(anti) marriage ad

[Anonymous]

I am a conservative and as a conservative I think it's no one's business to get involved with someone else's life..particularly the government. I personally think if two people make some sort of committment to be there for each other and share expenses, they should receive tax benefits and not have their life savings stolen as they will not get around inheritance tax. Whether my religion is for it is another thing but I do not like government interference in matters this private. I actually think there are a lot of conservatives who think this way and was happy to see John McCain's former guy speak to the Log Cabin Republicans on this matter. Hopefully thought on gay marriage will change. Ironically..it turned out that the amendment in CA was largely panned by African Americans ( polling data showed) who seem to have some sort of cultural thing against gays..funny that many gays voted for Obama as a way of showing how far the coutry came only to get slammed by the very people they were trying to show their own tolerance toward. Life is strange..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a conservative and as a conservative I think it's no one's business to get involved with someone else's life..particularly the government. I personally think if two people make some sort of committment to be there for each other and share expenses, they should receive tax benefits and not have their life savings stolen as they will not get around inheritance tax. Whether my religion is for it is another thing but I do not like government interference in matters this private. I actually think there are a lot of conservatives who think this way and was happy to see John McCain's former guy speak to the Log Cabin Republicans on this matter. Hopefully thought on gay marriage will change. Ironically..it turned out that the amendment in CA was largely panned by African Americans ( polling data showed) who seem to have some sort of cultural thing against gays..funny that many gays voted for Obama as a way of showing how far the country came only to get slammed by the very people they were trying to show their own tolerance toward. Life is strange..

Everything you say here supports my contention in another thread that the terms "liberal" nd "conservative" confuse more than they illuminate. My standard example is that the Catholic Church's consistent stand on life is viewed as conservative on abortion and liberal on capital punishment, but your examples serve just as well. I think this country would be better off if some hypnotist could make us all forget that those words ever existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is something between a man and a woman.
They can call it something else.

I used to feel this way. What changed my mind was seeing those huge lines in San Francisco after the city allowed gays to marry. I was surprised and moved that so many gay couples wanted to get married. I was actually surprised so many wanted to join this conservative institution. Marriage is disdained by many people as unnecessary, old-fashioned, traditional, "a piece of paper." Yet in San Francisco, hundreds of people waited in line for hours for their chance to finally get that little piece of paper. I agree that opposition to gay marriage will fall in time, and it will become a non-issue. All adults will be allowed to marry and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is something between a man and a woman.
They can call it something else.

I know there have been responses to this, but I don't think anyone has hit (what I think is) the important point: The word "marriage" is important because the STATE treats married people differently. If marriage were only a religious ritual, I don't think there would be a problem. If the government got out of the marriage business and transferred all benefits to civil unions, and people had religious ceremonies to get married in the eyes of their church as an independent act of no interest to the state, we would not be arguing about the word. But as long as it has both civil and religious meanings, we will have people arguing at cross purposes.

Excellent Point!!!!

[Anonymous]

what helps is seeing gay couples who are what is definid as "normal"--I think when you see the gay pride parade and a bunch of guys in leather or girls with beards, it's hard to take that seriously. Of course it's still someone's perogative to dress up in leather with a whip and chain but seeing gay couples who fit in society can change even the most hard core conservative mind.

[Anonymous]

Marriage is first and foremost a legal institution. It makes two people one in the eyes of the law with respect to property and income and inheritance rights. Within this context, I think gays should have the legal right to marriage.

Keep it a legal contract. Let each individual church/mosque/temple/synagogue deal with it as they please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what helps is seeing gay couples who are what is definid as "normal"--I think when you see the gay pride parade and a bunch of guys in leather or girls with beards, it's hard to take that seriously. Of course it's still someone's perogative to dress up in leather with a whip and chain but seeing gay couples who fit in society can change even the most hard core conservative mind.

I understand your point but the problem I have with it is that I've been to gay pride festivals where everyone looked very conventional. During one of the major gay rights demos, I took dd to a sort of street fair and was struck by how all the men looked rather preppy and conventional. There were maybe a couple of women who looked on the butch side but not really anything that you don't see among straight women.

