Lesbian Couple Married in San Francisco

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
Does it really impact your daily life if two men or two women, either next door or thousands of miles away from you, decide that they want to have legal protection in case the other dies or becomes incapacitated? Does it really affect you if a gay couple wants a child, has the financial means to raise it properly, and will love a child just as well as any functional heterosexual couple? Will it weaken your own relationships if gay marriage is legalized?

No. So, just live and let live.

You don't make sense.

That was one of the most bizzare posts ever. You ask a question and just in case someone might give you an answer you don't like, you tell them that they have to let live and not let live. Well how about the majority does what the majority wants and you accept that?

-Rudey

[sageofages]

Gay Marriage, Civil Union, Heterosexual Marriage, Commonlaw Marriage ...whatever.

The ultimate battle is about SEMANTICS!!!!
It is about love, committment and legal sanction.

The argument I have heard brings for the point about "religious" ideals and what god has "endowed". Where does this leave those who seek to have a civil ceremony... IF this is the case then, I say do away with ALL "marriage". This also brings into the play the separation of church and state.

I think the procedure should be changed so that everyone gets a "civil union" and THEN if they want to call it a "Marriage", they have it officiated by some 'sanctioning' group besides a civil authority.

Then depending on the inclination of those involved...you can chose from a selection to have the type of "sanctioned" legal relationship you want. Heterosexual civil union, heterosexual civil marriage, heterosexual marriage, Gay civil union, gay civil marriage, gay marriage.

my 2 cents....





edited to clarify my use of the word buffet.

[aurora_borealis]

Originally posted by sageofages
Gay Marriage, Civil Union, Heterosexual Marriage, Commonlaw Marriage ...whatever.

The ultimate battle is about SEMANTICS!!!!
It is about love, committment and legal sanction.

The argument I have heard brings for the point about "religious" ideals and what god has "endowed". Where does this leave those who seek to have a civil ceremony... IF this is the case then, I say do away with ALL "marriage". This also brings into the play the separation of church and state.

I think the procedure to should be changed so that everyone gets a "civil union" and THEN if they want to call it a "Marriage", they have it officiated by some 'sanctioning' group besides a civil authority.

Then depending on the inclination of those involved...you can chose from a buffet to have the type of "sanctioned" legal relationship you want. Heterosexual civil union, heterosexual civil marriage, heterosexual marriage, Gay civil union, gay civil marriage, gay marriage.

my 2 cents....

That's only because you're ELCA My mother is part of the Sierra Pacific Synod, which includes San Francisco and gay marriage and clergy wasn't even on the agenda to discuss. We are WAY more concerned with where our coffee is coming from, fair trade and organic. Speaking of which there I need to skedaddle to a hot dish and jello salad supper at LCM.

[sageofages]

Originally posted by aurora_borealis
That's only because you're ELCA My mother is part of the Sierra Pacific Synod, which includes San Francisco and gay marriage and clergy wasn't even on the agenda to discuss. We are WAY more concerned with where our coffee is coming from, fair trade and organic. Speaking of which there I need to skedaddle to a hot dish and jello salad supper at LCM.

ELCA by marriage LOL. Believe it or not, I was raised Episcopal !

Hot dish and jello salad, are you *sure* you aren't hiding in my town somewhere?

[AXO_MOM_3]

Originally posted by sageofages
Gay Marriage, Civil Union, Heterosexual Marriage, Commonlaw Marriage ...whatever.

The ultimate battle is about SEMANTICS!!!!
It is about love, committment and legal sanction.

The argument I have heard brings for the point about "religious" ideals and what god has "endowed". Where does this leave those who seek to have a civil ceremony... IF this is the case then, I say do away with ALL "marriage". This also brings into the play the separation of church and state.

I think the procedure should be changed so that everyone gets a "civil union" and THEN if they want to call it a "Marriage", they have it officiated by some 'sanctioning' group besides a civil authority.

Then depending on the inclination of those involved...you can chose from a buffet to have the type of "sanctioned" legal relationship you want. Heterosexual civil union, heterosexual civil marriage, heterosexual marriage, Gay civil union, gay civil marriage, gay marriage. .

Yep...next people will be wanting to marry their mothers or sisters or even the family pet at the buffet. That way the partner can have insurance and legal protection if one of them dies. It's just a civil union, right?

Just my .02

[Moxie]

Originally posted by AXO_MOM_3
Yep...next people will be wanting to marry their mothers or sisters or even the family pet at the buffet. That way the partner can have insurance and legal protection if one of them dies. It's just a civil union, right?

Just my .02

that's poor logic, you should see, as INCEST is ILLEGAL, and homosexuality is NOT.

[sageofages]

Originally posted by AXO_MOM_3
Yep...next people will be wanting to marry their mothers or sisters or even the family pet at the buffet. That way the partner can have insurance and legal protection if one of them dies. It's just a civil union, right?

Just my .02

Let's see, I don't think ANIMALS have the intellect to be able to CONSENT to such a union, so that invalidates that faulty logic. Incest is illegal too...ok another hole in your scenerio.

Insurance companies set their own guidelines and I think cross species coverage is NOT within those guidelines as well.

[damasa]

Originally posted by AXO_MOM_3
Yep...next people will be wanting to marry their mothers or sisters or even the family pet at the buffet. That way the partner can have insurance and legal protection if one of them dies. It's just a civil union, right?

