Know Thy Neighbor (1 Viewer)

[Gilluin]

As promised the names of the people who signed the marriage admendment in Mass. have been posted.
http://knowthyneighbor.org./thelist.php


The main site is here
http://knowthyneighbor.org./

I might even drop these anti gay bigots a line or two.:twocents:

 

[Schweddy]

LOL, and what good will that do besides make their resolve that much stronger?

Very similar bill passed here in Texas with flying colors. Of which, I am proud to say I voted for.

 

[Gilluin]

LOL, and what good will that do besides make their resolve that much stronger?

Very similar bill passed here in Texas with flying colors. Of which, I am proud to say I voted for.

It is sad that people hate gay people so much that they would deny them the happiness they take for granted. That of being to be able to make the legal family of choice. It is sad that glbt people have their families put up for a public vote.


Actually this is only the opinion of 1,718,513 people in Texas there are a total of 12,577,545 registered voters in Texas. This is only 13.66% of the registered voters in the state. Only 17.92% Of the registered voters turned out to vote. The only result of this election is that 13.66% of the population are forcing thier religious views on the other 86.3% of the Texas Population. This is hardly majority rule. 86.3% of the registered voters don't care about this issue.

IN FAVOR AGAINST Total Registered TurnOut%
1,718,513 536,052 12,577,545 17.92%

http://204.65.107.70/enr3race1.htm?x=0&y=160&id=585

 

[shuamort]

Very similar bill passed here in Texas with flying colors.

Flying colors?

I don't think so.

 

[Schweddy]

It is sad that people hate gay people so much that they would deny them the happiness they take for granted. That of being to be able to make the legal family of choice. It is sad that glbt people have their families put up for a public vote.

What is even more sad is when someone expresses their opinion about a topic (specifically gay marriage) it seems to come down to "hate". It has nothing to do with hate.

It has to do with the traditions that have been established in the United States over centuries. I am a conservative, I wish to conserve the traditions not establish new ones.

Shuamort, excellent comeback. lol

 

[Gilluin]

What is even more sad is when someone expresses their opinion about a topic (specifically gay marriage) it seems to come down to "hate". It has nothing to do with hate.

It has to do with the traditions that have been established in the United States over centuries. I am a conservative, I wish to conserve the traditions not establish new ones.

Shuamort, excellent comeback. lol

Yet whose lives are effected by these traditions. You are asking me to live my life by your standards. You are asking me to deny myself the happiness you take for granted as a heterosexual. So am I not be able to make the family of my choice because it is against your tradition?

It is very personal for glbt people because it is not your family that is on the ballot. I have a feeling that if the tables were reversed many conservates would be the ones crying foul. It comes down to hate when someone votes on their neighbors family because if they loved me they would be happy for me and wish me well.

 

[shuamort]

It has to do with the traditions that have been established in the United States over centuries. I am a conservative, I wish to conserve the traditions not establish new ones.

The one tradition that the country has started is the tradition of evolution. We came from a government that was a monarchy, it taxed us without allowing for us to be represented to air our grievances, it kept the power to the elite. The revolution and subsequent Constitution changed that. And in the Constitution, they allowed room for growth.

I'm not saying that all traditions have to go by the wayside. Our family has a polish Christmas eve dinner every year. It's a meatless dinner where we have spaghetti noodles with butter, homemade pierogies, and freshly caught walleye. It's a ritual, a tradition, that keeps us a stronger family. Which is a bit of what marriage is. It's a ritual that changes people into a stronger family. I'm closer with my sister and mom and the rest after we have our Christmas eve dinner. I would be stronger with a partner after we got married. The tradition to build families and encourage families is what marriage means to me. It means love, respect, commitment and growth. I don't see how denying two consensual adults from these ritual vis a vis laws behooves us as a society. I also don't see how denying gays the right to marriage will make them go away either. So what gets accomplished here by banning marriage between gays?

 

[Schweddy]

It comes down to hate when someone votes on their neighbors family because if they loved me they would be happy for me and wish me well.

I do not love you. Nor do I love my neighbor (oops, not too Chirstian of me).
I love my family and wish to keep the same traditions within them.

I don't see how denying two consensual adults from these ritual vis a vis laws behooves us as a society. I also don't see how denying gays the right to marriage will make them go away either. So what gets accomplished here by banning marriage between gays?

What gets accomplished by allowing it? The opposite arguement applies. IMO, it will lessen the institution of marriage. Less folks (gay or not) will want to marry. It is getting worse by the day. And like you, I believe a strong marriage strengthens the family and therefore strengthens America as a whole.

Again, (from a previous discussion), I can see and understand civil partnerships for legal means. But, don't take away my proud definition of marriage. I voted on the bill here in TX not because it didn't allow any form of partnerships between glbt couples, but because the bill had a clear definition of marriage.

