Same-sex couples start marrying in Conn.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except again this was decided by Judges. Judges are not supposed to be making LAWS.

This is true, which is why I think DiveCon's solution is the way to go.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is true, which is why I think DiveCon's solution is the way to go.

You will find if you go back and read what I have said I have been advocating that for some time. Not because I have any love lost for Gay rights, but because the Constitution is clear, States are to honor other States laws. The only way to do that is Civil Unions.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The majority of gays suffered from some form of child abuse. It's quite sad. Let's hope these people get the treatment they need.

At least try to make really stupid comments funny.

 

[editec]

I agree on a religious front. However, in the US, marriage is also a legal contract. Are we to tell a peson, because of his sexual orientation, that he or she may not enter into a legal contract with another person?

There you go, CW.

Injecting that annoying voice of logic and reason into a debate designed to evoke irrational emotionalism.

Spoilsport.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There you go, CW.

Injecting that annoying voice of logic and reason into a debate designed to evoke irrational emotionalism.

Spoilsport.

There is no reason gays can not get the same legal contractual rights. AT present they just have to fill out more forms.

 

[tigerbob]

There is no reason gays can not get the same legal contractual rights. AT present they just have to fill out more forms.

Thank you! That was the impression I had.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

And I answered it with medical studies. I don't care what your sexual orientation is, but you should at least be open-minded enough to look at the evidence.

You answered it with a wrong conclusion about the study you presented. The majority are not victims of child abuse.

There are many other factors to be considered regarding child abuse and homosexuality .. including that most of those doing the abusing of children are not gay.

Victims, even at a young age, tend to show considerable concern over their gender identity

Some research shows that boys who were sexually molested by older men were four times more likely to be engaged in homosexual activity than non-victims

There appears to be a greater chance that boys who were molested by males would identify themselves as homosexuals than those molested by females

Adolescents often link their sexual victimization to their homosexuality

Only a minority of adult homosexuals report a homosexual experience in childhood

Only a minority of homosexuals have a sexual interest in children

Boys and girls equally likely to be abused by an extrafamilial individual

Boys and girls equally likely to be abused by strangers

Adolescent abusers more often chose boys as victims

Fathers more than stepfathers sexually abuse boys

Females are more likely to chose a boy than a girl to sexually abuse

It appears that when the abuser is a professional person, they may chose a boy over a girl

It appears that if the father is unemployed, he may chose the boy rather than the girl

Sexual abuse of male children

90% of all child sexual abusers are men .. who most often rape girls .. the majority of whom do not become homosexual.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Yep, if it's marriage.

There are other ways of doing contracts.

The church does not have dominion on the institution of marriage and one does not have to go to church to get married.

NO, as in ZERO, legal institution should require the blessings of the church to be made whole.

You're forcing your religious perspective on people, free Americans, who do not share it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Good for them. Liberty for all, not just heterosexuals.

Liberty, justice and equal treatment under the law is all well and fine.. it does not, however, give them the right to redefine what a marriage is and has always been.... civil union ceremonies? All well and fine... but unless it is truly a man and a woman, it cannot be marriage

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Liberty, justice and equal treatment under the law is all well and fine.. it does not, however, give them the right to redefine what a marriage is and has always been.... civil union ceremonies? All well and fine... but unless it is truly a man and a woman, it cannot be marriage

It most certainly can and WILL be deemed marriage.

The notion that somehow gay marriage can be stopped is unlearned.

Gays aren't going anywhere and as their social and political power continues to grow, so will their ability to demand marriage.

.. just a matter of time .. a short time.

 

[Sunni Man]

The notion that somehow gay marriage can be stopped is unlearned.

Didn't homo marriage just get stopped in California???

 

[DiamondDave]

It most certainly can and WILL be deemed marriage.

The notion that somehow gay marriage can be stopped is unlearned.

Gays aren't going anywhere and as their social and political power continues to grow, so will their ability to demand marriage.

.. just a matter of time .. a short time.

Just as a person who is of Caucasian race cannot simply seek to redefine what African American is to be deemed 'black' by the law.... just as you cannot deem your dog to be a cat... it is not right to redefine marriage which always has been defined as the union between a man and a woman.... as stated.. I am all for their equal treatment under the law as a couple/family... but it simply is not marriage... and it is not their right to redefine marriage

 

[Skull Pilot]

the solution to this issue is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely and have nothing to do with it, there should be no legal issues involved with marriage
it is a religious ceremony and as such is protected by the first amendment
the only thing the government should be part of is the legalities and they should call them all civil unions for everyone

that being said, you would still have the issue of some churches that already do perform same sex marriages

This from a guy with a "snorkel" in his mouth.

