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Then I'll cross Ohio off my list of potential states to move to. That's too bad. But, that's democracy.

Of course, we're not supposed to BE a democracy.

 

[kadaten]

Originally posted by tonyswife
How very sad that people think it is supposed to be "majority rules, get over it" The constitution was created to protect individuals from mob rule. A pure democracy is a nightmare and I'm glad we don't live in one, but it seems like we are slipping ever closer to one with every single election.

In regards to gay marriage...well marriage should not be in the realm of the government, federal, state or local, at all. It is a primarily religious institution that we have made into a quasi-contractual relationship. People who wish to marry in a church or whatever should do so. If a couple wishes to make legal arrangements about inheritance, custody, etc.. they should have to hire a lawyer and hammer out the details themselves.

Sad, sad, sad. Not because of what it says about how people feel about homosexuals, but because of how it shows that people are willing to use the force of government to impose their morals on the rest of the population.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Glad I read the whole thread before trying to reply!

I think "marriages" should be handled by the church. Period. (And for those of you who care, I am not fervently religious....really a lapsed Catholic who doesn't currently attend any church.)

I think all LEGAL stuff should be handled by the government, for ANY type of couple. Be they civil unions, legal unions, civil partnerships, whatever you want to call them.....the LEGAL ramifications of domestic partnerships of any sort should be handled by the state....custody rights, beneficiary rights, powers of attorney (medical and otherwise), etc.

My DBrother is gay. He and his partner have been together longer than I have been married (9 years). He and his DP have as loving and committed relationship as my DH and I do. I find it horrible that should something happen to his DP, that he will not have the right to make his medical decisions; horrible that should something happen to DB, that DP won't be given any information (due to privacy acts limiting information to spouse and/or family); horrible that should something happen to one, the other will have no right to inherit everything they've built together; horrible that one's will naming the other as beneficiary could be thrown out; horrible that they are not allowed to provide health insurance to the other; horrible that they are PREVENTED from taking care of each other in a mutually supporting way by laws specifically meant to prevent them from forming unions or partnerships.

And to be QUITE honest, I could NEVER live with my DB as long as his DP has! (We were like most brothers and sisters...fought incessantly!) ANYONE who puts up with him so well for so long deserves the benefits/privileges of a legal union of some sort!!!!

 

[kadaten]

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.

Um....correct me if I'm wrong here....but doesn't that sound like a lot of HETEROsexual marriages these days? IF not, where do they get the fodder for much of day-time television talk shows???
So, tell me again, how would that be different?

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by MikeB63
IMO homosexuality is morally wrong and not natural.

Immoral, fine, but "not natural" gave me a chuckle. Homosexuality is in every culture on earth, it is as old as cavemen. Like it or not, it's more "natural", in the instinctual sense, than most things on Earth.

 

[tonyswife]

And where oh where did we come up with the idea that modern American marriage is about reproduction? It is not, how drool. It is about companionship and partnership. It is about pooling your intellectual, financial and emotional resources to make a better life for yourself.

 

[septbride2002]

And where oh where did we come up with the idea that modern American marriage is about reproduction? It is not, how drool. It is about companionship and partnership. It is about pooling your intellectual, financial and emotional resources to make a better life for yourself.

THANK YOU! As someone who is on the fence about having children biologically this is my greatest fear. The next thing I know they will say that DH's and my marriage is not "natural"

~Amanda

 

[tonyswife]

What if California put an amendment on their ballot asking voters to decide whether or not to ban Christianity? I mean, if it passes, majority rules, get over it, and turn in your Bibles. Being in the in crowd in a pure democracy is cool, until the mob turns on you and decides to ban whatever it is YOU want to do practice.

 

[cati]

xx

 

[ginna74]

I'm tired of the use of the word "homophobe". Just because I believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged by our society, does not make me a homophobe. I have friends who are gay. Their chosen lifestyle is sinful. HOWEVER, I'm a sinner too! It's the acknowledgment of the sin, and the desire to sin less, that drives a wedge between those who voted for and against these amendments. Where do you draw the line here? People are born with all kinds of tendencies and preferences. It doesn't mean we should act on all of them!

I have the right to say I don't think that what you and people like you do is right at all. God will judge what "those" people do. I think it is moraly wrong to even attempt to infringe your beliefs on other people especially in something like this and for you to say they are wrong????. I think what you people do and people like you are "sinning" more then they will ever do. You are judging. And by trying to impede on there lifestle is just wrong no matter what you believe.

YES the laws are passed and it is a moot point. but what irks me is when people say I am not homophobic but I thinks they shouldn't have any rights either and they are sinning and will burn in H@LL because I know what God is thinking. Yes you (in general) may have friends but if you are thinking "boy I wish I could change this person or they are living in sin" and want to infringe your beliefs on this person because you know it is bad then yeh.


I believe I believe I believe.......What does that have to do with ANYTHING. You believe fine. by interfearing on other's lifestyle is just wrong. And now it is legal. Wonder how far slavery is from comming back as well. HEY don't roll those eyes, we can now interfere with who we can marry , and soon abortion will be illegal and the doctors offices will be observed and doctors will b arested women will be in jail and dead, so what is left? Slavery!


oh plus if you are something other then a christian then watch out!

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by cati
Sorry you feel this way, but I am happy with todays results. The people have spoken - now we must work together to unite. As I teach my children. As a baptist, we do not believe in homosexuality, it is wrong according to our Bible. BUT, I also teach them that the Bible says to "Love one another". We are not to hate gays, we may not agree with their life styles, we disagree with their actions - we do not hate them or dislike THEM. How can we show them what the Bible says if we are constantly calling them names or saying hurtful things to them.

But, I am happy with todays outcome.

Of course you're happy with the outcome, nothing has been taken from you. The Bible may call homosexuality wrong, but our laws are not supposed to be about what the Bible says, they re supposed to be about letting people do what they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by ginna74
so what is left? Slavery!

Well, the bible sure doesn't mind it

 

[ginna74]

yes that is right! but that can't be counted because.... well.... that part is ok to ignore

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Of course you're happy with the outcome, nothing has been taken from you. The Bible may call homosexuality wrong, but our laws are not supposed to be about what the Bible says, they re supposed to be about letting people do what they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else.

That was perfect!

I understand and empathize with those of you who have believe that homosexuality is immoral/wrong. I respect that this is your belief and I know you feel it deeply. But, to impose YOUR beliefs on other people IS just plain wrong. As an earlier poster said, you didn't HAVE to vote for it or against it. Leave it alone and let people decide what they want to do in their own bedrooms. It was my understanding that the ballots were not asking for religious approval of unions, merely civil approval. Certainly a church has the right to decide who it wants to marry before the eyes of God within their guidelines, but to exert religious beliefs on someone else's life is wrong. But you have now taken away security and peace of mind for many people. What would they have taken from you?

 

[septbride2002]

What if California put an amendment on their ballot asking voters to decide whether or not to ban Christianity? I mean, if it passes, majority rules, get over it, and turn in your Bibles. Being in the in crowd in a pure democracy is cool, until the mob turns on you and decides to ban whatever it is YOU want to do practice.

I love the way you think! And the next time I get into a conversation with a Religious Right wing about Gay Marriage I am going to use this as an example!

~Amanda

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by tonyswife
What if California put an amendment on their ballot asking voters to decide whether or not to ban Christianity? I mean, if it passes, majority rules, get over it, and turn in your Bibles. Being in the in crowd in a pure democracy is cool, until the mob turns on you and decides to ban whatever it is YOU want to do practice.

That would be a First Amdendment right violation. Repeat after me... Marriage is not a right.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
I too was saddened and discouraged by this. As Gary Adams said, the people have spoken and we now have no choice but to follow the law until we can change it.

It is interesting to me, however, that as much as the supporters are touting "the people spoke, quit whining", not one of them, with the exception of Tony, actually said why they support such a ban. Are they afraid to just come out and say "A couple consisting of two gay men is evil and doesn't deserve the same priviledges (note I do not use the word rights) as a hetro couple"?

And really, Tony, if I want to marry my car, what's it to you? There are dozens, hundreds even, of hetro couples out there today whom I look at and say "What were they thinking???" But it's none of my business, and neither does it affect me. So I move on down the road.

edited for abysmal grammar...

Just for the record, I agree completely with Tony, and think he was very well spoken.

I am for civil unions but against gay marriage. I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That said, I don't think gay or lesbian couples should be denied any benefits that married men and women have.

Personally, I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I also personally don't think it's a choice. I don't think those are the issues, though. Why can't some traditions remain? Why can't we have marriage reserved for men and women, and civil unions for other partnerships?

These aren't discriminatory pracitices. Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex, just as heteros can. Nobody asks sexual orientation when applying for a marriage license. That some hold certain beliefs -- even beliefs that homosexuality is a sin based on theology-- doesn't automatically make them bigoted.

I was in my sister's commitment ceremony. I supported both of them completely. We socialized regularly with both my sister (now deceased) and her partner. I am definitely not a bigot-- though I'm certain one or more of you will show your intolerance amd accuse me of being one!

 

[cati]

xx

 

[dmadman43]

The Bible may call homosexuality wrong, but our laws are not supposed to be about what the Bible says, they re supposed to be about letting people do what they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else

So we will soon be getting rid of drug and prostitution laws?

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by dmadman43
That would be a First Amdendment right violation. Repeat after me... Marriage is not a right.

Repeat after me, the constitution does not GIVE me rights and that the bill of rights are not the only rigts I have as a free human.