What's sad is that there are lots of people who don't dress up with whips and chains (not that I care if someone does -- that's their business) and who are out in the open but straight people still persist in thinking in these stereotypes. Things have changed such that if straight people are really looking they can easily find examples of so-called "normal" gay people (although that term makes me cringe). But those straight people who have closed minds just don't want to look.

[Anonymous]

I have an answer to that..blame the media because if that is true..that's a shame because what you see on TV and I mean all tv, in terms of news, is the focus on the more "eccentric" shall I say gay people and not the mainstream when you see the gay pride period. Again..I don't want to get the leather folk mad at me because they can be who they are but..again, no one is going to say "definitely legalize that" when they see that. I actually am someone who used to be against gay marriage for that reason--I just didn't know any gay people and my experience of what is gay is what I saw on tv and I just found it weird..fast forward I got out of school, wound up working with some gay people, someone in my family came out and I liked their partner and I evolved and I also realized that it's none of my damn business who sleeps with who yada yada yada. I don't care what anyone says..this issue will be a non issue in ten years..I think there is the tipping point of people really not having a problem with it and more and more gays coming out without too many family problems..well there are always family problems but this not being the big one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is something between a man and a woman.
They can call it something else.

I know there have been responses to this, but I don't think anyone has hit (what I think is) the important point: The word "marriage" is important because the STATE treats married people differently. If marriage were only a religious ritual, I don't think there would be a problem. If the government got out of the marriage business and transferred all benefits to civil unions, and people had religious ceremonies to get married in the eyes of their church as an independent act of no interest to the state, we would not be arguing about the word. But as long as it has both civil and religious meanings, we will have people arguing at cross purposes.

Excellent Point!!!!

Isn't it France where you go to the town hall for the civil aspects of "marriage" (call it a civil union why not?) which bestows the civil benefits (taxation, property ownership, next of kin, whatever) on the union, and then you go to the Church for the religious marriage? Why is something like that not ok? Some churches are cool with a same sex marriage, other's are not - it would be no harm , no foul since the civil benefits of the union are there for all?

I am religious and I believe that marriage is a sacrament ordained by God between a man and a woman. You don't have to believe the same thing, right? Lots of states require marriage licenses, why not just a state recognized civil union, and allow the sacrament to be administered according to the beliefs of the different faith communities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't it France where you go to the town hall for the civil aspects of "marriage" (call it a civil union why not?) which bestows the civil benefits (taxation, property ownership, next of kin, whatever) on the union, and then you go to the Church for the religious marriage? Why is something like that not ok? Some churches are cool with a same sex marriage, other's are not - it would be no harm , no foul since the civil benefits of the union are there for all?

I am religious and I believe that marriage is a sacrament ordained by God between a man and a woman. You don't have to believe the same thing, right? Lots of states require marriage licenses, why not just a state recognized civil union, and allow the sacrament to be administered according to the beliefs of the different faith communities?

Works for me.

[Anonymous]

Isn't it France where you go to the town hall for the civil aspects of "marriage" (call it a civil union why not?) which bestows the civil benefits (taxation, property ownership, next of kin, whatever) on the union, and then you go to the Church for the religious marriage? Why is something like that not ok? Some churches are cool with a same sex marriage, other's are not - it would be no harm , no foul since the civil benefits of the union are there for all?

I am religious and I believe that marriage is a sacrament ordained by God between a man and a woman. You don't have to believe the same thing, right? Lots of states require marriage licenses, why not just a state recognized civil union, and allow the sacrament to be administered according to the beliefs of the different faith communities?

That is not much, if any, different from what's done in this country (state-issued, state-recognized marriage license plus religious wedding if you choose - make no mistake that it's the piece of paper from the government that bestows the rights, not simply what your minister says) and it's not much different than what gay people are asking for (although it sounds like you'd prefer them to use the term "civil union," which I think is unfair unless all those straight people who get married outside of a church have to call it "civil union" too, and I don't see that happening). No one wants to force your, or any, church to perform the ceremony. Gay people just want their union to be recognized by the government the same way ours is.

It's not complicated, it has nothing to do with church ceremonies, and it's only fair. And it will happen.

[Anonymous]

17:21 trough 17:28, in less than ten minutes the three of you have solved the whole problem. Just render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's!

That was serious, by the way, not sarcasm.