That was a joke nothing personal. It was too easy to pass up.

BTW I completely agree with you. There is absolutely no reason why contributing, productive, participants in society should not be able to partake in the benefits and privileges granted by society.

In other words, who cares if two people who care about each other enter into a legally recognized union?

Call it marriage, call it a civil contract, who cares? In fact the states should stop recognizing church marriages and require a civil service for all marriages or unions to be legally recognized.

 

[jillian]

There is no reason gays can not get the same legal contractual rights. AT present they just have to fill out more forms.

Separate but equal is never equal.

 

[del]

This from a guy with a "snorkel" in his mouth.

That was a joke nothing personal. It was too easy to pass up.

BTW I completely agree with you. There is absolutely no reason why contributing, productive, participants in society should not be able to partake in the benefits and privileges granted by society.

In other words, who cares if two people who care about each other enter into a legally recognized union?

Call it marriage, call it a civil contract, who cares? In fact the states should stop recognizing church marriages and require a civil service for all marriages or unions to be legally recognized.

they do. that's where the line, "by the power vested in me" comes from. priests, ministers, JPs, rabbis are all acting partially as agents of the state when they perform a wedding ceremony.

 

[Sunni Man]

Separate but equal is never equal.

That's funny comming from a Zionist Jew who defends building a wall in Israel to keep the Palestenian people seperate!!!!

 

[DiamondDave]

Separate but equal is never equal.

Then I guess men and women cannot be deemed equal... Hispanics not equal to Asians, not equal to Eskimos, not equal to Whites, not equal to Blacks?

The key is we have things that make us separate... there are labels everywhere in government... does not mean they cannot be deemed equal and treated equal under the law..

Have the government recognize all things as unions for all I care... for in fact a marriage is a union recognized by the law... but also in fact marriage or matrimony is indeed defined as a union between a man and a woman... if the government recognizes other family unions as being equal to marriage in rights (inheritance, med decisions, power of attorney, etc) that should be good..

But as I have sated before.. that is not the objective... pushing the gay agenda is the objective... not just equal rights under the law

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Just as a person who is of Caucasian race cannot simply seek to redefine what African American is to be deemed 'black' by the law.... just as you cannot deem your dog to be a cat... it is not right to redefine marriage which always has been defined as the union between a man and a woman.... as stated.. I am all for their equal treatment under the law as a couple/family... but it simply is not marriage... and it is not their right to redefine marriage

Neither race nor specific species identification are an invention. Marriage only exists as a concept and legal construct. Being "black" or "black enough" is a perspective which varies dependent on the eye of the beholder and open to any interpretation.

Marriage is a legal contract, a union, a partnership. That is the definition of marriage.

All words are purely conventional devices and tools, and modern language redefines them all the time.

 

[jillian]

Then I guess men and women cannot be deemed equal... Hispanics not equal to Asians, not equal to Eskimos, not equal to Whites, not equal to Blacks?

The key is we have things that make us separate... there are labels everywhere in government... does not mean they cannot be deemed equal and treated equal under the law..

Have the government recognize all things as unions for all I care... for in fact a marriage is a union recognized by the law... but also in fact marriage or matrimony is indeed defined as a union between a man and a woman... if the government recognizes other family unions as being equal to marriage in rights (inheritance, med decisions, power of attorney, etc) that should be good..

But as I have sated before.. that is not the objective... pushing the gay agenda is the objective... not just equal rights under the law

Loving v Virginia defines marriage as a fundamental right. Unlike what some like to allege, marriage does not emanate from the church. The power to marry comes from the state. Hence the marriage ceremony words "by the power vested in me by the state of..... ". And while Churches can decide who fits their criteria, the State is more limited in that regard.

And the same absurd allegations used by people to defend discrimination against gays is exactly what was said about blacks.

Which is one of the reasons the Court exists... to keep people from imposing their prejudices on minorities.

And, I've never been quite certain how the institution of marriage can be any more demeaned than it was by Britney Spears' 18 hour marriage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

they do. that's where the line, "by the power vested in me" comes from. priests, ministers, JPs, rabbis are all acting partially as agents of the state when they perform a wedding ceremony.

But why is the state "vesting" legal power to any religion?

The problem here is that churches feel they have some legal power here when in reality they should have none zero zip nada