Bush: "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

[destinie21]

What reason is that? Why does anyone want to get married? That's my point. Why do it in the first place? Getting married when you don't plan on raising kids with the person is like giving a fish a drink of water.

And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes, because no matter what we do, some group will always have an advantage over another. Absolute equality and democracy do not mix.

Like I said, it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political. How many homosexuals would rush out to get married once it's legal? A whole bunch I bet. How many of them will stay married? Not any more than straight or bi people, and I can guarantee you that. Gays aren't any more perfect than the rest of humanity, and thier relationships sure as hell aren't automatically more stable either.

I almost didn't respond only because I found this particular tpost to be asinine Yes we are talking about discrimination, and what you're saying sounds to me a whole lot like the "seprate but equal mentality" I can't speak for anyone but myself but I can tell you this the reason to me Marriage is a symbol of love and mutual commitment unlike any other and yes there's the benifits and the insurance and what have you but I don't think that anyone including the commander in cheif should be able to say no to that. Furthermore Bush and his whole group of bible fanatics want to throw around God and the bible and Sanctity and what not didn't the bible also say something about not coveting you neighbrs house (or oil reserves )

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Speaks

Bitchslapper does have a point, there is no way to erase discrimination, but you wanna know what? Unless we keep trying to fight it will only get worse! It wasn't that long ago that people were being attacked and killed (heck it still DOES happen) because they were gay, or black, or asian, ect. We can either move forward to less descrimination or stop fighting and let things degenerate backward, and no one wants that.

We want what marriage represents, love and commitment to your partner. Bitchslapper it seems to me like you have your own issues with marriage of any kind, which is fine. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and view on the matter. I (a bisexual) am currently dating a women and would like to marry her sometime along the road, and I feel horrible that many of my bisexual and gay friends are going through hell trying to fight for the right I have just because I happen to have found the right women rather then the right man. Thank god my state finally did something smart. Go Massachusets! (I can't believe I just supported the MA state government on anything...)

-Zergplex, a supporter of the Sanctity of (anal) Sex!

 

[fille]

Did any of you see the most recent Savage Love column? The writer took Dan Savage to task for giving marital advice if he was not married. His rather vicious response was right on point.

 

[69forever]

Why do gays and lesbians want to get married? For the same reasons that straight couples want to get married. Do homosexuals want to get in on all the "broken-home fun"? No, we want to get in on the 50% that aren't getting divorced. Who knows? We might just cause the divorce rate to lower.

It basically comes down to discrimination. Allowing even one right or privilege to be unconstitutionally denied to us is a horrible precedent to make. If we don't stand up for our own rights/privaleges, who will? If homosexuals were to say it's okay to deny marriage to us, then where does it stop? Who gets to draw the line, and where? Scary.

Unfortunately Bitchslapper (the handle fits your attitude) doesn't see the need for the legal bond neccessary to have equal rights under the law. Property ownership, insurance, pensions, recognition of the comittment between two people in love.

It does come down to discrimination and my unwillingness to stand back and let it happen without speaking out! And it is scary because there are plenty on the religous right who would applaud gays being marched off to the gas chambers...all in the name of a all loving God!!!

We either fight for our rights or lose them...simple as that.

 

[innocentone]

Sigh, we just have to accept that our Village Idiot got elected President........ that is until November..... So farthe ranking in my mind as to who I'd vote for is Dean ( I know hes a loudmouth and dosent always THINK before he speaks) then maybe Edwards, Lieberman scares me and Clark is WAY SCARY.... I like Dean because of his stance on GLBT rights, Women's issues, and Native American Issues all of which hit home with me.... you know he is the only canidate with a stance on Native Americans and honoring the treaties... and actually HELPING Natives insted of handing them a casino license....

Sorry bit of a rant

 

[MzChrista]

Aside from the fact that IMO the most common concept of marriage (or civil union, whatever you prefer) is obsolete, my question is this: Why do gays and lesbians want to get married? As it stands now, there is a 50% divorce rate (approx.) in the U.S., so do homosexuals want to get in on all the broken-home fun or what?

And another thing, if it's about children, then that's not a good reason either because single people are allowed to adopt children, so marriage really isn't required anymore by us as a society to provide a stable environment for the child(ren).

And lastly, if all they want is to live together and 'prove thier love' for each other, why don't they just write up a mutually-binding contract that says as much if they don't trust each other without a piece of paper? It's all part of the flawed concept that when you fall in love you get married (or civilly united or whatever). The only reason marriage was created was to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, and as I stated earlier, that is no longer required by us as a society.

