Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage

[Tock]

Please show me where in the Constituton or Bill of Rights it is stated that marriage is a "freedom". Interacial marriages have never been illegal where I live.

Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.

[Tock]

The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?

No one wants to force you to marry a man. Speaking of forcing things down throats.. isn't outlawing gay marriage forcing your personal moral/religious beliefs down everyone else's throat?

I'd like to force him to marry not only a man, but several men in a polygamous gay marriage, along with a goat and two cows. It would be fun to shove gay marriage down his throat.

[Tock]

But the literal definition of marriage was not altered in cases of interracial couples. It was still a Man and a Woman.

Black men were at one time legally defined as 3/5 of white men http://www.census.gov/population/www...t/history.html. Now they're counted as legally equal, so yes, in that respect, the literal defination of an interracial couple changed from being 3/5 of a man and 1 woman, to 1 black man and 1 woman.

Gay and Lesbian couple do deserve the equality, social status and financial judgements allowed married couples but I wouldnt call it marriage.

The government shouldn't call it one thing for one set of people, and another for a second set of people.

IMHO, I'm all for getting civil unions from the government for everybody who wants legal protections, and letting just churches do marriage ceremonies to whoever they like--but since marriage is a religious ceremony like baptism or confirmation, the government shouldn't recognize it for anything.

[Act of God]

IMHO, I'm all for getting civil unions from the government for everybody who wants legal protections, and letting just churches do marriage ceremonies to whoever they like--but since marriage is a religious ceremony like baptism or confirmation, the government shouldn't recognize it for anything.

Honestly, that is the best solution and I have been saying that for years. For some reason, no one with any power ever seems to even mention it.

It's so simple, what the hell is wrong with people!?!?!

[Coop77]

Haven't most of the states that passed these state amendments been those southern/midwest states (aka Jesusland) with the evangelical Christian voting blocks.. you know those people with no concept of separation of church & state? Obviously "we the people" of the entire country don't want a ban, or the national amendment would have passed.

Maybe if you say something enough it becomes fact, thats how you liberals operate. I do not want to confuse you with the facts but I will anyway. DOMA (Defense of Marrairge Act) passed by the federal government was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

I said national amendment, as in the amendment that Bush proposed adding to the US Constitution a few years ago, which failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

[Coop77]

IMHO, I'm all for getting civil unions from the government for everybody who wants legal protections, and letting just churches do marriage ceremonies to whoever they like--but since marriage is a religious ceremony like baptism or confirmation, the government shouldn't recognize it for anything.

Honestly, that is the best solution and I have been saying that for years. For some reason, no one with any power ever seems to even mention it.

It's so simple, what the hell is wrong with people!?!?!

I agree, the gov't should provide partner benefits for any two people that request it, and it should be up to churches to throw the word "marriage" around. No mainstream politician would ever propose this because people would see it as "abolishing marriage" and freak out. Funny how just a word makes all the difference.

[Logan13]

Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.

There you go, it is LAW! And it was signed by a Democratic President.......
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act:
No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

[Logan13]

I agree, the gov't should provide partner benefits for any two people that request it, and it should be up to churches to throw the word "marriage" around. No mainstream politician would ever propose this because people would see it as "abolishing marriage" and freak out. Funny how just a word makes all the difference.

If Civil Unions, instead of gay marriage, were put to a vote on the state ballets I am quite sure that it would pass in most every state. Hell, I'd vote for it. But with the Defense of Marriage Act still in place, it may be a moot point.

[Tock]

Originally Posted by Tock
Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.

There you go, it is LAW! And it was signed by a Democratic President.......
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act:

I didn't think you could show me where it is stated so in the Constitution.
Lots of laws end up being thrown out as unconstitutional, and the DOMA is destined to be one of them (rationale for this has been given previously).



So . . . ya wanna take another try at answering my question?


Originally Posted by Tock
Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.

[Coop77]

If Civil Unions, instead of gay marriage, were put to a vote on the state ballets I am quite sure that it would pass in most every state. Hell, I'd vote for it. But with the Defense of Marriage Act still in place, it may be a moot point.

So you're saying that you have no objection to the gov't reocognizing gay couples, allowing them to file taxes jointly, allowing inheritance/living will rights, immigration benefits, insurance benefits, retirement benefits, and all the other things that married people enjoy... as long as they don't use the word "marriage"?
This is fascinating to me, that a word is so important.

[IronReload04]

KFrost and others
Homosexuality is a biological need. Bioligically, thats what they need to feel fulfilled. Who are we to argue with that. It is natural, that is how they were born and their is not a goddamn thing theyor you can do about it. Just think for a second.....Think about the way you feel about women........YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR ATTRACTION FOR WOMEN......it just is......their is nothing we can do about it, and their is nothing they can do about it.


