Reply
......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting The Doctor:" That's why, to me, the laws need to reflect that. It infuriates me when people try to pull the "this ... [snip!] ... was founded on Christianity" thing, as their argument why gay marriage should be illegal/not granted the same benefits/etc."


I just don't see why by the government that they CANT have the same benefits as a married couple. That to me seems silly. I mean if your living with someone for 10 years and something happens to your partner, it's like why would you not have a say?



That's my biggest thing about it all. I would prefer they not marry per my beliefs, but why does that mean they can't have the same benefits? It doesn't make any sense to me. Why do you actually have to be married to have the same benefits!

......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13

I need to get off this thing...I'm out for a while people.

The Doctor 2 kids; Whiskey d**k Mountain, WA, United States 59994 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting TheCoopersKnitWitch:" I just don't see why by the government that they CANT have the same benefits as a married couple. That ... [snip!] ... they not marry per my beliefs, but why does that mean they can't have the same benefits? It doesn't make any sense to me."


It doesn't to anyone that holds the belief that under the law they should have the same legal benefits, despite personal beliefs.



It's quite amazing, really, that even the supreme court is having a hard time on this one. Seems pretty cut and dry, but they have all kinds of batshit complicated legalities to waddle through, I guess.

......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting The Doctor:" It doesn't to anyone that holds the belief that under the law they should have the same legal benefits, ... [snip!] ... on this one. Seems pretty cut and dry, but they have all kinds of batshit complicated legalities to waddle through, I guess."


So then how much of this is actually about marriage and how much of it is giving benefits?

The Doctor 2 kids; Whiskey d**k Mountain, WA, United States 59994 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting TheCoopersKnitWitch:" So then how much of this is actually about marriage and how much of it is giving benefits?"


Both.



First of all, same sex couples want to be married, under the law, same as a heterosexual couple.



And once married, they want to have the same benefits (to be notified if their, now legal, spouse is killed overseas, for example.)



Like the woman who was against DOMA yesterday. She was legally married to her partner in the state of New York. Her partner died. But the federal law did not recognize their marriage (despite the fact that the federal government allows the states to decide whether or not they allow same sex marriage) and made her pay estate taxes which she would not have paid if she was married to a man.

......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting The Doctor:" Both. First of all, same sex couples want to be married, under the law, same as a heterosexual couple. ... [snip!] ... or not they allow same sex marriage) and made her pay estate taxes which she would not have paid if she was married to a man."


But wouldn't, if it was possible. Solve everyone's issues to come to a middle ground between Church and Government. Recognizing that these people do have a partnership that IS like a marriage, and therefore should get benefits as someone who is actually married.



And I'm not saying this completely right, and I'm hoping you can kind of read between the lines on it, but coming to a middle ground between the both of the subjects. So everyone is happy?

The Doctor 2 kids; Whiskey d**k Mountain, WA, United States 59994 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting TheCoopersKnitWitch:" But wouldn't, if it was possible. Solve everyone's issues to come to a middle ground between Church ... [snip!] ... can kind of read between the lines on it, but coming to a middle ground between the both of the subjects. So everyone is happy?"


But my question is why the government should have to meet in the middle with a church that not everyone in the US is part of?



Marriage is not exclusive to Christian heterosexual couples, but heterosexual couples (for most states).



And why should the legal term marriage be changed for same sex couples? Separate but equal is not equal, remember.

summerbabyX2 2 kids; Pennsylvania 4019 posts
28th Mar '13

ok, so I'm right then?
lol. So as I understand it marriage is today a LEGAL contract, no matter it's original intention. So then the Bible or any religion of any kind has no place in the argument for or agaisnt gay marriage, it's just a basic civil rights issue. So, to me it's ironic to see black preachers up there talking about how gays shouldn't have rights, shouldn't they understand equal rights more than anyone? Wasn't the Bible used as reason to discriminate back before the 1960's?

......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting summerbabyX2:" ok, so I'm right then? lol. So as I understand it marriage is today a LEGAL contract, no matter it's ... [snip!] ... they understand equal rights more than anyone? Wasn't the Bible used as reason to discriminate back before the 1960's?"


you can't dictates gays as a race though. That part isn't involved in this.



But otherwise your right. This shouldn't be seen as a civil rights issues. They are human beings, obviously, but being gay shouldn't be a race. A race would be a black person, or mexican, a person of that nature.



Unless I guess judgement comes down to claim them as a race.



to me claiming it's a race/civil rights issue, would be like saying something silly like if I was afraid of them, that's a race and we need to fix it. Kind of understand?



