AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
If there are no government incentives for marriage - why do I need the government to "sanction" my marriage?you realize how insane this sounds, and how this is the most homophobic position you've yet
If there are no government incentives for marriage - why do I need the government to "sanction" my marriage?you realize how insane this sounds, and how this is the most homophobic position you've yet
Do lawyers handle prenuptials? Divorce? Wills? I imagine with a divorce rate above 50 percent, you haven't lacked clients.
if that's your position, fine. i find it surprising that same-sex marriage led you to this conclusion.
fortunately, most people don't agree with you.
To a certain degree you are actually correct. The more I researched and posted - the more I realized I was actually advocating the state should define marriage when I actually desire that the state be as little involved in people's lives as possible.you seem to have been backed into a corner defending an indefensible position...
The tax breaks are minimal, at best. We already have separate medical insurance...i think you should start by refusing your tax breaks and getting separate medical insurance.
What law currently governs when any non-married couple living together splits?When you take away marriage-related legislation, then what law will govern when a couple splits?
What law currently governs when any non-married couple living together splits?
It falls in line with my preference for small government and the protection of the church from the state.
That can be debated by the evidence of recent gay marriage defeats in very liberal states.
The tax breaks are minimal, at best.
My opinion on marriage, and the beauty and importance of it, has not changed. The state should have no jurisdiction over it.so now you've adopted the position that marriage is only for sexual satisfaction
How has this been working out the last fifty-odd years? What the state helps is usually what it hurts.and society has no interest in helping people create families.
I thought you were referring to my personal opinion on marriage, and whether or not it was popular. My apologies. I agree, the voters would not have supported removing the incentives for marriage.you've really tripped yourself up here. none of these states have voted to eradicate any and all social recognition of marriage, the new position you're advocating today.
Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.again, you're just adding fuel to the theory that you're ready to eradicate marriage just to keep the homos out.
Man, then I need a new accountant...well, I guess it is better for society to have that $400k back and fix the bridges.does $400k over the course of a lifetime sound minimal to you?
My opinion on marriage, and the beauty and importance of it, has not changed. The state should have no jurisdiction over it.
How has this been working out the last fifty-odd years? What the state helps is usually what it hurts.
I thought you were referring to my personal opinion on marriage, and whether or not it was popular. My apologies. I agree, the voters would not have supported removing the incentives for marriage.
Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.
Man, then I need a new accountant...well, I guess it is better for society to have that $400k back and fix the bridges.
* Definition of forward is not subject to debate, dissent or vote
the definition of the word "faggot" has changed enormously over time.
so i take it you've given up?
can you at least agree, that under the current law regarding civil marriage, there is no logical reason to bar gay couples from the institution.
You're trying to make marriage into an exclusive, religion-only activity. I mean, this is stiflingly stupid. I actually can't believe it.
AEON said:...or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so
Anything that challenges the hegemony of the ruling group is suspect.
Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.
Why won't you answer the question?
If people can get married and not have children, why is a vagina so important for marriage?
It's the model that God set.
There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.So basically if your church decided it would marry two women you would be ok with that?
Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.Since now there is no governing body deciding if a marriage is legal or not, then you've pretty much opened it up to anyone...
There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.
Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.
Before you identify something as as "siflingly stupid" you might want to consider re-reading the post.
Perhaps you missed this part...
It would also be very sad if it is a forgery for the purpose of propaganda to incite hatred against Christians.
Which God?
What about it?
Home / Globe / Opinion / Op-ed Jeff Jacoby
Wedded to vitriol, backers of gay marriage stumble
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / November 11, 2009
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + ON ELECTION DAY, voters in Maine repealed a six-month-old state law authorizing same-sex marriage. Maine was the 31st state in which the legal definition of marriage was put to a vote, and the 31st in which voters rejected gay marriage. And once again, the response from many on the losing side was bitter.
Discuss
COMMENTS (602)
“Bigotry trumps compassion,’’ wrote commentator Michael Stone, calling the vote “a shameful display of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.’’ In the Maine Campus, the newspaper of the University of Maine, columnist Samantha Hansen denounced the voters who “let hatred, confusion, misinformation, and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty.’’ When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes? It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage. But after going 0 for 31 - after failing to make the case for same-sex marriage even in such liberal and largely gay-friendly states as California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and now Maine - isn’t it time to stop caricaturing their opponents as the equivalent of Jim Crow-era segregationists? Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage, concerns that will not be allayed by describing those voters as contemptible troglodytes?
I oppose same-sex marriage for reasons previous columns have explored. I think it would be reckless to jettison the understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman. It seems to me nonsensical to claim that men and women are utterly interchangeable, or to deny that children are likeliest to thrive when they are raised by both a mother and a father. I believe that timeless moral standards must not be casually overturned and that doing so is apt to have unintended and unfortunate consequences. And I am sure that legalizing same-sex wedlock would fuel demands for further radical change - legalizing plural marriage, for example.
But strongly opposing gay marriage doesn’t mean I don’t understand why many people just as strongly favor it. I can sympathize with committed gay and lesbian couples who feel demeaned by the law’s rejection of same-sex marriage or who crave the proof of societal acceptance, the cloak of normalcy, that a marriage license would provide. I don’t regard the redefinition of marriage as a civil rights issue; nor do I buy the argument that laws barring same-sex marriage are comparable to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. But I recognize that many people - sincere and decent people - do. By my lights they are mistaken, not evil.
Why do so many same-sex marriage advocates find it so hard to see marriage traditionalists in the same light?
In a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Messner surveys the “naked animus’’ that was directed against supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment that voters approved last year. His meticulously footnoted study makes chilling reading, with example after example of the blacklisting, vandalism, intimidation, loss of employment, anti-religious hostility, and even death threats to which backers of Prop. 8 were subjected.
Of course not all proponents of gay marriage display such vehement intolerance. But far too many do to shrug it off as insignificant. And voters don’t have to be paranoid to wonder: If this is the kind of abuse that opponents of gay marriage can be subjected to now, how much more intolerance will dissenters face if gay marriage becomes the law?
After 31 losses in 31 states, it’s time for same-sex marriage activists to seriously consider a piece of advice Barney Frank offered a few years ago. “There’s something to be said for cultural respect,’’ the nation’s most prominent gay political figure said in 2004.
“Showing a bit of respect for cultural values with which you disagree is not a bad thing. Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’