And all this divine and natural right, its all bullshit.....Alot of it comes from catholics and Christians.......I consdier myself catholic.....Here is some news for ya, CATHOLICS ARE FULL OF ****ING SHIT. Throughout history, catholics acted furthest from christian like, and bullshit is their saliva. Lots of stuff that came after Christ's passing, is where an intelligent and critical peson needs to filter the nonsense.



I used to be hardcore against gays....Just really disturbed me......But, I really have been thinking hard lately and feel my old ways are closeminded.............What the hells the difference? What difference is this going to make.......Like sombody else stated, all its doing is making official what already is, and that is the best argument going for their side imo.........Nobody asks to be gay.......Its not like their is going to be some surge in homosexuality, heterosexuals will not start converting to homosexuals with a law passed.......It would have such a little impact, you wouldnt even notice it. What is it that we're afraid of? probably homosexuality becoming more accepted in schools, and more accepted and everyday kind of thing in society. Well guess what, like i said, their will be no increase in homoesexuals or rate of them because of a law. It will make no difference to your daily life.



What it all comes down to, is brainwashed people believing totally bogus opinions from closeminded homophobes claiming to be christian, and "spreading the christian ways", in which they are totally just livng and behaving completely opposite of how Jesus actually intended them to live. thats all it is.


sincerely,
an ex homophobe who isnt so closeminded anymore and is comforable and thankful for his own heterosexuality

[IronReload04]

To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.

ya it has, like they argue, its just not official....all it would do is acknowledge what already is

[IronReload04]

Well, the Catholic Church is a very different organization from Catholic Charities. One is a church, and the other is a tax-exempt corporation that solicits and accepts money from local, state, and federal government to fund its activities. So while the government of Massachusetts cannot tell the Catholic church how to set its doctrines and policies, it can (and does) tell Catholic Charities, as a social service contractor, that it must comply with the laws of the State of Massachusetts if it wants to do work for the state. Of course, they don't have to work for the state government, and in this case, they chose not to.



So, look closely at what you wrote:



I'm sure that you will be gratified to know that there is no such thing as "Catholic church charities." There is a Catholic church, and there is a tax-exempt charitiable organization named "Catholic charities" that contracts with governments to provide social services to people. They get government $$$ to do child care, deal with drug addicts, homeless people, etc.
They are two entirely different organizations.

You will be happy to know that the government of the state of Massachusetts did not tell the Catholic church to modify its religious doctrine regarding gays and charity. It did, however, tell the tax-exempt corporation known as Catholic charities that if it wanted to receive money from the Massachusetts State Treasury for doing adoption work, it would have to play by the state's rules.
In fact, if the Catholic church wanted to pay a few priests to help heterosexual Catholics adopt children, they are free to do so. What the Catholic church wanted, however, was to use the government's money to do this, instead of using its own cash.

Anyway, neither the Catholic Church nor Catholic Charities wanted to do adoptions for gay couples, so they got out of that business. The Church could use its own $$$ to do adoptions, but I'm pretty sure they're strapped for cash these days with lawsuits from all their childmolesting priests, so they're gonna let the orphans go without adoptive parents.









In some countries, they have "Official State Churches," and since they get taxpayer money from the government, they are obliged to preach what the government tells them, and marry who the government tells them.
Churches aren't set up that way in the USA, so it won't be an issue.

"all their child molesting priests"

1. All? how many is all?
2. Surely, child molestation is not limited to catholicism

[Information]

IronReload04, do not make this a religious discussion or the thread will be closed.

[Logan13]

Originally Posted by Tock
Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.

didn't think you could show me where it is stated so in the Constitution.
Lots of laws end up being thrown out as unconstitutional, and the DOMA is destined to be one of them (rationale for this has been given previously).



So . . . ya wanna take another try at answering my question?


Originally Posted by Tock
Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.

Actually, I asked you the question first. So do want to take a first attempt at showing where in the Constitution marriage is described as a "freedom"? Do you want to know why it is not stated in the Constitution in such a manner? Because the Founding Fathers viewed marriage as an institution of God, not necessarily of man.

[Logan13]

So you're saying that you have no objection to the gov't reocognizing gay couples, allowing them to file taxes jointly, allowing inheritance/living will rights, immigration benefits, insurance benefits, retirement benefits, and all the other things that married people enjoy... as long as they don't use the word "marriage"?
This is fascinating to me, that a word is so important.

It's called tradition. Welcome to the world of the previously silent majority.

[IronReload04]

Actually, I asked you the question first. So do want to take a first attempt at showing where in the Constitution marriage is described as a "freedom"? Do you want to know why it is not stated in the Constitution in such a manner? Because the Founding Fathers viewed marriage as an institution of God, not necessarily of man.

ok, if you want to play that card, they cared an awful lot about the will of God when interacting with native Americans around that same time perdiod.