I think it's just a part of the "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" mentality. It's not enough that we live and let live, do unto others, etc. and just accept them, we have to praise them [sarcasm]for having the courage and fortitude to do something so bold and outside the mainstream[/sarcasm] or something. Or maybe some of them even think they're superior and insist that we acknowledge it.

But we are here and we are queer.

See, its like this. I personally have no desire to get married. But who the fuck should be able to tell me I cant marry my girl if I decide to change my mind?

 

[MissTaken]

The legal meat of marriage falls into the civil union. Divorce is the breaking and ending of that contract.

Civil union is a contract between two people, hence, marriage is for the most part a contract between two people.

The government has no right to determine who enters into contracts with whom and certainly not as far as marraige is concerned.

Can GWB tell Kentucky Fried Chicken they cannot enter into a contract with McDonald's to sell the Colonel's Secret Recipe? No, nor should they.

I know gay couples who have stood against the storms of time and stress on their relationship, are raising children together and are sharing the responsibility of maintaining a home etc together. They cannot recieve the benefits of being married, i.e. health insurance, pensions and a myriad of things already mentioned, nor can they legally acknowledge their commitment to one another by sharing the same name.

And yes, for some, sharing a name and being married is a special bond between two people who love one another.

Off topic: Gay adoptions? Well as single parents can adopt, gay couples become parents with only one of the two being acknowledged as the legal guardian. AGain, a family is created without the benefits of being a family.

 

[69forever]

The legal meat of marriage falls into the civil union. Divorce is the breaking and ending of that contract.

Civil union is a contract between two people, hence, marriage is for the most part a contract between two people.

The government has no right to determine who enters into contracts with whom and certainly not as far as marraige is concerned.

Can GWB tell Kentucky Fried Chicken they cannot enter into a contract with McDonald's to sell the Colonel's Secret Recipe? No, nor should they.

I know gay couples who have stood against the storms of time and stress on their relationship, are raising children together and are sharing the responsibility of maintaining a home etc together. They cannot recieve the benefits of being married, i.e. health insurance, pensions and a myriad of things already mentioned, nor can they legally acknowledge their commitment to one another by sharing the same name.

And yes, for some, sharing a name and being married is a special bond between two people who love one another.

Off topic: Gay adoptions? Well as single parents can adopt, gay couples become parents with only one of the two being acknowledged as the legal guardian. AGain, a family is created without the benefits of being a family.

That is probably THE most succinct reasoning and explanation that I have heard yet!!!

Thank you for that...it sums up my feelings about love and committment between two people, no matter the gender, and the discrimination faced in expressing and living that love.

 

[Pookie]

What reason is that? Why does anyone want to get married? That's my point. Why do it in the first place? Getting married when you don't plan on raising kids with the person is like giving a fish a drink of water.

And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes, because no matter what we do, some group will always have an advantage over another. Absolute equality and democracy do not mix.

Like I said, it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political. How many homosexuals would rush out to get married once it's legal? A whole bunch I bet. How many of them will stay married? Not any more than straight or bi people, and I can guarantee you that. Gays aren't any more perfect than the rest of humanity, and thier relationships sure as hell aren't automatically more stable either.

Are you asking why people want to get married? They do for quite a number of reasons. Not all couples plan to have children, but still seek out marriage for their own reasons.

I assume that your point is, "why do it in the first place?" Besides the emotional and symbolic reasons, here is why (info from Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund) ...

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
- and more

Do you still think it's like "giving a fish a drink of water"?

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

"And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes, because no matter what we do, some group will always have an advantage over another. Absolute equality and democracy do not mix."

Your argument that homosexuals shouldn't fight for a privilege that is denied to them in violation of the US Constitution because "absolute equality" isn't possible is ludicrous. Interracial couples were denied the privilege to marry with many of the same arguments used against homosexuals. Should they have stopped fighting discrimination against them that violated the US Constitution because "absolute equality" isn't possible? Or because marriage isn't worth it ... in your eyes?

What if homosexuals weren't allowed to drive. Should the Government continue to deny homosexuals the privilege to drive too? Not all drivers will have a perfect safety record. We could just ride bicycles, you know. Allowing homosexuals (especially those without kids) to have a drivers license would be like giving a fish a glass of water ... according to your logic.

I hope you're not as wishy-washy with the other rights and privileges you have, if they're ever threatened. Just because every marriage may not be successful doesn't mean it's not treasured by those for who it is successful.

 

[glamorilla]

you go pookie.

i didn't see the whole speech.

when he said the only way to protect our children from getting sexually transmitted diseases was through abstinance i found myself wishing there was a way i could reach into the television screen and smack him in the head.

 

[College_geek]

you go pookie.

i didn't see the whole speech.

when he said the only way to protect our children from getting sexually transmitted diseases was through abstinance i found myself wishing there was a way i could reach into the television screen and smack him in the head.

I'm a follower of abstinance by my own choice, not by religion or what someone else tells me to, and yes, abstinance is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs, BUT that's really ignorant for him to say it's the ONLY way. I don't think he trusts my generation to protect ourselves from things like that. (Then again, if I had his daughters, I probably wouldn't trust them either, the little skanks ) If we choose to have sex, that's our own business, and hopefully we'll all be smart and use condoms, birth control pills, and other forms of protection.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I don't believe in marriage, but I believe in people's right to get married to whatever gender they want.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Congratulations everyone for completely missing my point and assuming I'm an asinine bigot. I am approaching the issue logically, not emotionally. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for all of you.

In short, I agree with Svenskaflicka (sp?).

 

[Pookie]

Congratulations everyone for completely missing my point and assuming I'm an asinine bigot. I am approaching the issue logically, not emotionally. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for all of you.

In short, I agree with Svenskaflicka (sp?).

I didn't miss your point. I addressed it directly. There was little logic involved in your post, other than to basically say that you disagreed with the idea of marriage and you thought that our fight for it was only political. I gave logical reasons for why homosexuals should fight for it, based on laws that are in existance. Your logic was incomplete and inaccurate at best for the claim you made. If anything, it was quite misdirected logic for the topic of the thread. Also, you leap to a conclusion that isn't supported by the logic you did present.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I lept to no conclusions whatsoever. I'd like you to tell me what conclusion you think I made. Why did you not say why my logic is incomplete or inaccurate? I think it's because you merely disagree with my opinion, but you feel the need to disprove what I've said based on facts. That is ridiculous of course, because no one's opinion is right or wrong, that is whay they are "opinions," despite what you'd like to believe.

In any case, I never said it was purely political. Quote me where I said that.

As far as I can tell, the topic is gay marriage. I wasn't exactly talking about T-bone steaks, so again, tell me where I said anything that was off-topic.

But regardless of the conclusions YOU have lept to about what I've said, I still support equal rights for everyone.

 

[Adrenaline]

BS, I must say you have me wholly confused and was wondering if you could perhaps restate your point? You stated that you did not understand why gays wanted to get married and it was explained. You may not agree with it as you do not believe in marriage but a lot of other people do, despite the divorce rate, and the different attitudes to marriage was explained. I believe this is why people thought your argument was illogical: you judged the institution of marriage based solely on your opinion of it, completely excluding the possibility that people may not see it in a similar manner leading you to your questions as to why. Outside of the emotional, sentimental and societies general attachment to ceremonies, the practical benefits were also mentioned. Where is the misinterpretation here?

You also stated that you did not accept the point about "discrimination" because there will never be complete equality. This is true, but does that mean we shouldn't strive to be as equal as possible? I don't think that the goal of allowing gay marriages is completely out of the realm of possibility. You have made it clear that you support equal rights for everyone and it is understandable why you question this particular issue as you don't believe in marriage. However the decision to ban gay marriages comes from the premise that gay relationships, and consequently gay people, are not as important or as valid as heterosexuals. Regardless of your view on marriage I am sure you disagree with this idea, so why question the point made about discrimination?

Then you concluded that it was simply "just to make a point...it's political."

Like I said, it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political.

If this is not the conclusion you came to based on your opinion, then what is it? I am sincerely curious as you obviously don't view it as such.

I think previous posts have made arguments to show you the benefits many feel marriage provides, even outside the benefits and the fight for equal rights. That it's beyond "making a point".

In short, I think Svenskaflicka expressed him/herself much better than you did, even though you both share the same opinion.

 

[Pookie]

I lept to no conclusions whatsoever. I'd like you to tell me what conclusion you think I made. Why did you not say why my logic is incomplete or inaccurate? I think it's because you merely disagree with my opinion, but you feel the need to disprove what I've said based on facts. That is ridiculous of course, because no one's opinion is right or wrong, that is whay they are "opinions," despite what you'd like to believe.

I've no problem with you having an opinion. I only questioned what you claimed.

"What reason is that? Why does anyone want to get married? That's my point. Why do it in the first place? Getting married when you don't plan on raising kids with the person is like giving a fish a drink of water."

The inaccuracy of that is your belief that homosexual couples don't plan on raising children. That alone shows your ignorance of homosexual couples. Not all do, but many already are raising children, even without marriage.

Then after stating that absolute equality wasn't possible, you came to this conclusion ...

"Like I said, it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political."

Many of us posted reasons why you can't have the same benefits of marriage without marriage. But you didn't seem to read those, or you just didn't/couldn't grasp it. You have no foundation for your claim of it being just political.

In any case, I never said it was purely political. Quote me where I said that.

I'll quote you again ...

"Like I said, it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political."

As far as I can tell, the topic is gay marriage. I wasn't exactly talking about T-bone steaks, so again, tell me where I said anything that was off-topic.

But regardless of the conclusions YOU have lept to about what I've said, I still support equal rights for everyone.

You seemed to want to turn this into a discussion on the validity of marriage itself. At least your "logic" was rooted in your belief that marriage is obsolete. That alone is not a GLBT issue, and could be discussed better on the GB. Marriage exists ... we are by law denied the privilege. If you want to talk about ending straight marriage, you'll find that the GB is a more appropriate place to discuss it. I recommend that you get a much better understanding of the numerous benefits (social, emotional, and legal) that are only obtainable through marriage before you do though. Your ignorance is glaring on that topic as well.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I said that we'll never have true equality, but I never said we shouldn't strive for perfection. Anyone who knows me would not make the assumption that I was implying such an illogical proposition. From the pursuit of perfection (an unattainable goal) comes progress.

Pookie, when I mentioned that it was pointless to get married if you didn't plan on raising children, I was refering to all couples, not merely homosexual couples. Some would say this was already quite clear when asked why ANYONE would want to get married, but as you have proved time and time again, you fail to respond to logic.

And I never said it was PURELY political. I never used the word "purely." I said it was political, that is all.

Ok folks, let me tell you something right now. I don't hint at things or imply them, so you don't need to read nything extra into what I say. Read what it says and respond accoordingly if you wish. Do NOT assume, do NOT infer, do NOT put words in my mouth.

Never mind. Leave me alone, you're embarassing all of us. I don't know why I even try anymore.

 

[Pookie]

I said that we'll never have true equality, but I never said we shouldn't strive for perfection. Anyone who knows me would not make the assumption that I was implying such an illogical proposition. From the pursuit of perfection (an unattainable goal) comes progress.

The little knowledge you displayed of the whole subject of marriage is what lead me to believe your ignorance was much broader. You said,

"And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes, because no matter what we do, some group will always have an advantage over another. Absolute equality and democracy do not mix."

It's not a leap to infer that you meant we shouldn't fight for homosexual marriage, especially since you were basing things on your belief that marriage is obsolete. Why fight for something you view as obsolete? Where is the logic in that? You've already dismissed fighting discrimination as the reason with statements like, "And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes". Why fight for something you view as just political?

Pookie, when I mentioned that it was pointless to get married if you didn't plan on raising children, I was refering to all couples, not merely homosexual couples. Some would say this was already quite clear when asked why ANYONE would want to get married, but as you have proved time and time again, you fail to respond to loigc.

I'll respond to logic when I see it from you. Actually, I did read it as "everyone" the first time I replied extensively to your post. I misinterpreted your meaning in my last post. My bad. However, your "logic" is still very poor and provides no foundation for what you claimed.

And I never said it was PURELY political. I never used the word "purely." said it was political, that is all.

I never said that you used the word "purely" either. You're the one that said,

"it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political."

Notice the word "just" in all of that?

You've yet to provide any logic that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that our fight for homosexual marriage is "just" to make a point, that "it's political." You've yet to provide any logic that we "really don't want gay marriage."

You're the one that stated, "It's political" ... not that "it's partially political" or "it's political, among other things." You're the one below saying, "Do NOT assume, do NOT infer, do NOT put words in my mouth." You can't have it both ways.

Ok folks, let me tell you something right now. I don't hint at things or imply them, so you don't need to read nything extra into what I say. Read what it says and respond accoordingly if you wish. Do NOT assume, do NOT infer, do NOT put words in my mouth.

Then state what you mean clearly, and we will NOT have to try to interpret what you mean next time. If you can NOT do that, then all we have left is your words, and to interpret what you meant within the context of what you are replying to. However, I reserve my right to make inferences all I want on what anyone posts here.

