Gay Marriage

[TimZim]

The government should get out of the marriage business all together. . . .

So, let marriage be a anything other than a government institution. Let the government protect its citizens through enforcement of other legal options and through the giving of rebates or tax credits to individuals or couples who raise children.

This is one of those positions I find to be sort of an entitlement position of a person from the privileged class. In other words, you have the luxury of being indifferent, or waxing philosophically about something that will never happen.

But in the real world, the government is in the marriage business. If you think it should get out of it, what are you doing about it? Have you written your congressperson, participated in rallies, spoken at a political town hall meeting? What have you done to build the capital and consensus necessary to affect this change?

In the meantime, what are you doing to counter the vast numbers of conservative Christians who want to make the lives of other citizens more onerous?

Your gay friends shouldn't have to have a team of lawyers to do what others don't need a team of lawyers to do.

Being indifferent or passive is tacit endorsement of the status quo, and a way for people who benefit from the status quo to, in effect, enjoy the entitlements the privileged class did not earn.

[Bill Mutz]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/presb...e-gay-marriage

You know, I actually find it telling that it's the most legendarily dour and hidebound sects that have taken the lead on rendering gay marriage legit. First God's Frozen People, and now the Presbyterians are getting into the act.

Do you think it's because they've started to realize how ridiculous and tired this old debate has gotten? The only people who have any purpose, any selfish motive whatsoever to be involved in this discussion, are the gay people, who are directly and substantially affected by the outcome. To anybody else, it's a jolly, stupid waste of time and resources. A lot of the people who hated the gay people ten years ago are pro-gay now just because it's the only promising method of making the ignorant nonsense of it go away.

Unlike most of you people, I have a legitimate, vested interest here. You can make all the dumb arguments you want, but I am not going to go away. As long as I'm being screwed, I'm going to be ticked-off. I might try to ignore it for a while, but the chafe from it just comes back.

The gay people aren't going to shut up because there is no way in Christiandom you're going to talk intelligent, educated people into deciding that they LIKE being disenfranchised. That leaves you with shutting up the evangelicals. The latter is a difficult proposition in itself because the evangelicals have made history by being the most utterly dense bunch of fools in Christian history, but it offers better prospects than trying to quiet down the queers.

Hey, maybe if the gay people can be appeased, they might be more open to the idea of some kind of psycho-surgery or something being used to correct their sexual orientation. If you think that we're just going to start LIKING people treating us like lepers, though, you're insane, on drugs, or just plain stupid.

[TimZim]

[URL]You know, I actually find it telling that it's the most legendarily dour and hidebound sects that have taken the lead on rendering gay marriage legit. First God's Frozen People, and now the Presbyterians are getting into the act.

Do you think it's because they've started to realize how ridiculous and tired this old debate has gotten? The only people who have any purpose, any selfish motive whatsoever to be involved in this discussion, are the gay people, who are directly and substantially affected by the outcome.

not so fast, Bill. As you noted,

The evangelicals. The latter is a difficult proposition in itself because the evangelicals have made history by being the most utterly dense bunch of fools in Christian history, but it offers better prospects than trying to quiet down the queers.

These mind numbingly stupid and un-American set of conservative Christians are on the wrong side of history almost every single time. So the gay rights issue is mere,y emblematic of this. There will always be (and already is) the next set of "queers" -- complete with their sinister, and remarkably organized and secretive "agendas."

Here is a short list of evangelicals' enemies, plotting separately and together, to undermine their god and their white way of life:

Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, Episcopalians (and other "liberal" Christians), liberals, Democrats, socialists, Europeans, and now the newly added Wisconsin kindergarten teachers.

The only "queers," Billy boy, are these one-eyed evangelical doomsters.

[Pilgrim]

This is one of those positions I find to be sort of an entitlement position of a person from the privileged class. In other words, you have the luxury of being indifferent, or waxing philosophically about something that will never happen.

But in the real world, the government is in the marriage business. If you think it should get out of it, what are you doing about it? Have you written your congressperson, participated in rallies, spoken at a political town hall meeting? What have you done to build the capital and consensus necessary to affect this change?