Just my .02

Worst logic ever, seriously.

If a person is homosexual they are still a person, a human being rather and last I checked it wasn't illegal to be homosexual. It's just illegal for homosexuals to get married just about anywhere except for Mass. and San Fran (at least temporarily).

On the other hand, incest is illegal. And as far as marrying a pet, well pets aren't human so I don't understand the comparison.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by sageofages
Insurance companies set their own guidelines and I think cross species coverage is NOT within those guidelines as well.

Plus, if you own a pet, you can get insurance for it--in some cases through your employer, others as an outside policy. So, no one would marry a pet that they own and can get insurance for, because the legal protection is there.

Also, in some states, if you are the next of kin for a non-spouse and you are the sole caretaker, you can insure them as well. If you're someone's next of kin, then you ideally have power of attorney. So, still...no reason to marry a relative for insurance or legal protection.

Worst.
Logic.
EVAR.

[Colonist]

Originally posted by aurora_borealis
The people elected him, so why would they give him the boot? Moreover if you don't like gay marriage that is your choice and don't ever move to San Francisco, and you DO NOT speak for the majority of the country or religious groups. I can assure you that. I am part of an organized religion and am involved on the Naitonal Level, and we have bigger issues than people in committed relationships that love each other.

He is violating state, not to mention national law, he doesn't have the power to do this. Personally if I had my way his butt would be forced out of office and thrown in prison.

[Colonist]

Originally posted by damasa
Worst logic ever, seriously.

If a person is homosexual they are still a person, a human being rather and last I checked it wasn't illegal to be homosexual. It's just illegal for homosexuals to get married just about anywhere except for Mass. and San Fran (at least temporarily).

On the other hand, incest is illegal. And as far as marrying a pet, well pets aren't human so I don't understand the comparison.

Actually her logic is not far off. Homosexuality was looked at not so long ago by society as utterly reprehensible and wrong. And as time has passed these groups have pushed their agenda on us and the decent people of America and now its becoming acceptable to violate state and national law and allow marriages to occur. Next we'll have people saying they are naturally attracted to their cousins, siblings, etc., then we'll have pedophiles saying that they are just naturally attracted to little children, and then people will begin to accept that, next we'll start to allow bestiality. This is a slippery slope and if we allow this to happen, we will be taking a long and hard collective fall.

[aurora_borealis]

Originally posted by Colonist
Hey fool, he is violating state, not to mention national law, he doesn't have the power to do this. Personally if I had my way his butt would be forced out of office and thrown in prison.

Name calling really makes your argument effective

Hey guess what? You don't live there, how does this really effect you? If it bothers you THAT much move to San Francisco and register to vote and protest at City Hall. I am not aware of any national laws it is violating, so when you find that information out, do post it here for us.

[aurora_borealis]

Originally posted by Colonist
Actually her logic is not far off. Homosexuality was looked at not so long ago by society as utterly reprehensible and wrong. And as time has passed these groups have pushed their agenda on us and the decent people of America and now its becoming acceptable to violate state and national law and allow marriages to occur. Next we'll have people saying they are naturally attracted to their cousins, siblings, etc., then we'll have pedophiles saying that they are just naturally attracted to little children, and then people will begin to accept that, next we'll start to allow bestiality. This is a slippery slope and if we allow this to happen, we will be taking a long and hard collective fall.

1) There are many societies that have no problem with homosexuality
2) Cousin marriage is legal in many places, it depends on the degree separation of the cousins, and cousin marriage was and is favored in many cultures and even inour OWN! Ever heard of the Roosevelts?
3) I am glad you said this is a slippery slope, which is a fallacy in an argument so I didn't have to point it out for you Negates your whole argument
4) When I am at the bar in 15 minutes I will do a big cheers for the people who are allowed to marry the people they love, and Mayor Newsome.

[Colonist]

Originally posted by aurora_borealis
Name calling really makes your argument effective

Hey guess what? You don't live there, how does this really effect you? If it bothers you THAT much move to San Francisco and register to vote and protest at City Hall. I am not aware of any national laws it is violating, so when you find that information out, do post it here for us.

First it is currently against STATE LAW which you neglected to mention. Second, it will soon be against national law once the bill and the amendment that are on the floor RIGHT NOW pass.

[Colonist]

Originally posted by aurora_borealis
1) There are many societies that have no problem with homosexuality
2) Cousin marriage is legal in many places, it depends on the degree separation of the cousins, and cousin marriage was and is favored in many cultures and even inour OWN! Ever heard of the Roosevelts?
3) I am glad you said this is a slippery slope, which is a fallacy in an argument so I didn't have to point it out for you Negates your whole argument
4) When I am at the bar in 15 minutes I will do a big cheers for the people who are allowed to marry the people they love, and Mayor Newsome.

We all know I was refering to FIRST COUSINS but instead of dealing with it properly, you instead try to extend it. I notice you didn't include siblings in there.

Yeah SOME cultures don't have problems with homosexuality, don't presume to say most. Off-hand, all Islamic and Asian nations are quite strongly anti-homosexuality infact its punishable by death or other harsh punishments in many of those cultures.

How you say in #3 that it negates my arguement is a mystery to me.

I am going to enjoy a few things in the next year. Seeing Newsome get the boot, watching the gay marriage ban pass and become a constitutional amendment, and no matter who the president is be it Bush or Kerry next, support the ban FULLY.