Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

Congrats New York!


Recommended Posts

Guest diaperboykcmo

There seems to be a lot of hate for diaperboykcmo in this thread and I don't really see why its justified. I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like his only major issue is with the terminology - not the principal of gays having some union 'equal' to marriage. If that's the case I side with them. What is wrong with having the term "marriage" apply solely to a union between a man and a woman and having some other term to cover those cases where it applies to a woman and a women or a man and a man but conveys they same responsibilities and benefits?

I've no problem at all with gays having some construct equal to marriage, called it whatever: "gayrige", "civil partnership", "civil union", "gay marriage", "same sex unions", whatever, I don't see why you're so attached to it being "marrige". There is so much bile being directed at people who, for whatever reason, would rather a term with a deep religious meaning to them remains true to its original meaning - is it so unreasonable for them to ask that that term is not (for want of a better word) corrupted?

Thanks Zander. You're 100% correct.

Link to comment
Guest diaperboykcmo

What he said. It is obviously a civil rights violation as any form of segregation is unconstitutional in the U.S.

That said, I think the way diaperboykcmo approached this thread disgusted me as religion should never have gotten involved in this discussion.

The 14th ammendment was not made for same sex marriage. The way you compare civil rights to the slaves, should be insulting!! Hey jagoff Jason, most weddings are in a CHURCH! I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT'S REALITY!! Marriage between a man and a woman. Go Mary your dog!!

Link to comment

Oh lordy. Sorry, I'm out of this thread. I've got better things to do than deal with somebody who insists on arguing their point with insults, -1's, demonstrations of their stupidity and SHOUTY ALL CAPS rather than discussion and intellect.

Link to comment

The 14th ammendment was not made for same sex marriage. The way you compare civil rights to the slaves, should be insulting!! Hey jagoff Jason, most weddings are in a CHURCH! I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT'S REALITY!! Marriage between a man and a woman. Go Mary your dog!!

Okay, I will try one more time you knucklehead. We are not referring to the 14th Amendment. Civil rights was made for everybody, not just African Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 pertained to racial segregation, but in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled all forms of segregation unconstitutional. This is why it cannot be left up to the states and still maintain legality, and this is why you cannot grant people in the gay/lesbian community civil unions and still maintain legality.

Marriages are not really performed by the church as marriage licenses are granted by the state. Marriage ceremonies are performed by the church. Hey, where do you go to settle your divorce?

How do you figure same-sex marriage would open the door to people marrying animals? Animals are not people you know and have never been given the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Link to comment

If California recognizes same sex unions,and it probably will, that should be the proverbial "tipping point." In terms of population with California at #1 and New York at #3 the pressure to recognize the marriages nationwide will become overwhelming. It will most likely take another 10 years for it all to shake out but the shift in thinking and in law is looking inevitable. I suppose I should say that I never thought this would happen in my lifetime, so I am both overjoyed and pleasantly surprised. Something to bear in mind; on its face the "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA is unconstitutional. Every state is constitutionally bound to recognize and enforce any contract agreed to in another state. Marriage, outside of any religious ceremony/blessing, is really a contract subject to contract law. If it wasn't then a civil divorce would not be possible. Some states, such as Vermont where I married my now spouse, re-wrote their "marriage" laws to make all a civil union,in other words a contract between 2 adults that want to share their lives. The rest of the arguments are just a canard to distract the public from doing the right thing. After watching the debate in New York is is gratifying to see shallow bigotry and superstition overcome by empathy and understanding that we can't keep oppressing people because they don't fit a minorities warped moral dogma. I shall now sit back and enjoy the show.

Congratulations and thank you to the citizens of New York State for doing the right thing.

California already recognizes same sex unions/marriage.

Link to comment

California already recognizes same sex unions/marriage.

Unions, not marriage. There is a disparity between the recognized rights in the two situations and, of course, California infamously voted for Prop 8 a couple years ago.

Link to comment
  • 7 months later...

Civil unions and Marriage. Yes there is a difference. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Since our founding, that's what Marriage has been. The gay people seem to want to hijack marriage, I'm cool with civil unions. I believe they should even have benefits, of a spouse. It should never be called Marriage, that's sacred. Based upon your logic, a man should be able to marry his dog!

Why am I commenting in a gay forum. I didn't even know I was lol. I read the most recent commnets, and it caught my attention. Oh yeah there is no such thing as seperation of church and state. The Good book says, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The good thing is, when it's all said and done. We'll all be held accountable, as God will make the ultimate judgement!!

I don't beleive straight people go around and announcing that we like Pussy! So we straight people don't really have a MO! Gay people seem to have one, for every action their is a reaction. We're only reacting, to what they're trying to do!