I don't know how to describe it, properly.

The Doctor 2 kids; Whiskey d**k Mountain, WA, United States 59994 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting TheCoopersKnitWitch:" you can't dictates gays as a race though. That part isn't involved in this. But otherwise your right. ... [snip!] ... would be a black person, or mexican, a person of that nature. Unless I guess judgement comes down to claim them as a race."


Civil rights isn't about race, it's a set of rights that protect and individual's freedom. From discrimination and repression, yes, but also freedom of privacy, speech, things of that nature.

......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting The Doctor:" Civil rights isn't about race, it's a set of rights that protect and individual's freedom. From discrimination and repression, yes, but also freedom of privacy, speech, things of that nature."


Yeah I just went and did some more googling to explain myself better.



It can be classified as a civil rights issue, but shouldn't be placed in the same place as a RACE, by saying blacks should understand, you're identifying civil rights with race. They're aren't a race though, but it can be defined as a civil rights issue.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+rights

The Doctor 2 kids; Whiskey d**k Mountain, WA, United States 59994 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting TheCoopersKnitWitch:" Yeah I just went and did some more googling to explain myself better. It can be classified as a civil ... [snip!] ... aren't a race though, but it can be defined as a civil rights issue. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+rights"


Yes, but I think what she was trying to say that any group that has fought for their civil rights may have an idea what it's like to challenge the laws and status quo. Not necessarily that race and same sex marriage are the same thing, KWIM?



I don't think she was saying that civil rights = race.

......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting The Doctor:" Yes, but I think what she was trying to say that any group that has fought for their civil rights may ... [snip!] ... necessarily that race and same sex marriage are the same thing, KWIM? I don't think she was saying that civil rights = race."


I do feel like it's an issue that other people are thinking about. Maybe not her.



DH has said that he has found articles where they're trying to identify it as a race, and to me that doesn't make sense.



I still stand by my beliefs, nothing I think will change that, like ever.



I just don't understand how 2 parties, that are so "involved" can't come to some middle ground somewhere and work this out. The Christians want to keep marriage holy and in the church, but they want equal rights and benefits. It's more of why can't we meet somewhere?



But then this is America, and that never happens. That may fall under world peace and that will never happen.

The Doctor 2 kids; Whiskey d**k Mountain, WA, United States 59994 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting TheCoopersKnitWitch:" I do feel like it's an issue that other people are thinking about. Maybe not her. DH has said that ... [snip!] ... meet somewhere? But then this is America, and that never happens. That may fall under world peace and that will never happen."


Ah, well I definitely disagree as calling it a race. I haven't read any of those articles.



Okay, but again, marriage is no longer a church institution, nor can it be if we're in America, since not everyone is Christian. Heterosexuals included. Are we going to make up 10 different classes of marriage based on your religion and gender, and have different types of marriage for every kind, heterosexuals included?



Religious-Christian-Hetero- Real Marriage
Religious-Other-Hetero- Some Kind of Marriage
Non-Religious-Hetero- Secular Marriage



Or are we going to realize that legal marriages are legal marriages, and the church can call their marriages holy marriages if they so choose?



I don't see why non-religious people have to come to a middle ground with the church when it is guaranteed in the constitution that they are free to be or not be whatever religion they want. Nowhere in the constitution is a church granted the freedom to dictate what religion everyone must follow, and therefore, the church's definition of marriage cannot be applied to legal marriages.

......................... Oregon 14226 posts
28th Mar '13
Quoting The Doctor:" Ah, well I definitely disagree as calling it a race. I haven't read any of those articles. Okay, but ... [snip!] ... what religion everyone must follow, and therefore, the church's definition of marriage cannot be applied to legal marriages."


It's still what I believe, and think that it should be. To me as being part of the belief I believe that being married in a church is best, and that's what marriage is supposed to be about.



I think more so way back when, before all the population, more and most marriages were christian based, and probably where the thinking comes from. Being married in a church.



And from a Christian stand point, we believe in the Bible and what it says, and it just goes that we believe it's destroying the sanctity of marriage by allowing them to call themselves married.



So again it's just all sides of the argument, the Christians want it kept Holy, you have the middle people who just probably don't care one way or another, and then those for it who see it as you do and they do, they want their rights to this issue.



And unfortunately, I don't think it will be something anyone will fully come to an agreement on.



But then I'm also on the same page of that I think it's annoying that I have to claim myself married to the government and why we should have to have it all filled out according to them when being married in a Church by a pastor in the eyes of God is good enough for me.



Now there's just to many rules.