Jennarator Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 My friend decided he was going to put up a symbol, too. He did Pi. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trubludru Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 .....snipBut here's my beef. What about people who want legal relationship protections without actually being a romantic couple. what if you are single but have a long term room mate who you want to share benefits with? What if you want to share your benefits with a sibling or other relative? Then the whole marriage protection goes out the window.So, my wish is that the government allows coupling partnership benefits that are mutually reciprocal and exclusive (that is one person partners with another person and no one else) and you remove marriage completely from any legality. This has two major benefits. 1) it expands protections beyond romantic couplings and 2) it allows religions and private organizations to define marriage and declare it based on their own culture and traditions without government interference. snip ....Hmmm, interesting thoughts. I think there are some ramifications here that not everybody is considering, somewhat similar to the Equal Rights Amendment. It would seem to me that if the definition of marriage is changed from a man and a woman to include homosexual relationships then ultimately there would basically be no restriction on who could get "married" to who to receive any of the benefits of being in a marriage or it would be discriminatory. I think arguing that people will get married to animals is a bit of a strawman at this point....certainly there would be a few that would try....but not too many yet I hope. In the DOMA case, a lady is claiming she shouldn't have to pay estate taxes because she was the "wife" of her deceased "wife" and a wife doesn't have to pay estate taxes when receiving a husband's assets upon his death. So say somebody is married to somebody rich and the rich spouse dies. The surviving spouse could then perhaps "marry" one of their adult children so that when they die, their spouse/child would also inherit without paying estate taxes....that would be a pretty good loophole. Or maybe they could divorce and the "spouse" could get half the assets without paying the estate tax.I'm not sure what other things might happen, but it would certainly throw many of our financial laws into disarry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADoyle90815 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 I personally think government should get out of the marriage business completely, and only do civil unions, with churches being the ones to do marriages. That way, churches can freely discriminate against homosexuals, and everyone can have the same legal protections that a civil union offers. After all, there are atheists who have had civil ceremonies and who have been together for longer than some who claim to be Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Hm, I think I've found my favorite one.<3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Bacon for everyone! I can get behind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 In the DOMA case, a lady is claiming she shouldn't have to pay estate taxes because she was the "wife" of her deceased "wife" and a wife doesn't have to pay estate taxes when receiving a husband's assets upon his death. So say somebody is married to somebody rich and the rich spouse dies. The surviving spouse could then perhaps "marry" one of their adult children so that when they die, their spouse/child would also inherit without paying estate taxes....that would be a pretty good loophole. Or maybe they could divorce and the "spouse" could get half the assets without paying the estate tax.No, she was NOT the wife of the deceased person.....at least not as recognized by the USA. There are legal ways to plan for tax efficient disposal of estates. Just because this person "chose" to live a lifestyle that many if not most considers perverse on some level doesn't mean she should be considered the equal of my spouse.The intimate sexual relationship that I enjoy with my legally married wife is different than what gay or lesbian people experience. They may love the person of the same sex, but, it is not the same kind of love that I have for my wife who is my Eternal companion and the mother of my two children. I love my best friend of 35 years and would weep bitterly if anything were to happen to him, but I don't desire to perform perverse sexual acts with him and pretend like we are a normal healthy family. The feelings that gay people have for one another may be strong and confusing, but it is not the same, not equal to and definitely abnormal. If 'love" were the only criteria for marriage then nothing should be excluded.As others have posted, I could care less if civil unions were the law of the land and fully support someone's right to dispose of their property as they choose under the law. Forcing people to "accept g/l" marriage doesn't mean that people find it acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I personally think government should get out of the marriage business completely, and only do civil unions, with churches being the ones to do marriages. That way, churches can freely discriminate against homosexuals, and everyone can have the same legal protections that a civil union offers. After all, there are atheists who have had civil ceremonies and who have been together for longer than some who claim to be Christian.I'm not sure government should even be giving any benefits to married couples, other than basic inheritance/hospital visitation/medical decisionmaking authority.Many marriage-based benefits (Social Security survivorship, required coverage of spouses on health insurance, and the like) were set up on the assumption that a non-working spouse should be subsidized because she (it was usually "she") couldn't earn her own benefits, having dropped out of the work force to take care of the couple's children. Now that most two-parent homes have two income earners and that even heterosexual marriage often has nothing to do with kids, perhaps government bennies should be determined by the number of children one supports rather than by the types of relationships one enjoys with another able-bodied adult of any sexual orientation. Edited March 27, 2013 by Just_A_Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningStar Posted March 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm glad to see people in France protesting same sex marriage. Not that they make up the majority now, but it's still good to see. I'm frustrated with my LDS friends who have been manipulated by phrases like, "Love is love. Who am I to judge what another person does in their bedroom?" We make judgments all the time in our society, which is how our laws came to be. I don't think people understand the long term consequences of legalizing same sex "marriage". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I'm glad to see people in France protesting same sex marriage. Not that they make up the majority now, but it's still good to see.I'm frustrated with my LDS friends who have been manipulated by phrases like, "Love is love. Who am I to judge what another person does in their bedroom?"We make judgments all the time in our society, which is how our laws came to be. I don't think people understand the long term consequences of legalizing same sex "marriage".40 years of thinly disguised liberalism and social engineering beginning in elementary school and culminating at the university level has brought us this great state of "tolerance". Add in a generation raised by MTV and the "real life" and what else should we expect? Edited March 27, 2013 by bytor2112 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selek Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 This was my response to the in-your-face homophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahlia Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Man, my FB pages were practically covered with those red images. Not only from my gay friends, which is to be expected, but every friggin' academic must think that if they don't post some indication of their solidarity with gays, they will be arrested. It got very boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Smart kid... Meridian Magazine - Celebrating Marriage: A Child Speaks Out - Meridian Magazine - LDS, Mormon and Latter-day Saint News and Views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 This is an interesting article y'all might like to read: I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage | LifeSiteNews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennarator Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Just lost some FB friends, even LDS ones, because they have been sucked in by Satan. Sorry, but I see it that way. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate, even had a good gay friend at my wedding, have a ton of gay friends on FB, and several I hang with often. But I love the people not the sin and I can't embrace the idea of same sex marriage it just isn't right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LiterateParakeet Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Just lost some FB friends, even LDS ones, because they have been sucked in by Satan. Sorry, but I see it that way. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate, even had a good gay friend at my wedding, have a ton of gay friends on FB, and several I hang with often. But I love the people not the sin and I can't embrace the idea of same sex marriage it just isn't right.You are not friends anymore because you disagree on this issue? I really hope you will reconsider that. Remember the Savior talked about leaving the 99 and go after the one who had strayed. He does not say to that one, "we're not friends any more". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 You are not friends anymore because you disagree on this issue? I really hope you will reconsider that. Remember the Savior talked about leaving the 99 and go after the one who had strayed. He does not say to that one, "we're not friends any more". Then again, she doesn't state if she ended the friendship or they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningStar Posted March 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 What did you post, Jenn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennarator Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 I changed to the family proc. as my profile pic and one I lost because my husband posted how he was sad to see LDS people with the = sign as their profile pic. None of the friends I lost were gay....interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningStar Posted March 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Smart kid... Meridian Magazine - Celebrating Marriage: A Child Speaks Out - Meridian Magazine - LDS, Mormon and Latter-day Saint News and Views Thank you for that. :) It makes me mad that children have been denied a mother and a father without thought about what the consequences would be. Children are guinea pigs in these situations. I'm not just talking about gay marriage either. I'm talking about the countless irresponsible people who have had sex without thinking about the life they might be creating and what their needs are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningStar Posted March 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) I posted an article about another photographer being sued because they didn't want to photograph a gay wedding due to their religion. I'm taking this from an angle that these "rights" do inferfere with the rights of others. We have the freedom of religion vs. a protected class and for some reason the protected class trumps freedom of religion. Haven't lost any friends that I know of. (Yet) Edited March 28, 2013 by MorningStar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) I think this is an interesting article and I definitely agree with this quote.You want to know why most Mormons are worried about the government redefining marriage? It isn’t because they hate gay people. It is because the last time the government redefined the definition of marriage, Mormons got screwed over, imprisoned, invaded, and had their property confiscated for not following along with the federal government’s definition of marriage. The feds said you have to perform marriages like we tell you to, or you’re not a real religion, and we will throw you in prison. And for the people who say this could never happen, that’s super comforting, since it has before. So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds.And this quote,Here’s the real problem I see with all of this controversy, when you make an issue of civil rights and freedom into a battle of definitions and terms, then of course people who have strong moral and religious beliefs about redefining those terms are going to fight it.Duh. Edited March 28, 2013 by Anddenex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LiterateParakeet Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Then again, she doesn't state if she ended the friendship or they did.Good point, thanks.I changed to the family proc. as my profile pic and one I lost because my husband posted how he was sad to see LDS people with the = sign as their profile pic. None of the friends I lost were gay....interesting.Ah, that is different if they left you. Their loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 How very tolerant of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADoyle90815 Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) I had this as my Facebook profile photo. Edited March 28, 2013 by ADoyle90815 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 I'm shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts