dontamend.com

[epicstruggle]

@natoma: I have no problems with gays/lesbians having the same rights/protections/benefits in a "civil union" as a "marriage" for a man and a women. I dont think it appropriate for marriage to include gays and lesbians. Sorry just my opinion.

Also if you think gays and lesbians shouldnt be discriminated against in the issue of marriage, why cant polygamists also legally get married to. Or you dont mind discrimination agains polygamists? Please dont use some silly argument of taxes or inheritance laws. Id like to hear what you think of legalizing polygamy.

later,

 

[Natoma]

I see nothing wrong with polygamy. I merely stated why it's currently illegal. If a man wants to get married to multiple wives, or a woman wants to get married to multiple husbands, or a man wants multiple husbands or a woman wants multiple wives, so be it. I can see where there would be legal problems wrt inheritance and taxes (which is one of the reasons why it was made illegal in the first place), but I don't have any problem with it whatsoever.

Praise the mormons.

 

[Natoma]

I will guarantee the church I was raised in will never ever accept your lifestyle, or that you and your partner are married in the eyes of God.

Period, end of story.

That is your church. Not all churches. Frankly I'm not a religious person, but I understand the relational implications associated with marriage.

And let us be sure here. Marriage is not a judeo-christian construct. It is not a religious construct. Marriage has been around since the dawn of time in different forms, some of which were religious in nature, others not.

You can rail against it, call it wrong, pigheaded, etc. But it won't change the fact that they won't accept your status as married. It is fundamentally against what is written in the Bible.

Your equation to interracial marriages doesn't compare because there is no fundamental equation with intermingling of the races and what is prohibited in the bible.

So is eating pork. So is a woman going out of her house while she's menstruating. So is eating fish on any day other than Friday. Those same abominations are listed in the same chapters that it outlaws homosexuality. They are fundamentally against what is written in the Bible.

I suppose we should create a law stopping the eating of bacon.

http://www.godhatesbacon.com

And actually there are quite a few passages in the bible that have been used to support everything from misogny to slavery to a prohibition against interracial coupling.

And let's not forget that timeless dissent by the judge in Loving vs. Virginia case in which he stated that interracial coupling upsets god's natural law and would bring about the downfall of the institution of marriage and civilization itself.

Sound familiar?

But, ya know what? I wouldn't care if a group of people DID demand that marriages were only between two white bread crackers. The government has no business redefining religious beliefs to further social engineering. I ESPECIALLY don't like the supreme court redefining religious activity by fiat.

Fine. If you want marriage to be solely a religious construct, then all rights and priviliges associated with marriage are now defunct. If you get married, it will not be recognized by the government in the same exact way that if you get baptized, it is not recognized by the government.

Now if you want governmental recognition for your relationship, then you should enter into a civil union. But marriage, if it's a religious construct as you're saying, should be completely innocuous wrt the government. There is no more marital status anymore. There is only civil union status.

But that will not happen, and you know it just as well as I do. Nor is that my wish.

 

[Natoma]

Sorry. Can't do it. I don't have the same respect for your relationship.

And that, in elegant summation, is the problem. Lack of respect. I'm still in disbelief that you and Vince actually compared my relationship with Eddie to beastiality. That people can possess that much contemptuous bile. It's truly disconcerting sometimes. But we press on nonetheless. And eventually, we will be able to marry, despite your protestations. That day is certainly coming, and probably sooner than some social conservatives wish.

It's times like this I wish you could actually meet eddie and me and see us live together. Sometimes people say the things they do because they're seeing a monolithic idea instead of the actual human beings. It's like the most homophobic people that turn around when all of a sudden they realize their son or daughter is gay, or their best friend. Sometimes it takes that personal interaction to open eyes. Maybe that's what it will take with you. Who knows.

 

[Tagrineth]

I'm still in disbelief that you and Vince

Vince is in this thread? Sorry, not taking part in the discussion, just curious about this.

 

[Legion]

I'm still in disbelief that you and Vince

Vince is in this thread? Sorry, not taking part in the discussion, just curious about this.

Maybe not but you sure are.

 

[Natoma]

I'm still in disbelief that you and Vince

Vince is in this thread? Sorry, not taking part in the discussion, just curious about this.

The beastiality comparison happened in a couple of other threads.

 

[notAFanB]

Besides, most people when they look at this know what the true impetus behind it is. So I don't think people really need that much education wrt this issue. I knew this would bring out the anti-gays but I posted it anyway because there are people here truly interested in equality for all our citizens. Those are the people this post is mainly directed towards, as I stated.

I don't and the language of the proposed amnedment is gooblygook to me (note, not an American). so some disection is beneficial.

throwing the 'stealth bigotry' card isn't exactly clarifying anything is it?

 

[Natoma]

Besides, most people when they look at this know what the true impetus behind it is. So I don't think people really need that much education wrt this issue. I knew this would bring out the anti-gays but I posted it anyway because there are people here truly interested in equality for all our citizens. Those are the people this post is mainly directed towards, as I stated.