[DSM4Life]

Is this pissing contest over yet ?

[Carlos_E]

Is this pissing contest over yet ?

Nope.

[Logan13]

ok, if you want to play that card, they cared an awful lot about the will of God when interacting with native Americans around that same time perdiod.

That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........

[BgMc31]

[QUOTE=Logan13]That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........[/QUOTE]


Don't bring my people into this Logan!!!! How much Sioux are you Logan? And it isn't our fault that you accept the past and current dismal situation that your people live in (Native Americans have the highest incidents of alcoholism, drug abuse, infant mortality, poverty, and high school drop out rates). All because of the forced living conditions put on them by the government.

Just because the founding fathers viewed marriage between a white man and white woman, doesn't mean we should continue their way of thinking. They also thought that only white men who own property should be the only ones who have the right to vote. Our country and culture has evolved since then, don't you agree? Many things have changed from what our founding father's initially wanted.

[IronReload04]

That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........

basically what your saying is, the four fathers picked and chose which 10 commandments they felt like obeying......obey marriage, but disobey the whole treath others as you would like to be treated part or though shall not kill and stuff. Thats what I was getting at before......its all bullshit and so many people cant see past that.


This is the toughest part of the argument, God Bless U.S.A., but damn, my ancesters (Europe), i mean, their just no better than.......

[DontPlayByTheRules]

I am a female and I am gay (I don't like labels) I appreciate a womans body as well as her mind. I am half Jewish and half Italian and I am not religious nor am I political. As far as the marriage issue between gays and lesbians, it really doesn't matter to me but what does matter is benefits for same sex partners. I believe in equal rights for everybody, same sex, opposite sex, race, etc. This is just my opinion

[Logan13]

[QUOTE=BgMc31]

That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........[/QUOTE]


Don't bring my people into this Logan!!!! How much Sioux are you Logan? And it isn't our fault that you accept the past and current dismal situation that your people live in (Native Americans have the highest incidents of alcoholism, drug abuse, infant mortality, poverty, and high school drop out rates). All because of the forced living conditions put on them by the government.

Just because the founding fathers viewed marriage between a white man and white woman, doesn't mean we should continue their way of thinking. They also thought that only white men who own property should be the only ones who have the right to vote. Our country and culture has evolved since then, don't you agree? Many things have changed from what our founding father's initially wanted.

Accept? It's just that I live for the today and tomorrow, not for yesterday. I have a great life, and nothing in the past is to blame or can take credit for this, it's all because of what I have done. I have never lived on a reservation, nor has anyone alive today been an actual victim of slavery. My grandma grew up on a reservation in s. dakota, and even she was not a bitter person about it. We are all dealt a hand at birth, and it's up to each individual to play this hand to the best of their abilities....or not and sit back and blame others for their own inadequacies.

[Logan13]

basically what your saying is, the four fathers picked and chose which 10 commandments they felt like obeying......obey marriage, but disobey the whole treath others as you would like to be treated part or though shall not kill and stuff. Thats what I was getting at before......its all bullshit and so many people cant see past that.


This is the toughest part of the argument, God Bless U.S.A., but damn, my ancesters (Europe), i mean, their just no better than.......

We are all human, and none of us are perfect by any means. The world will never be a utopia, and if you sit back waiting for it you will just be wasting your life.

[Logan13]

I am a female and I am gay (I don't like labels) I appreciate a womans body as well as her mind. I am half Jewish and half Italian and I am not religious nor am I political. As far as the marriage issue between gays and lesbians, it really doesn't matter to me but what does matter is benefits for same sex partners. I believe in equal rights for everybody, same sex, opposite sex, race, etc. This is just my opinion

As a female member, your title should be in pink. Anyway, how do the Jewish and Italian sides of your family view your decision? I know that both credes are very traditional.

[Carlos_E]

As a female member, your title should be in pink. Anyway, how do the Jewish and Italian sides of your family view your decision? I know that both credes are very traditional.

[Logan13]

So you are saying that it's a compulsion than?

[Carlos_E]

So you are saying that it's a compulsion than?

Complusion than what? I think you mean then.

I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?

If the answer is no, you did not make a decision. What makes you think it's different for someone who is gay? There was never a moment in my life I decided to be gay. It is the same as your attraction to women. The only decision involved was to be honest with my family and to tell them. Not to pretend to be something that I'm not.

As I said before, it amazes me that someone straight thinks they are the authority on homosexuality and can tell us what makes us gay. I am not straight, I can't tell you what it is like to be straight. What makes you think you can tell us what and why we are gay? Do you have a special insight? Did you try it with a guy and decide it wasn't for you?

Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it. I'm betting I'll get one of these.

[DSM4Life]

Complusion than what? I think you mean then.

I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?