You may not be aware, but marriage is a part of my professional life. I'm doing plenty.

Your gay friends shouldn't have to have a team of lawyers to do what others don't need a team of lawyers to do.

If my position is spoken from entitlement (though I can't see how it possible is) then yours is spoken from a place of ignorance. If you think mearly being married to someone, or being family, is going to secure all of your rights in the hospital or at the time of death, then you're sorely mistaken. Heck, if you don't have a will the state probates your assests and determines who gets what. Not you. If you think all you need is a marriage certificate to have your partner be able to make choices for you, then you've never seen siblings scratch and claw it out with mom and dad while one lays on the death bed. People are so poorly informed about laws of consent, inheritance, power of attorney. This idea that marriage alone ties up all the loose ends is one of the biggest myths out there. Protect yourself people, married, gay or straight, do the legal work you need to to make sure the people you care about are well considered and your estate and assets go where you want them to. Merely being married or "family" is no assurance that your intent will be honored.

Being indifferent or passive is tacit endorsement of the status quo, and a way for people who benefit from the status quo to, in effect, enjoy the entitlements the privileged class did not earn.

Lots of latin and typing out catch phrases but not much content there.

[TimZim]

You may not be aware, but marriage is a part of my professional life. I'm doing plenty.


If my position is spoken from entitlement (though I can't see how it possible is) then yours is spoken from a place of ignorance. If you think mearly being married to someone, or being family, is going to secure all of your rights in the hospital or at the time of death, then you're sorely mistaken. Heck, if you don't have a will the state probates your assests and determines who gets what. Not you. If you think all you need is a marriage certificate to have your partner be able to make choices for you, then you've never seen siblings scratch and claw it out with mom and dad while one lays on the death bed. People are so poorly informed about laws of consent, inheritance, power of attorney. This idea that marriage alone ties up all the loose ends is one of the biggest myths out there. Protect yourself people, married, gay or straight, do the legal work you need to to make sure the people you care about are well considered and your estate and assets go where you want them to. Merely being married or "family" is no assurance that your intent will be honored.

Lots of latin and typing out catch phrases but not much content there.

Let's make it real simple then, okay.

Do you think gays have fewer, as many, or more protections as straight people codified in our laws?

If the same already, then what's all the fuss about?

If for no other reason, Pilgrim, DADT is discriminatory against gay couples.

[Bill Mutz]

I'll make it simple for you, Pilgrim.

It's not that marriage is all that important to me. What sticks more in my mind is that you are driven to oppose me having that right by the fact that you are a repulsive bigot. I hate and condemn you for it, and I will make sure that you and others suffer and pay for your disgrace for the rest of your natural lives. I will see to it that you and others like you are subjected to every form of humiliation and degradation that I can heap upon you because I honestly want to see you suffer.

Is that too complicated for your small mind to understand?

[Bill Mutz]

Oh, and an irony in this, Pilgrim, is that the anti-Bullying measures that YOUR god-awful Republicans keep blocking also protect youths who suffer from developmental disorders, and the crazy thing about it is that I was NEVER bullied extensively over my sexual orientation, real or perceived. Heck, I was treated with a lot more respect after I came out of the closet. Being honest with people tends to help them think more of your character.

Pilgrim, the reason that the struggle for gay people's rights appeals to me is simply that it is so iconic of what nearly drove me to take my own life when I was growing up. I was abused and ridiculed and isolated and punished because I could not possibly match up with other people's concept of "normalcy." I had Tourette Syndrome, traces of autism and such a nasty stammer that I was regularly pulled out of class to see a speech therapist. I may have brought a lot of my problems on myself, but it really doesn't help that some people think they have a right to show their butts to you and treat you like a leper just because you're a little peculiar or eccentric.

Maybe gay marriage isn't verbatim what you have in mind when you think of "Christian marriage," Pilgrim, but you are going to accept it whether you like it or not. It is being shoved down your throat, as we speak. You are not being given a choice in the matter. You will behave with respect and civility toward your fellow Man, and you will not be forgiven if you behave like a barbarian. One of these days, we'll be able to throw you in jail for some of the crap you say here with impunity now, and you will deserve it.

