How will gay marriage change the world?

One answer is connected to the liberal dual standard for sensitivity. Many religious people are very sensitive to the religious concept of marriage being the basis for human procreation (man-women-children). Yet their feelings are considered second rate in the mind of liberals and homosexuals. Nobody is fighting the idea of civil unions. The fight is centered on the insensitivity associated with hi-jacking a religious concept that dear to many. If you don't sympathize with the liberal chosen groups, the dual standard makes you the bad guy even when you the victim of a parasite.

What would happen if we hijacked gay terms and gave them a definition that insults the gays? According to the dual standard this would be wrong, since one can't do that to a liberal protected group. This can only be done to non-protected groups according to the dual standard.

I am for civil unions and believe the homosexuals needs to form their own traditions. This would demonstrate their sensitivity for others and can also lead to all the legal goals they seek. What they lose is the right to the dual standard.

I would guess this dual standard is needed by the democratic party to maintain social division. If the homosexuals want to be know for building a bridge then it is time to stop being a liberal parasite and be a self reliant host. I would have more respect since this is the high road.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Immigration has changed over the years. 100 years ago, immigrants coming here had to give up their life in another country to spend weeks in the bowels of a ship, coming over as steerage, risking hunger and sickness to get to the US. Once they got here they had to get a job and work hard to survive. Their children knew how much they had sacrificed, and generally worked hard to make sure their sacrifice was not a wasted one.

Nowadays immigrants can get to the US after a few hours of an airplane ride, where the worst thing they risk is bad airline food. And if they don't like it they can work for a few weeks at McDonald's and buy a ticket home. Or, if they stay, there is a much stronger support network that allows them to lose their job and not starve (or even lose their home.) It's a different world; immigrants don't need to take the same risks, or have the same level of commitment, they did years ago. Their children can echo that lack of commitment.

That's great; it's great that America still represents that kind of opportunity. But you've been here 50 years and still can't write in English coherently? I would suggest that immigrants of years past took learning the ways of their new country a bit more seriously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After all, since the religious already have gone to so much trouble to hi-jack what used to be purely a social contract in order to make it their own, It doesn't seem quite fair for someone else to come along and try and take it back, does it?

Does this also mean that if two atheists who can't have children and who had a civil ceremony should also not be considered as being married?

Or let's take the case of a Catholic and non-Catholic married by someone other than a priest. According the Catholic Church, this is an invalid marriage. Is the State being "insensitive" to Catholics when it deems such marriage as valid?

The problem with "many religious people" is that they feel entitled to go around treading on other people's feet in the name of their religion, but will squeal like a stuck pig if someone as much as scuffs their shoe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Back in the 1950's many religious people were very sensitive to the religious concept of preserving the God-given distinction between races, and did not want to usurp God's laws by allowing blacks to marry whites. Fortunately, their feelings were considered second rate in the minds of liberals - and the right to marry someone outside your race was upheld by the Supreme Court. We are all better off today because liberals decided to offend religious bigots who wanted to outlaw interracial marriage.

Yep. And in 1950, liberals made the conservatives who opposed interracial marriages the bad guys. Which they were.

Homophobes have been doing that for the past few hundred years. "Faggot" meant cigarette; homophobes hijacked that term and used it as a derogatory term for gays. Same thing goes for a great many other terms.

 

That's their (the religion's) issue. Marriage is not a strictly religious event. Atheists get married. If, say, a Christian denomination does not want to perform the ACT of marrying two people of the same gender, there is no one forcing them to. They can simply go elsewhere and get married by either:

A) a church that will marry them, or
B) any minister from any religion that is qualified and willing outside of a church, or
C) skip religion all together and go to the courthouse.

... of course, this is under the hypothetical situation that same-sex couples are actually allowed to get married.

There is nothing on a marriage certificate that says that the two people are bound together by God, at least not here in the US. The whole "united by God" thing is something added and recognized only by religion and the religious, not by the state. Therefore, the religions should not have a say in who is able to get married, while still maintaining their right of choosing to perform or not perform the ceremony within their own religions and places of worship. But to say that marraige should be denied to all people that fall within a certain catagory of which is transparent across many religions and/or the lack of (such as people of a specific race, orientation, hair color, etc) is not only unfair, it's controlling.

I don't like coffee. But am I going around and telling everyone else that they can't drink coffee because I don't like it? No. It's their life. Let them drink coffee if they want to. The same can be said for Chic-Fil-A and the recent scandal that came about regarding the CEO's comments against gay marraige and the fact that they have poured thousands of dollars into some very controversial and discriminating campaigns against gays. That guy has a right to say whatever he wants, and to do whatever he pleases with his money. That's his business. I don't necessarily agree with it... at all. Nor do I agree with the people that showed up on the "Support Chic-Fil-A Day". But I'm not telling people that they shouldn't eat there nor support them because of how I feel. No, that would be ridiculous of me to do. They have the right to do whatever they want. They have a right to disagree with me and my orientation. But I also have the right to not support them or eat at their establishment.

