Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 10
Judge rules that "Proposition 8" is unconstitutional; ...breaking news
Topic Started: Aug 4 2010, 12:49 PM (4,093 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Living with and building a life with someone without marrying them.... what woman would want to do that with a man who doesn't respect her enough to make that kind of commitment to her? What man would want a woman who by all indications was keeping her options open?

It's like saying "I'll play house with you, but you don't mean enough to me for me to make a commitment."

If a man loves a woman enough to want to spend his life with her, marrying her signifies his respect for her, his commitment to her. The same applies for the woman. That is why you get married, and if you don't have that level of commitment to each other, don't live together.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
George K
Aug 5 2010, 08:08 AM
An interesting approach to the question:

Quote:
 


Reasonable people can compromise. But there doesn't seem to be any reasonable people in charge on this issue.

As long as human rights are respected, we have to live with laws we don't like. We can protest. We can vote. We can run for office ourselves. That is how we change things. We change hearts first.

Beginning with our own.


Sure be reasonable.

Trash the tradition.

Invent new "rights".

March down 5th avenue with a 20 foot green symbol.

Use your taxes to encourage this.

It's the reasonable thing to do.

Then everyone will be happy.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Steve Miller
Aug 5 2010, 07:46 AM
blondie
Aug 5 2010, 07:37 AM
lots of people are religious.
Others are not. Some are religious but believe differently from others who are also religious.

Which group gets to dictate law to the others? Which group requires and endorsement (and I just love that concept) to receive the same rights as enjoyed by others?
The majority gets to dictate.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
'kay fine. If I had a re-do I wouldn't marry or co-habitate. Less mess, less housework.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2010, 08:27 AM
The majority gets to dictate.
The Chinese may one day dictate that all your redheads are belong to them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
blondie
Aug 5 2010, 07:26 AM
On some days I think marriage would be valued more by society if divorce were illegal . Or perhaps people should get booted from their chuches for it? I just don't think marriage is so valued anymore.
I like the idea of Covenant Marriage.

I believe divorce should be legal...and rare.

As for my church, all are welcome, but a divorced man shall not stand behind the pulpit nor shall he rise to the office of deacon.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
blondie
Aug 5 2010, 07:37 AM
I think 'marriage' is a religious thing;
Banish that thought! "Marriage" and "religion" can and do exist independently of each other. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Copper
Aug 5 2010, 08:15 AM
George K
Aug 5 2010, 08:08 AM
An interesting approach to the question:

Quote:
 


Reasonable people can compromise. But there doesn't seem to be any reasonable people in charge on this issue.

As long as human rights are respected, we have to live with laws we don't like. We can protest. We can vote. We can run for office ourselves. That is how we change things. We change hearts first.

Beginning with our own.


Sure be reasonable.

Trash the tradition.

Invent new "rights".

March down 5th avenue with a 20 foot green symbol.

Use your taxes to encourage this.

It's the reasonable thing to do.

Then everyone will be happy.
Hey George,

Does Copper's post above gives you any second thought on who may be the unreasonable one, who is unwilling to compromise?

;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
So I assume from this post that you would be willing to accept civil unions as a compromise?
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
I respect what rules your church has Jolly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
blondie
Aug 5 2010, 09:13 AM
I respect what rules your church has Jolly.
Different strokes for different folks.

But it always seemed appropriate that if the church (little c not big C)placed such a high value on the institution of marriage, there should be consequences when divorce happens.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2010, 09:04 AM
So I assume from this post that you would be willing to accept civil unions as a compromise?
I certainly would - of course, I'm not the one getting married. I've already been through a legally binding civil ceremony (with a woman, obviously) and once is enough for me!
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kluurs
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
George K
Aug 5 2010, 08:08 AM
An interesting approach to the question:

http://blogs.chron.com/texassparkle/2010/08/the_gay_marriage_compromise.html
Quote:
 
An activist judge in California overturned Prop. 8 (banning gay marriage) yesterday to no one's surprise. Most everyone actively involved on both sides of this issue, can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

Reasonable people can compromise. But there doesn't seem to be any reasonable people in charge on this issue.

Here's newsflash for many. No conservative I know of gives one whit whether two men or two women pick out plate patterns at Macys, and stand before their loved ones and commit to each other. They not only don't care, but are for the right of anyone to choose who gets their benefits, or makes decisions for them if they can't make them themselves.

As the great Texas philosopher, Kinky Friedman once said, "Gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

So what's the problem? The problem is one word....marriage.

I can promise you that if Prop 8 were voted on tomorrow, and the exact same language was used, but instead the word "marriage" was replaced with the words "civil unions," it would pass. And most everyone would be fine it. As some other guy, not as well known as Kinky once said, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."

As long as Churches are not forced to perform marriages or unions they believe are invalid or wrong (be they gay, divorced, or otherwise) , I don't think you would have much dispute. And since there are plenty of Churches that would gladly "marry" gays, there really is no problem at all. It's all in the name. Simply call gay marriage a civil union. Those that see marriage as sacred would feel better, and gays who simply want the same rights as married heterosexuals, would have them.

Every person I talk to, liberal or conservative, seem to have no problem with this compromise. Call gay marriage a civil union. Yet there is no move toward this compromise. Why? Because leaders and activists on both sides simply want what they want, and will not budge. While most of us out here in the real world, both gay and straight, are just fine with the compromise.

I believe that one can put 5 random people in a room and they can come to a compromise on any issue. Because most people are reasonable. This is probably one of the most contentious issues of our time, and there is a compromise standing right in front of us. The activists just refuse to let it happen.

So the dispute continues. The fight goes on. And no one wins.

