Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

Something along these lines?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


One of the proposals up before the legislature, in Canada, where we do have gay marriage, is to do away with marriage altogether. There would be a civil union recognised by the state and marriages performed in churches.

Secondly, we get this drivel stuffed down our throats on a day set aside by some of the conservatives to honour traditional marriage. Now, the CBC is funded by the government, so this is what our taxes are paying for.

Event: CBC hosts same-sex marriage
2004-02-15


Canada-wide

CBC News Sunday will broadcast the marriage of Douglass Drozdow-St. Christian (50) and his partner Stephen Drozdow-St. Christian (33) live to the nation on Feb 15 . The couple plan to shorten their hyphenated surname to "St. Christian" after their marriage. The hour-long ceremony will be augmented with edited portions of pre-recorded(Feb. 13) edited debates.. Rev. Deana Dudley of Christos MCC will be the officiant. More details to-follow

So, in terms of how this would negatively impact your life, you're entire objection comes down to

1. I don't like a piece of proposed legislation.
2. I'm tired of seeing this crap on TV.

?

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, that's the most appealing legislation, but that also means that there are no tax benefits for marriage anymore.

I could say plenty more, but those are two concrete ways that it has already affected my life.

They are also secular reasons. Do you really want me to get into other ways?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by yavoon


if u ask me why I want to marry its to show love and commitment to the same person and raise a family.

neither of which requires the gov't.

In case you haven't noticed, gays are not given those same protections that you take for granted.


DUH

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So, what about state's rights, MtG?

And BTW,

Keep this up, along with the other thread about rape victims being denied their own dignity, and I might respect you about as much as I have respected Park Avenue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Fun:

You respect me as much as you do Park Avenue?


I guess I am turning liberal.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mr. Fun:

You respect me as much as you do Park Avenue?


I guess I am turning liberal.

No -- I meant, in the past, I have respected you more than Park Avenue, because (IMO) your attitude towards gays was not as arrogant and as hateful as Park Avenue.

I really don't think you're becoming more liberal.

[Ben Kenobi]

Humourous as ever, Mr. Fun.

You're even straighter-laced than I!

[Agathon]

Ben how come you think it is wrong for two God fearing gays to be married and love each other with respect and adopt children and dress and act like the Osmonds; but you think it would be fine if you had your foul and bestial way with young Ms. Carey? I'm not sure I can see the man upstairs being terribly happy with the latter, or even with you thinking about it, according to his rulebook.

Just thought I'd mention it... I can't understand for the life of me what you see in her - does she have a novelty pube-trim I haven't seen?

[General Ludd]

nevermind - too early for me to be posting.


Monkey head?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Actually, that's the most appealing legislation, but that also means that there are no tax benefits for marriage anymore.

Sounds like you are concerned over loosing marital tax benefits. Just think if you were losing the entire institution.

Then you would know how we feel.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye


Because it does not carry equal recognition. Like it or not, having two categories implies they are different - or else there would just be one category. It wouldn't make sense to have two categories for something unless there was some kind of difference.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, it's just a finer form of discrimination. If you have all the rights, but not the title, there is an implication that for some reason you still don't qualify.

We've already seen how "seperate but equal" works in real life. It doesn't

To use an anlogy of Ramo's, what if there were two classes of US citizenship ("citizens" and "members") legally equal in every way, and that all black people were asked to accept United States "membership". How do you think they would feel about that?

creating a distinction w/o a difference seems like an effective compromise to me. I do have some sympathy for the christians. marriage came into our culture through them. it came into our law as a combination of democracy(most ppl were xtian), and pragmatism(the state found it good to support the institution of marriage). and we've taken it and hijacked it continuously. we've made divorce exceptionally easy and now we want it to include "two ppl of the same sex" in the definition of marriage. whether u think this is the right thing or not it is most assuredly not the original intent.

I'm all for gay couples getting rights, but if u asked me the definition of marriage I would still include a man and a woman in it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just think if you were losing the entire institution.

Red herring. How can you lose what you have never had?

Secondly, for me there is no division between the religious aspects of marriage, and the secular. I deliberately confine myself to the secular. In the religious sense I feel as if we are losing the entire institution, what it means, what people stand for, to the point where I would be more comfortable not getting married than to have my marriage recognised by the state.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by yavoon


we've made divorce exceptionally easy and now we want it to include "two ppl of the same sex" in the definition of marriage. whether u think this is the right thing or not it is most assuredly not the original intent.

What does original intent have to do with it? Our society is vastly different from that of the early Christians. It was never original intent to allow slaves to marry, either.

I'm all for gay couples getting rights, but if u asked me the definition of marriage I would still include a man and a woman in it.

Would you restrict the rights, benefits, and responsibilities to a male-female couple as well?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Red herring. How can you lose what you have never had?

If you lost "the entire institution" of marriage, you couldn't get married. Gays currently can't get married. Therefore, your situation would be the same as gays, i.e. marriage would not be an option for you.

Was that hard to follow?

Secondly, for me there is no division between the religious aspects of marriage, and the secular.

That's wonderful, but for many other citizens, there is a division between the two. That's a key difference between our form of government and that of, say Iran.

Hey, twice earlier in this thread you made comments about gays wanting to get the benefits of marriage without paying for them. Twice I asked you about it. No explanation yet. What were you talking about?