But again, the true irony of it all is that it's not even my sexual orientation that is at the root of me hating your guts! It's just another example of how I resent people telling me that I deserve to be treated horribly just because I don't have the same characteristics that mainstream thinking considers to be "the norm."

[Pilgrim]

Let's make it real simple then, okay.

Do you think gays have fewer, as many, or more protections as straight people codified in our laws?

If the same already, then what's all the fuss about?

If for no other reason, Pilgrim, DADT is discriminatory against gay couples.

What does DADT have to do with the conversation on Gay Marriage we are having? That's a bit of goal post shifting you're engaging in there. Besides, since DADT has recently been struck down as unconstitutional I think perhaps your point is moot anyway.

As it pertains to proactive legal actions, gay and straight people are afforded the same considerations under the law. that is, as it pertains to trusts, living trusts, wills, POA's advanced health care directives etc. This is the set of legal rules I am referring too. I think the government should get out of the business of marriage licensing all together and that means for both straight and gay couples.

There should be no governmental incentive or reward for marriage. Rather, government, having a vested interest in a succesful future generation as it pertains to our ability to survive and compete, should reward folks, in the form of tax credits or rebates, for caring for children regardless of marital state.

Governments gave a reward to married couples in the past because in older systems it was thought that only a traditional family could raise and nurture children. Children were a premium. We understand now that there are many scenarios where children may be nurtured successfully to maturity. Let's simply concentrate on that rather than continuing this national debate over government sanctioned marriages.

let's face it. There is no law preventing anyone from receiving a religious ceremony, well any ceremony for that matter, of marriage. In other words, contrary to the rhetoric, it's not illegal to be gay and married. the question is governmental recognition of that estate. So i say, let the government concentrate on the practical matters of marriage not the religious and let individuals, gay and straight, secure their own relationships, property and estate transfers.

[TimZim]

What does DADT have to do with the conversation on Gay Marriage we are having?

It is the interwoven fabric of problems that result from discrimination. For example, a divorced woman of a former serviceman, who retired after 20 years of service, retains her military dependent ID card, and can shop on the base/post, etc. At the same time, the current partner of a gay serviceman cannot so much as get an ID card. And this includes every type of relationship with gay couples, even ones that did not start until after the military person left the military.

Besides, since DADT has recently been struck down as unconstitutional I think perhaps your point is moot anyway.

Except it hasn't changed for the issues like the ones above, which again, are part of the larger whole.

As it pertains to proactive legal actions, gay and straight people are afforded the same considerations under the law. that is, as it pertains to trusts, living trusts, wills, POA's advanced health care directives etc.

But not for things like base/post privileges. So it still not equal. And there are many others, too. The bottom line is that it isn't equal until they are treated the same, and that would be much easier to by simply recognizing gay marriage than the gov't getting out of the marriage licensing business

Rather, government, having a vested interest in a succesful future generation as it pertains to our ability to survive and compete, should reward folks, in the form of tax credits or rebates, for caring for children regardless of marital state.

What about all the little things that are hard to keep track of like the mate who is at home while a serviceperson is in Iraq?

We understand now that there are many scenarios where children may be nurtured successfully to maturity. Let's simply concentrate on that rather than continuing this national debate over government sanctioned marriages.

For many conservative Christians, the main thing that bothers them about gay marriage is their objections about gay couples adopting, for example. They are not pleased when gays raise children.

So i say, let the government concentrate on the practical matters of marriage not the religious and let individuals, gay and straight, secure their own relationships, property and estate transfers.

Of course, you know this will never happen. So in the meantime, while the discrimination goes on for people other than you, then you appear to be magnanimous. But you are doing nothing to advocate for you position, and nothing to counter the people opposed to gay rights.

[Hamster]

One of these days, we'll be able to throw you in jail for some of the crap you say here with impunity now,

Well, that's terrible. I'm sorry you don't believe in free speech.

you are a repulsive bigot. I hate and condemn you for it, and I will make sure that you and others suffer and pay for your disgrace for the rest of your natural lives.