For those of you of religious faith that see this as a failure or giving up, know that we as a society of faith, gave up a long time ago fighting for what we believed. A 50% divorce rate, porn, and abortion is proof enough of that. We can only hold on to our own faith. We can only live lives of goodness, compassion, and holiness. We can pass on this faith. We can teach our faith to our children, and those willing to listen. That is what we can do. But in a free society we have to understand that there are many laws in which we disagree, but we must be free to choose. That is at the heart of our faith. We choose our path. As long as human rights are respected, we have to live with laws we don't like. We can protest. We can vote. We can run for office ourselves. That is how we change things. We change hearts first.

Beginning with our own.

It is challenging to come to a compromise. The notion of the columnist who George quotes - has come up before. Under the columnist's scenerio, "Civil unions" could be defined as a union between two people that the government recognizes. Under such a proposal, there would be defined benefits associated with this union. Per the columnist, "Marriage" would be defined by a religion. Some religions might define marriages differently as to who can marry and how the marriages are dissolved.

In the end, as a matter of semantics, gay couples who were joined via "civil union" would and could say they are in a "Marriage." They might be "Married" by some church that supports such unions or just using the term as how they see themselves - free speech.

I agree with those who think that however one chooses to define it, "gay marriages" will come to pass - likely sooner than later. At the same time, I don't think religions should be "forced" to recognize unions they choose not to. I think that is one of the fears.

As for whether our nation is on the road to hell, we are responsible for our actions, sins, etc. It ain't easy to lead a righteous life on the best of days - and this battle may detract from that. If we were living right, we would all probably be Amish, working to glorify the Lord and not wasting time on internet squabbles. People make lots of choices - the choices we make define our morality. Some people think guns are immoral to own - but we permit them. As a nation, we've said that how we use them determines moral from not. For a time, moralists felt that the sin of alcohol should be kept away from people so as to not destroy the integrity of the family - a legitimate concern - but ultimately caused more problems than it solved. The world will not come to an end with gay (civil unions/ marriage). Our nation's greatness will be enhanced, not diminished by this change.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kluurs
Aug 5 2010, 09:44 AM
Under the columnist's scenerio, "Civil unions" could be defined as a union between two people that the government recognizes. Under such a proposal, there would be defined benefits associated with this union. Per the columnist, "Marriage" would be defined by a religion. Some religions might define marriages differently as to who can marry and how the marriages are dissolved.

In the end, as a matter of semantics, gay couples who were joined via "civil union" would and could say they are in a "Marriage." They might be "Married" by some church that supports such unions or just using the term as how they see themselves - free speech.
This is what I support. The gov't has a stake in promoting stability in families, whether they are gay or hetero. A civil union is just a legal contract. Leave marriage up to any institution that wants to confer it on any couple of their choosing, or let any couple confer it on themselves (and sell do-it-yourself documents at the stationery store if you want something suitable for framing).
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2010, 09:04 AM
So I assume from this post that you would be willing to accept civil unions as a compromise?
Mik,

This is the "civil union" compromise I propose and can accept:

"Civil union" for all, no state-recognized "marriage" for any. Tribes and churches and temples and such can define "marriage" and recognize "marriage" as they see fit. The government only defines and recognizes "civil union."

What say you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Axtremus
Aug 5 2010, 11:45 AM

What say you?

Why?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Why not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
You're still seeking to do away with marriage as the majority of the public knows it. That is a far greater change than simply allowing civil unions.

So you are one of the unreasonable fringes.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Axtremus
Aug 5 2010, 12:10 PM
Why not?

It's not in the public interest.

Why not say dogs can marry cats?

I'm sure the cat owners would have lots of fun dressing them up for the wedding.

But why spend taxpayer money on it?

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyElton
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Aug 5 2010, 06:35 AM
So let me get this right - cohabiting isn't acceptable, and gay marriage isn't allowed. What alternative is left?
For a liberal, cunt-licker like me: suicide.
Hilary aka LadyElton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
LadyElton
Aug 5 2010, 01:47 PM
John D'Oh
Aug 5 2010, 06:35 AM
So let me get this right - cohabiting isn't acceptable, and gay marriage isn't allowed. What alternative is left?
For a liberal, cunt-licker like me: suicide.
Sorry, I don't sell guns anymore.

'Fraid you'll have to find an alternative...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Aug 5 2010, 11:45 AM
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2010, 09:04 AM
So I assume from this post that you would be willing to accept civil unions as a compromise?
Mik,

This is the "civil union" compromise I propose and can accept:

"Civil union" for all, no state-recognized "marriage" for any. Tribes and churches and temples and such can define "marriage" and recognize "marriage" as they see fit. The government only defines and recognizes "civil union."

What say you?
:thumb:
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2010, 08:27 AM
The majority gets to dictate.
Nope. The constitution is written in such a way as to keep the majority from trampling the rights of minorities.

No need to fuss over it - its a good thing.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Aug 5 2010, 06:00 PM
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2010, 08:27 AM
The majority gets to dictate.
Nope. The constitution is written in such a way as to keep the majority from trampling the rights of minorities.

No need to fuss over it - its a good thing.
Yet, it is not written in a way where the rights of the minority trample over the rights of the majority.

The tail should never wag the dog.

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Aug 5 2010, 06:03 PM
Steve Miller
Aug 5 2010, 06:00 PM
Mikhailoh
Aug 5 2010, 08:27 AM
The majority gets to dictate.
Nope. The constitution is written in such a way as to keep the majority from trampling the rights of minorities.

No need to fuss over it - its a good thing.
Yet, it is not written in a way where the rights of the minority trample over the rights of the majority.

The tail should never wag the dog.

I'm not aware that anyone is proposing that you be forced to marry a guy if you don't want to.*

Got a cite?

*Assumes that you are a guy - not sure you have ever declared one way or the other.**
**Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 10