 

[shuamort]

What gets accomplished by allowing it?

I can think of 1049 of 'em to start off with.
According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:


Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:


Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

The opposite arguement applies. IMO, it will lessen the institution of marriage. Less folks (gay or not) will want to marry. It is getting worse by the day. And like you, I believe a strong marriage strengthens the family and therefore strengthens America as a whole.

Alright, these are your claims, now you have to prove them. Please bring statistics that prove yor claim that less folks want to marry. Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, etc. are working laboratories for this experiment.

Again, (from a previous discussion), I can see and understand civil partnerships for legal means. But, don't take away my proud definition of marriage.

You're welcome to define marriage as you wish personally. I have a different definition of celebrating xmas than you do, or your neighbor does. Does that change the meaning of xmas or just the personal preference of what it means?

The question remains, why does politically correct terminology make you stop inferring rights on to gays? If you'd be willing to give gays the rights to civil unions that would confer the same 1049 benefits, why should the difference between, oh, let's say: african-american and black be the part that stops it?

 

[Gilluin]

I do not love you. Nor do I love my neighbor (oops, not too Chirstian of me).
I love my family and wish to keep the same traditions within them.

Then we understand each other I am ready to fight to the death to protect my family and my traditions. When people, I do not know or care about, seek to hurt my family by putting my rights on the ballot I will fight back. If nessasary we need to wipe the old ways from the face of the earth.

 

[Schweddy]

Alright, these are your claims, now you have to prove them. Please bring statistics that prove yor claim that less folks want to marry. Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, etc. are working laboratories for this experiment.

One cannot prove a negative.

Scandanavian countries are out of this, they have "civil unions" for gay couples - not gay marriage. They have the longest, as far back as 1989. You are correct, civil partnerships have not proven a negative impact on heterosexual marriages in Scandanavia. One of the reasons I am not against them. Though, I am not *for* them either - mainly due to religeous reasons.
Source: http://www.iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf

Spain & Canada descisions to allow full blown gay marriage are very recent - June I think. There is hardly any data to back anything up - either way.

You're welcome to define marriage as you wish personally. I have a different definition of celebrating xmas than you do, or your neighbor does. Does that change the meaning of xmas or just the personal preference of what it means?

Everyone has their own definition of Christmas. But, the word Christ is still in it - so the roots are clearly established.

The question remains, why does politically correct terminology make you stop inferring rights on to gays? If you'd be willing to give gays the rights to civil unions that would confer the same 1049 benefits, why should the difference between, oh, let's say: african-american and black be the part that stops it?

I believe that a study like the one linked to above in years to come will prove different for the kids and societies of Spain and Canada. I think that it will prove deterimental on divorce rates, heterosexual marriage rates, and even birth rates to unwed mothers by mearly calling it marriage instead of union or partnership.

 

[shuamort]

One cannot prove a negative.

Negative statement: Vauge isn't a woman. Do you think we could prove that statement?

Scandanavian countries are out of this, they have "civil unions" for gay couples - not gay marriage. They have the longest, as far back as 1989. You are correct, civil partnerships have not proven a negative impact on heterosexual marriages in Scandanavia. One of the reasons I am not against them. Though, I am not *for* them either - mainly due to religeous reasons.
Source: http://www.iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf

Spain & Canada descisions to allow full blown gay marriage are very recent - June I think. There is hardly any data to back anything up - either way.

OK, so we know with statistical evidence that gay civil unions are not detrimental on heterosexual marriage or divorce rates. So far in Canada, Spain, or Massachusetts we haven't seen any immediate detrimental affects. Playing devil's advocate, if that's an obstacle, what's the time frame which would determine if it would have detrimental affects? 1 year? 2 years? 50 years? The longer the time given, the better the statistics. But it's also the longer than tax paying citizens have shoulder more of the burden due to these laws. Is this equitable and fair?

Everyone has their own definition of Christmas. But, the word Christ is still in it - so the roots are clearly established.

Not quite. The roots of Christmas pre-date Christianity.

That the date actually goes back to Rome with a festival called Saturnalia. It was a time of revelry, celebration, eating and drinking. It was at once a solstice observance and a harvest festival. On the Julian calendar it was proclaimed in 46 c.e., that the Saturnalia would fall on December twenty- fifth.

The early Christians found a birthday celebration of a religious figure strange or blasphemous. The only people who celebrated birthdays were the pagans in Rome. Holidays where declared for the birthday of Ceasars and for the gods. Gift giving at a birthday is a wholly pagan concept and the early church banned it. Slowly the idea of giving alms to the poor and to the church for Christ birth is mentioned in the tenth century. By the eleventh century, families privately gave a token to their servants and expected nothing from them

I believe that a study like the one linked to above in years to come will prove different for the kids and societies of Spain and Canada. I think that it will prove deterimental on divorce rates, heterosexual marriage rates, and even birth rates to unwed mothers by mearly calling it marriage instead of union or partnership.