Well, unfortunately that makes you a vindictive monster. I haven't seen Pilgrim say anything cruel or hateful about gay people. When you say crap like this it gets really hard to tell people there's no "gay agenda."

[Bill Mutz]

No, Hamster, I do not. If you think that you're going to be allowed to blockade the advancement of society forever, barbarian, you've got another thing coming. You will be swept out of the way by whatever brute force is necessary. I am ruthless and mean, and I don't think very highly of you. You should realize that, or you are going to find yourself feeling very disappointed.

[Bill Mutz]

For many conservative Christians, the main thing that bothers them about gay marriage is their objections about gay couples adopting, for example. They are not pleased when gays raise children.

Oh, of course! If two men are so non compos mentis that they want to screw each other, do you really think they should be entrusted with the care of children?

The whole basis for discrimination against the gays is that the conservatives can't swallow the idea that human beings can have specific differences in their make-up that are absolutely limited in what those differences actually affect. They assume if you have a stutter you're unintelligent. They assume if you have unusual sexual inclinations, you're so screwed up in the head you shouldn't be trusted with a gun.

Conservatives are so small-minded, they can't grasp the idea that sexual orientation is immutable, absolute and irreversible, and it doesn't have anything to do with how a person is educated or their level of common sense.

And all of this wrangling over the purpose of marriage is a crock if there ever was one. The purpose of two people getting married to each other is to provide a sense of stability, constancy and security. It has a tranquilizing effect on the human psyche. This happens to be beneficial for the upbringing of children, but it isn't going to hurt anybody for two men, who never intend to adopt or conceive through a surrogate, to have some peace of mind. It stops them from spreading stupid diseases, and it makes them easier to get along with as neighbors and coworkers.

Just face the truth: the reason conservatives don't want gays to adopt is that they think being gay is a product of not being sound of mind or morality. They think that gay people practice homosexuality because they don't have sufficient moral restraint to suppress the impulse to behave like a perverted deviant. Conservatives refuse to accept the idea that homosexuality is simply a part of some people's nature.

And quite frankly, if you accept that homosexuality is immutable and not linked to any other character flaw in a human being, the only remaining question is whether the state has any vested interest permitting gay marriage. If you have no other reason to support gay marriage, let it to be to soothe the burns of all the innocent people who have suffered as a result of bigotry and hate. Let it be a way of putting our past and bad blood behind us, so we can complete the process of forgiveness.

And finally, I dare you to find an empirical study that suggests that two men or two women are not compos mentis to raise children together. You won't find one because every study out there suggests that putting a child in the home of two people who have the inclination to adopt children only puts a sound roof over the head of an innocent and guarantees him or her an education and a chance to go on to live a successful life.

[themuzicman]

There is no laws against gay going and taking vows together before a priest. None.

Thus, there is no violation of anyone's rights.

[Bill Mutz]

There is no laws against gay going and taking vows together before a priest. None.

Thus, there is no violation of anyone's rights.

Semantics. I'm not going to play games with you. The beginning and end of it between me and you--I want everyone to know this--is that I am your enemy as long as you remain yet another obstruction. I will make myself unpleasant to you, spit in your face, and curse your name until you have given in.

Even if you can just shrug off abuse, Michael, others will eventually weaken and crumple. I will get my way, and there isn't a thing you can do about it. All that should matter to you is that I am ruthless and not averse to being cruel.

[themuzicman]

Semantics. I'm not going to play games with you. The beginning and end of it between me and you--I want everyone to know this--is that I am your enemy as long as you remain yet another obstruction. I will make myself unpleasant to you, spit in your face, and curse your name until you have given in.

Yeah, that'll convince me...

Even if you can just shrug off abuse, Michael, others will eventually weaken and crumple. I will get my way, and there isn't a thing you can do about it. All that should matter to you is that I am ruthless and not averse to being cruel.

Not shrugging off anything. I'm just pointing out that gays already have what they are demanding.