No gay marriage is not recognized in other states. So if you Marry in New York with their new law, you can't come to KCMO and still be married. We still have morals and values!

Religious arguments aside, I believe the core of this debate is the belief that change, in the form of gay marriage is a threat to both social harmony and in an esoteric sense, the people's moral order. This is an inherent generational, religous, and sociopolitical conflict. Also, political and religous conservatives are not conservative out of malice per se. Their actions can be explained by the desire to maintain the status quo, and in some cases return to a simpler time where there was more harmony. The most lively debates occur when there is a real or perceived clash between the rights of the individual, and the collective good of society. The actions of persons unkown to me do not effect me.

The public is an abstraction in the sense that they are a group of millions in the American case, and billions in the global case of unknown strangers. Their actions do not effect me unless they actually effect me. Also, some conservatives feel personally threatened by social change. This is illogical. These affairs of others cannot possibly be an injury or even less so a humiliation to me. As it stands, I can have no natural stance on gay marriage until I would personally consider it.

At most, religously derived ethics may inform actions at the level of the individual. You are not commiting sin or compromising your morals if you allow others to deviate from what you believe is right. There are some conservatives who defend the current political and moral landscape as strongly as they would their own moral discipline. This too is a fallacy, but one that is only obvious to a few. From the view of a third plane, beyond the realm of religous thought, those most naturally to validly comment on gay marriage are those who are faced with that decision. The ease with which a religous argument can be made to justify one's position on social issues should be enough reason to give one pause before idly accepting or formulating one. Laws concerning dietary choices, days of rest, even "witchcraft" have all been made on religous grounds. It is not always appropriate to use Levitican law to govern modern society. The commandment: Though shall not suffer a witch to live, has caused immesurable suffering in early modern and even modern times. Americans are familiar with the chaos of the Salem Witch Trials. In Europe, witch fever has killed tens of thousands, even hundreds of innocents. Cyndal Roper wrote Witch Craze, describing the European witch hunts. She is a skillful historian, worthy of public interest. People used to think that they were morally, even supernaturally mandated to kill "witches." Also, the seperation of church and state, which IS A VALID CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT: Has, for the most part kept religous conflicts from becoming political ones. Americans may ignore the Vatican with impunity. In Europe, the lack of this concept has also caused immesurable suffering. The Abysinian crusade is an excellent example. There was a sect in France known as the Cathars, their beliefs are irrelevant. They were actually an earlier school of protestants than the Lutherans, the difference being: that the Cathars were exterminated (murdered) by the Catholic Church. It is extremely ignorant to pretend that the seperation of church and state do not exist, especially within the context of a religous argument. A modern person recognizes that when their religion says X is wrong, that means that it is wrong for them, also, for the sake of argument, I am ignoring the moral universals.

Link to comment

Whether you agree or not, there are a few points being made here which I believe are unarguable, at least from any logical point of view. First is that there should be a different word to describe a joining of two people for life versus any other two people who are not the same as the first two. There is but one thing happening here; that of two people joining for life- thus there should be one word for that since it is a singular thing. Call it what you will, but call it the same thing for everyone because it is the same thing for everyone even when they are different people.

Second is the fact that the Constitution does clearly state that each and every individual State must honor all contracts, deeds, licenses, and documents from any other State and render them as valid as if they were made in their own State. This will be held to cover marriage- including same-sex marriage- at some point. It hasn't happened ye because the Supreme Court Justices know it will be an unpopular decision whichever way they decide it, so they have refused to hear those cases so far; that cannot long endure in a free society or the whole system will fail. The only other solution (short of a State or States seceeding from the Union) is to Federalize all the mentioned things through a Constitutional Amendment; which would be more onerous and less palatable to most US Citizens who do not want that kind of a centralized Government. One must exist with the other if either is to exist as it is now.

And third, Marriage is a legal concept since you must obtain a license to marry in any form in every State. No Church, Religion, or other Institution can legally usurp or alter that authority. What role history or religion may play in this has no bearing here because of that- this is a legal issue only, like it or not.

Personally I'd prefer the Government get out of the Marriage business where it has no place being anyway. With the extremely high failure rate of heterosexual Marrigaes I can find no point in even recognizing any Marriage anymore. Nowhere else is a 50% failure rate accepted and that is essentially what has happened to hetrosexual Marriage so don't try to 'defend it'- overall it is as blatant a failure as is humanly possible to create! My opinion is that if Marriage needs to be a part of society then let it reside where it belongs- in the matter of personal beliefs- and only there. Give no credit, credence, or recognition to it otherwise. Among those who believe similarly it will still have all of it's current validity; among those who believe differently well that's their right as much as it is your own to hold your beliefs whatever they are. If you think otherwise tell me that only after you first give up your own right to believe as you wish to- until then I am not going to listen to that argument because you will be a hypocrite, not doing what you say you believe is right yourself. What is good for one is equally good for all, or it is not actually good in the first place and needs to be disposed of.