So far, studies have show that there are no big differences in gay vs. straight parents:

"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," said the authors.

E.J. Graff, author of What is Marriage For? in 1996 points out many of them. He says “Very little about marriage is historically consistent enough to be 'traditional.' That it involves two people? Then forget the patriarch Jacob, whose two wives and two concubines produced the heads of the twelve tribes. That it involves a religious blessing? Not early Christian marriages, before marriage was a sacrament. That it is recognized by law? Forget centuries of European prole “marriages” conducted outside the law, in which no property was involved. That it’s about love, not money? So much for centuries of negotiation about medieval estates, bride-price, morning gift and dowry (not to mention bride-burnings in today’s India).” Every appeal to tradition in preservation of the present marriage laws falls into the same pit of illogically. Marriage has been different in each society throughout the ages and throughout the history of the United States.

 

[Schweddy]

Negative statement: Vauge isn't a woman. Do you think we could prove that statement?

In an online enviorment, it would be a challenge to prove either way without knowing me personally or having seen the evidence in hearsay. :shock:

OK, so we know with statistical evidence that gay civil unions are not detrimental on heterosexual marriage or divorce rates. So far in Canada, Spain, or Massachusetts we haven't seen any immediate detrimental affects. Playing devil's advocate, if that's an obstacle, what's the time frame which would determine if it would have detrimental affects? 1 year? 2 years? 50 years? The longer the time given, the better the statistics. But it's also the longer than tax paying citizens have shoulder more of the burden due to these laws. Is this equitable and fair?

We are not talking about fair. We are infering tradition, law, and statistics.

Not quite. The roots of Christmas pre-date Christianity.

There are many many "histories" on the account of where Christmas actually came from. Again, the word has Christ in it. It simply is logical to conclude it has something to do with the man or someone or someones proclaimed a date about/for him.

So far, studies have show that there are no big differences in gay vs. straight parents:

I agree that marriage is traditionally about baring children. But, this precident wasn't established in the thread.

Would you have married your wife if gays could marry at the time?

Absolutely because the president had already been set in our familes and lifestyles. My kids or grandkids on the other hand might be a different matter. This is why I say there is no evidence to prove it, but my opinion only.

It's the same with marriage, except I think quite a few more people think that gay marriage is ok than think that pooping on Jesus is ok.

Dude! I could careless what you do with a plastic doll. :rofl
I think that pooping on a plastic toy is less serious matter to me and my family than gay marriage personally.

I said earlier, you requested evidence. Unsure if this will cut it, but I did find the following:

Less folks (gay or not) will want to marry. It is getting worse by the day.

Linkage: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/vitstat.pdf (page 3)
You can see that the rate of marriages are clearly decreasing the last 3 years of the study.

Linkage: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf (page 3)
You can see that after the 60's (baby boomers), marriage rates are going down in both male and female marriage durations.
Is this a result of society or population?

 

[Kelzie]

lol, then can I drive down to Plano and poop on your lawn decorations.

Would you feel the same is Osco started selling baby Jesus dolls made specifically to be pooped on?
lol, nevermind.

So the marriage rate was down .1% from '98-99, another .1% from '99-00, and another .1% from '00-01. Was gay marriage legal then? (also, you'd note that divorce rates were down from '00-01 then)

As per your second group of statistics, what if I said that the increasing divorce rates happened because of gay people realizing that they're lifestyles are ok, and they were just getting out of their sham marriages pushed on them by a society telling them that they need to be straight? I think the institution of marriage is more damaged by gay people getting into straight marriages with their beards than it could ever be by them marrying the person that they love.

By the way, Kelzie blamed you for the deaths of 30,000 people, dead seriously :2razz:

Man you suck. You can't post random comments on threads where I might not be able to defend myself.:lol:

vauge, all I said is that when people elect a president, they are partly responsible for the actions he takes while in office.

 

[Thorgasm]

Slavery was a tradition for hundreds of years. Mysogeny was a tradition also. Are you sure that tradition validates your argument? What does the president have to do with your marriage? I know, you meant precedent. You can blame the gays for that too. Gay people getting married has no effect on my marriage. Get over your bigotry people!

 

[Caine]

Slavery was a tradition for hundreds of years. Mysogeny was a tradition also. Are you sure that tradition validates your argument? What does the president have to do with your marriage? I know, you meant precedent. You can blame the gays for that too. Gay people getting married has no effect on my marriage. Get over your bigotry people!

Totally Agreed.

I would be intrested in someone explaining exactly how gay marriage harms or effects in any way any married couple's marriage.

Im married, and my marriage wouldn't be one bit different if a gay person were to be allowed to be married.