VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:29:14 10/03/08 Fri
Author: HF
Subject: At one point during the debate, I was really angry.

I expect the McCain/Palin ticket to be against gay marriage. They'd alienate all of the conservative fundamentalists if they weren't.

I also expect more from Obama/Biden. It's disappointing and extremely off-putting that they are also against gay marriage.

Marriage is NOT a religious term in this country. My husband and I were MARRIED at a courthouse, not at a church. We did not obtain a "civil union" at the courthouse; we were MARRIED. Harboring behind semantics for the sake of appealing to the religious is both distasteful and dishonest. Either gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, or they don't. Which is it?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Once again HF, I am right there with ya. I almost shut -- LAwoman, 12:05:17 10/03/08 Fri [1]

the damn thing off when that came up and that was the one time I was particularly angry at Biden.


[ Edit | View ]

[> I agree. -- DizzyDeb, 12:14:43 10/03/08 Fri [1]

What people are so afraid of, I don't know. But I have several friends in same-sex relationships that have lasted more years that a lot of my hetero friends. It's a hot-button issue right now and nobody wants to commit political suicide by just coming out and saying they support it. If you're going to agree to civil unions and rights, why not go the next step and let people be "married"?


[ Edit | View ]

[> It's not just semantics... -- SB, 12:41:44 10/03/08 Fri [1]

Civil unions are so vastly different in so many ways than the legal term of 'marriage' I'm not even sure it's much of a victory for a state to allow them, although it's certainly better than nothing I suppose. If I were gay, seeing the differences between the two, I'd be pissed off too!

Even in the states where gay marriage is legal, gay couples are still not eligible for federal benefits, i.e., social security benefits, filing joint tax returns, military benefits. We can thank the Defense against Marriage Act and Bill Clinton for that.

I suppose I'll never understand how it hurts my marriage in anyway, shape or form, but the masses have spoken...and spoken....and spoken. In Florida I think there are already 3 laws on the books on this subject, but now an organization has garnered enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November for an amendment to FURTHER clarify that marriage is only between a man and woman. Hellooooo? Talk about over the top overkill! It's already a friggin law!

Sorry the rant....this topic gets under my skin. As long as there is politiking from the pulpit things will never change. Maybe in our twilight years when our children are in charge...discrimination will come to the end. I hope I live to see it.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I didn't realize -- niki, 10:21:38 10/04/08 Sat [1]

that civil unions did not allow for federal benefits. What exact IS a civil union then?

Marriage is a term that clearly the religious people claim as 'belonging' to them. (for the record, I am religious, I but think anyone should be able to marry anyone over the legal age) The ONLY agrument I ever hear against gay marriage is the religious one. But we allow athetists to get married, so clearly the definition has more than just religious connotations. And no one has EVER been able to explain to me how gay marriage harms other marriages in any way.
I think we need to distinguish between legal marriage and religous marriage.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> There's several -- SB, 15:53:58 10/05/08 Sun [1]

good websites that outline the difference. I think the difference is night and day really.

https://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf


[ Edit | View ]

[> I'm watching the debate right now, since it is repeated on PBS ... &... -- JennyJenkins, 22:32:00 10/04/08 Sat [1]

they just passed the point of discussing this issue of marriage.

They both said that they are against gay marriage because of personal beliefs, but they both said that they agree that a gay union should have all the same legal rights and benefits that a marriage has between a man and a woman.

The way I see it, right now it is an issue of unions and associations to put into place those equal rights when they renew the contracts for their workers. Once that happens then the marriage certificate that a gay couple gets will have the same legal worth as a hetero couple's. Otherwise, a gay couple would to have a pre-nuptial agreement identifying the benefits, insurances, mortgages, etc, that they are willing to share equally or otherwise, just in case there are legal issues, in case of illnes, etc.

I think that they said that they are against the term "gay marriage" because they don't want to alienate all the religions. As far as I know, pretty well all religions, not just Christian, are against "gay marriage" as they understand what the term "marriage" means to them.

Luckily in Canada, the term gay marriage means the exactly the same as heterosexual marriage, before the courts, so an emplyer can't balk at a person specifying same sex partner as next-of-kin.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> this is the key point.. -- niki, 07:40:13 10/05/08 Sun [1]

Luckily in Canada, the term gay marriage means the exactly the same as heterosexual marriage, before the courts, so an emplyer can't balk at a person specifying same sex partner as next-of-kin.

Legally we need gay marriage/civil unions/whatever you want to call it to have the same legal rights as marriage. They should be getting the same federal benefits, the same tax benefit/penalties, etc. Anything else is discrimination.


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.