And finally (and I'm getting darn tired of having to say this on so many different threads!) there will be no personal attacks on this website. If you disagree with something posted here then be civil and debate the concept, not the person. That goes for everyone here. If you don't like this go cry elsewhere-this is a rule here and it will be enforced. My patience with this is stretched to it's limit. Bad people ruin good forums and I'm not going to let that happen to DD- got it?

Bettypooh

Link to comment

And third, Marriage is a legal concept since you must obtain a license to marry in any form in every State. No Church, Religion, or other Institution can legally usurp or alter that authority. What role history or religion may play in this has no bearing here because of that- this is a legal issue only, like it or not.

On the continent Napoleon introduced the civil marriage. It was a result of the French Revolution. The principles of humanity of the French Revolution inspired the Founding Fathers.

Link to comment

To the nay-sayers, if marriage was so "sacred" as it is, why do you tout the laws at all? If it is truly sacred, then it doesn't belong in the laws at all. If it's in the laws, then equality should reign and that means the law itself cannot determine who can or cannot participate in it, period. We need the government out of our lives more, not less, and if you want more government control, move to the Middle East, please.

Link to comment

I just don't understand why some people cannot recognise why two people of the same sex cannot love each other.

People are born a boy or a girl and have no say over that, surely you fall in love with a person not their gender? My partner is the same sex as me, but I would love him just as much if he had been (or chooses to be) a girl.

Personally, I think marriage is a broken concept anyway. The huge amout of broken marriages has rendered the whole concept pointless and a waste of time as people just get married and divorced whenever they want.

The "sanctity of marriage" argument which is trotted out is so laughable to me!

Just let people love each other! What business is it of any church, government or anyone else to say who I can love and who I can marry?

Equal rights means the same rights for everyone no matter what, do these people who dislike the idea of gay marriage also dislike the idea of black people being equal? How about women being equal to men?

  • Like 1
Link to comment

The 14th ammendment was not made for same sex marriage. The way you compare civil rights to the slaves, should be insulting!! Hey jagoff Jason, most weddings are in a CHURCH! I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT'S REALITY!! Marriage between a man and a woman. Go Mary your dog!!

Are you aware that marriage can only be undertaken by people (not animals or anything else) who are of the age where they can consent to marriage, right?

And my wife and I have discussed it - our marriage is not threatened at all by gay marriage. If they want to marry, more power to them. They should have the same rights I have.

Link to comment

Are you aware that marriage can only be undertaken by people (not animals or anything else) who are of the age where they can consent to marriage, right?

And my wife and I have discussed it - our marriage is not threatened at all by gay marriage. If they want to marry, more power to them. They should have the same rights I have.

QFT :thumbsup:

Not being able to give a valid reason to believe them, some people will blow the question all out of proportion or introduce other concepts not being discussed as they try to distract you from the original question which they know are wrong about :o That childish and immature method of response does not merit anyone's attention :P There is a word for people like that which I shall not say here because I do try to be nice, but since such persons can neither prove the validity of their position or provide reason against yours, you should not give credence to anything that person says for not only is their logic deeply flawed, they do not want to see this in themselves, and they would highly prefer you don't see it either :glare: One sign that you are seeing such people is that they will almost always accuse those who oppose them of being sold on 'feely-good' words when it is actually they themselves who have fallen for that tactic :roflmao:

No matter your belief, if you cannot prove your point you cannot expect anyone else to believe whatever you say to be valid and true. Avoiding the question may let you sneak past lesser minds, but greater ones will see your tactics and call you out on them demanding that you stick to the original question and offer your proof as they asked. When, and only when, you fully accept that you cannot offer that proof can you learn to grow and better yourself- and we all have room for improvement.

It is not good to hold a belief or set of beliefs unless those beliefs are correct. If they are correct they should be provable. If they are not provable you should question why you want to believe them and consider what will happen if you chose to do that. The truth stands alone and it will prevail in the end. The truth cannot be changed by belief or argument or by ignoring it; it can only be accepted or rejected. Even though the truth can feel hurtful sometimes when you discover you have erred, it is better to seek and accept the truth than to ignore it, for only by accepting the truth can you go any further in life :biker_h4h:

Bettypooh

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...