I don't and the language of the proposed amnedment is gooblygook to me (note, not an American). so some disection is beneficial.

throwing the 'stealth bigotry' card isn't exactly clarifying anything is it?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gay+marriage+ban+constitution

That google link will provide many sources of information regarding this topic. In short, gay men and women are seeking the right to enter into the construct of marriage, and some politicians in this country are seeking a constitutional amendment to block that by specifically designating marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to exclude homosexuals from entering into said unions.

It also states that the individual states may not grant the status of marriage upon homosexual couples, nor can any state be forced to recognize a marriage of said couples.

Unfortunately what you deem 'stealth bigotry' is what many homosexuals such as myself and my partner deal with every day in this country and around the world. It is merely a fact of life.

 

[notAFanB]

got it thanks

 

[Natoma]

got it thanks

You're welcome.

 

[notAFanB]

right there seems to be a lot of subtletities I'm not getting but is this guy
serious?

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually -- or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist

 

[RussSchultz]

Natoma, you're obsfuscating the issue by insisting that the benefits currently associated with marriage are whats at stake with this amendment.

It quite plainly isn't. The only thing at stake is gays being able to force other people to call their civil unions marriages.

The website you point us to, and the petitiononline petition both are completely disingenuous about what this amendment will do. Both claim that it will invalidate the civil union statutes in Vermont. It does not. Those statutes do not call it a gay marriage, they call it a civil union.

Be honest with people and they might support you. The way it looks now, the homosexual political activists are lying and fear mongering to defeat a piece of legislature that doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on the world.

 

[Natoma]

Get one thing straight Russ. Civil Unions != Marriage in any way shape or form. Civil Unions, in their current construct, even in Vermont, are a "Separate but equal" creation that is obfuscatory by it's very existence. Civil Unions are not recognized across the country. Civil Unions do not confer the benefits (what few there are) across the country.

Eddie and I are in a domestic partnership with one another in NYC. However, any other place and our domestic partnership is not recognized. This is obviously a situation of "Separate but equal" whereby equal rights are supposed in nature, and nonexistant in implementation. We want the full rights accorded to marriage and the full recognition of those rights and that relational status.

The word itself, marriage, is merely a syntactical argument of definition. A mass masturbatory exercise is fear, uncertainty, and doubt by social conservatives that recognizing "gay marriage" will somehow lead to the destruction of society as we know it. Keep your word "Marriage". Fine. But we still want the respect, rights, and dignity conferred by that word.

All I ask is that when I walk down the street with Eddie we can be proud of who we are and what we have together, and not have a society that is so bigoted that it cannot see past its own nose when the mere notion of conferring the same rights and priviliges and status upon us makes it cringe with fear and terror at the destruction of the very "moral fabric" to which we all cling.

There is nothing but complete honesty here. People will support "us" simply because they believe that we should all be conferred with the same rights and protections that everyone else has. Marriage is an institution that means love, family, committment, monogamy, partnership, etc. Why you are so frightened by the mere notion that Eddie and I wish to partake in that very governmental/societal construct is mind boggling and disheartening.

 

[notAFanB]

so do you think that the definition might need a (legal) alteration. if not then what might possibly be the side effects/offshoots in American law as it stands.

Note: myabe this needs another thread.

 

[RussSchultz]

Really? reading the laws on Vermon civil unions, they provide the exact benefits of marriage in the state of Vermont.

And you're saying that these petitions aren't lying? Or that its an unimportant lie considering the greatness of the percieved goal?

Get one thing straight: Your incessant "race" baiting and fear mongering is completely misdirected and is getting quite tiresome. I don't have a problem with you and your man recieving the benefits associated with a legal "marriage" (which I will refer to as a civil union). I simply beleive your goal to redefine a term to suit your need for superficial acceptance at the expense of others' religous beliefs is egotistical is the extreme and doomed to failure.

 

[Natoma]

Really? reading the laws on Vermon civil unions, they provide the exact benefits of marriage in the state of Vermont.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. In one state and one state only are those rights recognized at the moment. Eddie and I are not citizens of Vermont. If we get a civil union in Vermont, those rights do not extend to New York, our home state.

Thus, in its current construct, Civil Union != Marriage. If you get married in Vermont, your marriage is recognized nationwide. If eddie and I get a civil union in Vermont, our union is not recognized nationwide.

Separate but equal indeed.

 

[RussSchultz]

If I get a fishing license in texas, it doesn't extend to louisiana. What kind of shit is that?

 

[Natoma]

so do you think that the definition might need a (legal) alteration. if not then what might possibly be the side effects/offshoots in American law as it stands.

Note: myabe this needs another thread.

Which definition in particular?

 

[Natoma]

If I get a fishing license in texas, it doesn't extend to louisiana. What kind of shit is that?

You're honestly going to try and compare a fishing license not being recognized in another state to my union with my partner..........................