| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Olivia725 |
|||
|
Posts: 1412 (10/21/2008 8:35 AM) |
Working friend Holly? Is Holly a hooker?
What movie is that from. You forgot to add that in the end, she fell in love with Tom. And they lived happily ever after. |
||
|
JayneOC |
|||
|
Posts: 104113 (10/21/2008 8:36 AM) JC Fanatic '01 '02 '04 '06 |
LOHL's don't exist.
|
||
|
knowsitall621 |
|||
|
Posts: 308 (10/21/2008 8:36 AM) |
It's more believable for a straight man/woman to believe that another straight woman/man married someone of the same sex for benefits than it is for a
straight woman/man to believe there is nothing going on within an opposite sex marriage. At least that's how it is in today's day and age. IN the
future, things all around will probably be more acceptable. The whole point is, people will be afraid that more people are going to take advantage of marrying
for benefits, that is all. Like I said...I'm all for love. If a gay couple is in love. Then I'm OK with marriage.
|
||
|
bigredmunkeebutt |
|||
|
Posts: 8851 (10/21/2008 8:36 AM) |
If we had free health care for everyone, than people wouldn't have to marry for benefits- so how's about we legalize gay marriage, have free health
care for everyone, and then everyone will be happy?
Seriously, I don't see what's so ''complicated'' or confusing. TWO PEOPLE, (Not animals, inanimate objects, groups of 50, etc. ) both of legal age, should have the right to marry- period. If two people want to be together, and they are both of age, who is the government to say that they can't? |
||
|
LisaChasez |
|||
|
Posts: 101009 (10/21/2008 8:38 AM) JC Fanatic '03
|
It's more believable for a straight man/woman to believe that another straight woman/man married someone of the same sex for benefits than it is for a straight woman/man to believe there is nothing going on within an opposite sex marriage. If someone told me they married for benefits, regardless of the sex, I'd believe them. Your logic is so flawed
|
||
|
knowsitall621 |
|||
|
Posts: 309 (10/21/2008 8:38 AM) |
bigredmunkeebutt wrote:  That would be a GREAT idea!!
|
||
|
Semirhage626 |
|||
|
Posts: 5321 (10/21/2008 8:44 AM) |
Honestly, I think many people are scared of it because they don't understand exactly what gay marriage activists want.
I can't tell you how many people I've heard say -- I don't want the government forcing my church to marry gays. I honestly think a huge % of people who are against gay marriage have that kind of misconception. I feel like to make progress, we need to make people understand that NO ONE wants to MAKE churches accept gay marriage -- churches do, and should continue to have have the freedom to decide who they want to marry based on their own criteria. All we want is for the government to recognize that legal insitutions can not discriminate. |
||
|
BananaMuffin |
|||
|
Posts: 252 (10/21/2008 8:51 AM) |
LisaChasez wrote:That is a common misconception. On the other hand, some things that people believe to be traditional are actually relatively recent innovations. That is the case for the "tradition" that marriage has to be licensed by the state or sanctified by the church. In ancient Rome, the difference between cohabitation and legal marriage depended solely upon the partners' intent. Even the Roman Catholic Church long held that if a man and woman said they had privately agreed to marry, whether they said those words in the kitchen or out by the haystack, they were, in fact, married. But in practice, there were many more ways to get out of a marriage in the early Middle Ages than in the early modern era.http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i35/35b00701.htm |
||
|
shortcakexo |
|||
|
Posts: 3692 (10/21/2008 8:59 AM) |
I don't really get it either. A lot of the people who I know that are against gay marriage are people who are divorced/had kids out of wedlock/engage in
premartial sex, all of which is not viewed too "holy" in the eyes of most churches, so it seems very hypocritical. Marriage is hardly sacred anymore,
everyone should have the right to be unhappy in a marriage.
Personal opinions/distaste shouldn't be allowed to dictate others lives, and that's what I feel like a lot of it is. |
||
 the lakes slave |
|||
|
Posts: 57287 (10/21/2008 9:23 AM) |
knowsitall621 wrote:That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. |
||
|
LilBabyWithTheSundressOn |
|||
|
Posts: 37643 (10/21/2008 9:27 AM) Friendliest JJBer '07 |
I agree that civil ceremonies have nothing to do with what religion says about gay marriage or anything. My issue (and it's sort of opposite or unrelated
to what you're talking about) is the whole thing about granting gays civil unions only. It makes me think of the segregation up through the 60s. Our
constitution promises equality. I don't believe in the equal but separate bullshit.
|
||
|
knowsitall621 |
|||
|
Posts: 310 (10/21/2008 9:28 AM) |
the lakes slave wrote:Awww, you're sweet! |
||
|
Semirhage626 |
|||
|
Posts: 5322 (10/21/2008 9:29 AM) |
LilBabyWithTheSundressOn wrote:I agree totally. Separate but Equal is NOT okay. I thought we established that years ago, I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand that same principle should apply to other legal institutions, like marriage. |
||
|
LisaChasez |
|||
|
Posts: 101021 (10/21/2008 9:31 AM) JC Fanatic '03
|
Just like Brown v. Board of Ed, this has to work its way up the court system. Again, a HUGE reason why this election is so important
|
||
|
TheHumansAreDead |
|||
|
Posts: 1264 (10/21/2008 9:31 AM) |
It's not really about the gay marriage, it's about marrying who ever you want. If I fall in love with a guy I wanna marry him, If I fall in love with a
girl I wanna marry her.
|
||
|
femme0622 |
|||
|
Posts: 272 (10/21/2008 9:58 AM) |
I'm not personally against or for gay marriage; the only thing I'm concerned about is the slippery slope effect where it re-defines marriage. If
banning gay marriage isn't constitutional, then isn't bigamy? I'm not comparing the two states of legality, just saying that when you re-define
one, you open the door to re-define the other.
|
||
|
LisaChasez |
|||
|
Posts: 101023 (10/21/2008 10:00 AM) JC Fanatic '03
|
Why do you care about bigamy? What's the big deal there? If three people are in love, who's to say that's wrong
As long as children aren't
involved, it should be no ones business.
|
||
|
femme0622 |
|||
|
Posts: 273 (10/21/2008 10:06 AM) |
And what happens if they decide to have kids? What? Do they divorce? Who takes care of the kids? My issue is more personal in the sense that I wouldn't
participate in that sort of relationship, and while I respect people's individual choices, it shouldn't necessitate the spending of my tax dollars
(ergo my support) for them to carry out those choices.
|
||
|
LisaChasez |
|||
|
Posts: 101024 (10/21/2008 10:08 AM) JC Fanatic '03
|
So what if they have kids. Same with regular couples that have kids and divorces.
And why do you automatically think that people getting divorce immediately go on the dole? How are YOU paying for their life style? |
||
|
Semirhage626 |
|||
|
Posts: 5324 (10/21/2008 10:08 AM) |
femme0622 wrote:From a legal perspective, Marriage is a contract between two individuals. There is a huge difference between trying to ensure that we don't discriminate against individuals and changing the fundamental terms of the contract to include more than 2 people. Although FWIW, would polygamy hurt you? Why do you care? |
||