Never mind. Leave me alone, you're embarassing all of us. I don't know why I even try anymore. I should just shoot my mouth off emotionally like everyone else.

You've embarrassed yourself enough. You toss off all of our responses as emotional and completely missing your point. You're doing a fine job of shooting your mouth off emotionally already.

Still think it's like giving a fish a drink of water?

 

[Adrenaline]

Ok folks, let me tell you something right now. I don't hint at things or imply them, so you don't need to read nything extra into what I say. Read what it says and respond accoordingly if you wish. Do NOT assume, do NOT infer, do NOT put words in my mouth.

I'm not sure if any part of your post was directly in response to mine, but I do think that I tried my best to take your words as is, gave you my take on it, and asked you to clear up any misinterpretations. I don't see any evidence of me being overly emotional, if at all, in my post.

Your general lack of coherency and clarity in your responses after people replied to your initial arguments leaves me to believe that you aren't interested in any worthwhile discussion on your views. No biggie.

 

[Bitchslapper]

The little knowledge you displayed of the whole subject of marriage is what lead me to believe your ignorance was much broader. You said,

"And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes, because no matter what we do, some group will always have an advantage over another. Absolute equality and democracy do not mix."

It's not a leap to infer that you meant we shouldn't fight for homosexual marriage, especially since you were basing things on your belief that marriage is obsolete. Why fight for something you view as obsolete? Where is the logic in that? You've already dismissed fighting discrimination as the reason with statements like, "And if we're talking about discrimination, well that's just full of holes". Why fight for something you view as just political?




I'll respond to logic when I see it from you. Actually, I did read it as "everyone" the first time I replied extensively to your post. I misinterpreted your meaning in my last post. My bad. However, your "logic" is still very poor and provides no foundation for what you claimed.




I never said that you used the word "purely" either. You're the one that said,

"it's just to make a point. You really don't want gay marriage, otherwise you'd just get a civil union and save yourself the heart trouble. It's political."

Notice the word "just" in all of that?

You've yet to provide any logic that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that our fight for homosexual marriage is "just" to make a point, that "it's political." You've yet to provide any logic that we "really don't want gay marriage."

You're the one that stated, "It's political" ... not that "it's partially political" or "it's political, among other things." You're the one below saying, "Do NOT assume, do NOT infer, do NOT put words in my mouth." You can't have it both ways.




Then state what you mean clearly, and we will NOT have to try to interpret what you mean next time. If you can NOT do that, then all we have left is your words, and to interpret what you meant within the context of what you are replying to. However, I reserve my right to make inferences all I want on what anyone posts here.




You've embarrassed yourself enough. You toss off all of our responses as emotional and completely missing your point. You're doing a fine job of shooting your mouth off emotionally already.

Still think it's like giving a fish a drink of water?

You just can't stand to have someone disagree with you, you have to make them submit.

So what if it's political? I never implied that means it's less important. I think you're just bent on making me look bigoted and homophobic, otherwise you wouldn't keep twisting my words.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I'm not sure if any part of your post was directly in response to mine, but I do think that I tried my best to take your words as is, gave you my take on it, and asked you to clear up any misinterpretations. I don't see any evidence of me being overly emotional, if at all, in my post.

Your general lack of coherency and clarity in your responses after people replied to your initial arguments leaves me to believe that you aren't interested in any worthwhile discussion on your views. No biggie.

actually, it's quite clear that none of you are interested in a civilized, worthwhile discussion, otherwise I would not have been attacked and insulted.

 

[Pookie]

You just can't stand to have someone disagree with you, you have to make them submit.

So what if it's political? I never implied that means it's less important. I think you're just bent on making me look bigoted and homophobic, otherwise you wouldn't keep twisting my words.

I didn't twist your words. I quoted them. Sheesh.

Make up your mind what it is you believe, and get back with us sometime.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Excuse me for keeping an oen mind. Of all places, I would think that concept would be accepted on the GLBT board. Guess not...

I'll get back to you if I ever become as judgemental, intolerant and blindly opinionated as you.

 

[Pookie]

Excuse me for keeping an oen mind. Of all places, I would think that concept would be accepted on the GLBT board. Guess not...

I'll get back to you if I ever become as judgemental, intolerant and blindly opinionated as you.

An open mind is one thing ... a muddled one is another. I just disagreed with you is all, as many others did. You're the one that got all upset because your post was questioned. While you figure out what you believe, do a little growing up too.