[This is purely hypothetical. I really do love coffee.]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, marriage is not just a religious concept. There's not much more to say about that. If that were the case and marraige WAS strictly religious, Atheists would be banned from getting married. And what say ye of gay Christians or Catholics that want to get married. Your argument suggests that there are only two contradictory and opposing sides to this issue: The Gays and The Religious, when in fact there are many gays who are religious. Where do they fall into this grandiose equation of yours?

"Gay terms"? Amuse me and share with us what exactly are some "gay terms"?

This is quite an absurd argument. You are stating that homosexuals need to "DEMONSTRATE" their sensitivity to others (assuming you mean the religious), when in fact it is usually the heterosexual religious crowd that would have gays put in concentration camps. Find me one source that shows where a homosexual has called for the extermination of heterosexuals. Get real or get lost, pal. You're losing this argument already.

Again, you're over-generalizing.

1) I've witnessed quite a few gay conservatives, all be them the minority in their own right.
2) As someone stated earlier in this thread (forgive me for not backtracking and finding out who), when conservatives start fighting for equal rights for gays as the "liberals" have, then you can start pandering this nonsense. Gays will take the side of whoever fights for them.

 

So what happens when both "partners" die, is their property going to be just taken by the state or who would get it, just curious?

 

I think common sense would dictate that the same thing would happen if both partners in a heterosexual couple die at the same time. When someone dies without a will it is known as dying “intestate.” State law requires that the property go through the probate process in order to have legal title properly transferred to the heirs. A representative, known as an administrator, is appointed by the probate court. The administrator’s job is to collect all of the claims against the estate, pay the creditors and then distribute all remaining property in accordance with the laws.

 

If people are against gay marriage, then they have the right not to marry gay people. IOW they have a right to make that choice for themselves. What they do NOT have the right to do is deprive other people of the right to make that choice for themselves. You have the right to be against anything you want and to refrain from it. But you DO NOT have the right to make others be against it and refrain from it.

 

Personally, I think marriage is an antiquated, outmoded and a highly overrated institution. It should go the way of the Dodo bird. It is a personal liability and a personal and public expense. I have been there done that, I wasn’t impressed. And I won’t do it again. There is nothing marriage can offer me that I want and cannot get on my own. To anyone seeking marriage, I can only pass on the old adage, be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.

 

I don't believe it will be long before freedom of choice is removed. I once argued for the right of a bakery to refuse service based on personal convictions. Many here argued against. The issue revolved around a gay couple and a wedding cake. Yes, if given the opportunity, they will force you to participate.

 

Businesses cannot refuse service to customers based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity. I thought that was well known. Guess not..

 

Kind of proves the point that we're not immune. Personal values often take a backseat to those of others. I see the same going that way for religious organizations in the future.

 

You can stay true to your personal values or political positions without discriminating against others. We do it everyday without asking, doing business with others whose values we have no clue about. Why would how you conduct business EVER need to reflect your disagreement with someone's personal values? Do you ask your plumber if he is for gay marriage or against abortion before you let him to fix your sink? Ofcourse not. Will Starbuck's inquire whether you are liberal or conservative before fixing you a latte? No..It is simply disingenuous to act like we are agreeing with someone's personal values or political positions because we choose to do business with them. Besides that, refusing to do so is simply against the law. At least here in Oregon.

 

Why are single people discriminated against in the tax code?

 

Seemingly obvious questions

What ever happened to the so-called "marriage penalty"? (Aside from the fact that nobody complaining about it could ever tell me how it worked.)

And how, exactly, are single people discriminated against?

 

I don't agree with much you say, but this was brilliant.

 

Tks! Sometimes I get lucky..

 

Isn’t that one of the arguments for same sex marriage, discrimination in the tax code? Why should marital status matter to the taxman or taxwoman? Why is it ok to discriminate against single folks in the tax code?

http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2012-Tax-Year.htm

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/taxwatch/2013/03/25/an-end-to-the-gay-marriage-penalty/

“Not being able to file jointly also means that many same-sex couples face larger tax bills than straight couples, says Kenneth Weissenberg, a partner at accounting firm EisnerAmper who estimates he and his husband Brian Sheerin paid an additional $5,000 in taxes last year because they couldn’t file as a married couple. Many married couples owe less in taxes when they file their returns jointly than they would as individuals, especially when one spouse earns more than the other, says Weissenberg. “ – Market Watch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-gay-marriage-penalty-2013-02-28