If the answer is no, you did not make a decision. What makes you think it's different for someone who is gay? There was never a moment in my life I decided to be gay. It is the same as your attraction to women. The only decision involved was to be honest with my family and to tell them. Not to pretend to be something that I'm not.

As I said before, it amazes me that someone straight thinks they are the authority on homosexuality and can tell us what makes us gay. I am not straight, I can't tell you what it is like to be straight. What makes you think you can tell us what and why we are gay? Do you have a special insight? Did you try it with a guy and decide it wasn't for you?

Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it. I'm betting I'll get one of these.

I absolutely agree with this 100 percent. Good post.

[scottish]

Im for letting people do what they want. What the hell do I care. I keep hearing about how the "gays" will get the same benefits and tax breaks. Who gives a rats ass. Im so sick of people worrying about everyone else. You guys should just tend to your own home, not someone elses.

[Logan13]

Complusion than what? I think you mean then.

I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?

If the answer is no, you did not make a decision. What makes you think it's different for someone who is gay? There was never a moment in my life I decided to be gay. It is the same as your attraction to women. The only decision involved was to be honest with my family and to tell them. Not to pretend to be something that I'm not.

As I said before, it amazes me that someone straight thinks they are the authority on homosexuality and can tell us what makes us gay. I am not straight, I can't tell you what it is like to be straight. What makes you think you can tell us what and why we are gay? Do you have a special insight? Did you try it with a guy and decide it wasn't for you?

Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it. I'm betting I'll get one of these.

That's great and I hope that you find what you are looking for in life. So is deciding to become a polygymist something a person has to think about or is it just the way that they are? How about beastiality, is that something someone is just born with? How about pedophilia, perhaps this is just the way they are as well. If so, shouldn't we all just accept them for who they are? The truth of the matter is that we all have choices, not evrything can be explained by "that's just the way I am". Do not journey down the road of the inconsequential victim of nature; For if you do, you will obviously have alot of company there (see above). I always bring the answers to your questions, problem is, you usually have the thread locked before most others are able to do so. My tone is reflective of your own.
Countdown to Carlos threadlock..............

[DSM4Life]

That's great and I hope that you find what you are looking for in life. So is deciding to become a polygymist something a person has to think about or is it just the way that they are? How about beastiality, is that something someone is just born with? How about pedophilia, perhaps this is just the way they are as well. If so, shouldn't we all just accept them for who they are? The truth of the matter is that we all have choices, not evrything can be explained by "that's just the way I am". Do not journey down the road of the inconsequential victim of nature; For if you do, you will obviously have alot of company there (see above). I always bring the answers to your questions, problem is, you usually have the thread locked before most others are able to do so. My tone is reflective of your own.
Countdown to Carlos threadlock..............

Carlos
"Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it"


hahah read him like an open book

[Carlos_E]

That's great and I hope that you find what you are looking for in life. So is deciding to become a polygymist something a person has to think about or is it just the way that they are? How about beastiality, is that something someone is just born with? How about pedophilia, perhaps this is just the way they are as well. If so, shouldn't we all just accept them for who they are? The truth of the matter is that we all have choices, not evrything can be explained by "that's just the way I am". Do not journey down the road of the inconsequential victim of nature; For if you do, you will obviously have alot of company there (see above). I always bring the answers to your questions, problem is, you usually have the thread locked before most others are able to do so. My tone is reflective of your own.
Countdown to Carlos threadlock..............

You are so predictable. You avoided the question. For once I would like to you answer a question directed towards you instead of avoiding it.

Just so you know. I don't lock threads. If you had the same access rights you could see who locks thread. They are locked by the admins.

[Logan13]

You are so predictable. You avoided the question. For once I would like to you answer a question directed towards you instead of avoiding it.

Just so you know. I don't lock threads. If you had the same access rights you could see who locks thread. They are locked by the admins.

So this is your question?
"I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?"
Ok Carlos,
If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............

[Logan13]

Carlos
"Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it"


hahah read him like an open book

nuthugger........

[IronReload04]

So this is your question?
"I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?"
Ok Carlos,
If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............

Mitosis and Miosis, I tihnk the argument is that it happens here and is in fact innate for those people.....]


I would like to hear someone else's view on pedaphilia and beastiality being innate....This is a good discussion question

[Carlos_E]

So this is your question?
"I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?"
Ok Carlos,
If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............

You still did not answer the question. Yes or no, Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!

[Logan13]

You still did not answer the question. Yes or no, Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!

As I have answered, No, Carlos I have not. Now answer my question, if you can without making this into a "you just hate gays" post to avoid a simple question:

If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............

[Logan13]

Mitosis and Miosis, I tihnk the argument is that it happens here and is in fact innate for those people.....]


I would like to hear someone else's view on pedaphilia and beastiality being innate....This is a good discussion question

I do not believe that anyone will attempt this one since it opens up alot of doors that many do not want opened.