Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[Stoked]

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

I'll give you that.

 

[babe]

One of the great drivers in technological progress is the desire to kill more efficiently. So, even if the influence of women were generally pacifistic (I would disagree that there is any single force that is the influence of women, and disagree that women are more pacifistic), this would be untrue.

making bombs, blowing things up, killing. . . . pretty much "guy stuff". Having a woman in your life does redirect all that senseless energy, and bring kids into view. . . . .

I won't quibble about some women being off on the other side of the equation, but their methods are different. Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. Unloved women do more evil than the world knows, because they, again, don't use bombs, guns and guy stuff. They just give the world Hell.

 

[bigb]

Banning gay marriage.

For the LDS (or other religious people) posters: How do you square away banning gay marriage with free agency? If all the behaviors that are sins are banned what's the point? Isn't that the whole reason the war in heaven was fought? (rhetorical).

You could replace gay marriage with cigarettes, booze, weed, fornication, polygamy...are we not supposed to have the right to choose? I am aiming at the religious side of the argument. Not the secular side.

I don't. That's one if the reasons I support it.

 

[Stoked]

I don't. That's one if the reasons I support it.

This is where I am at as well.

In disclosure mode: I did not ask in an effort to catch people or anything. Genuinely interested in their take on that.

 

[One Brow]

I'd make an exception to anyone who is actually "principled" who sees sex in terms of purpose, particularly in terms of the purpose of having children, but few of us have that kind of consistency. . . . .

The notion of a "purpose" is one applied externally, not derived inherently, and too often becomes an excuse to render our own prejudices as being beyond our decision.

so, listen up all you gays, I just think you're wasting your chance to live a life that will produce some kids. Kids are the ultimate "good" in my view.

Most gay people (as well as most who never marry) I have met are involved in helping kids in some fashion. They do it by teaching, by adopting, by mentoring, or by volunteering. They use their opportunity differently, but for the same ultimate "good".

 

[One Brow]

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

If a law was passed that referred to all interracial, legal couplings as civil unions, but not marriages, would you claim there was no intent to say interracial, legal couplings were inferior, or that the law would have no effect of stigmatizing such couplings?

For better or worse, the same legal term should be used, and the term is now and likely will remain marriage. If you want separate word for marriages that you think are approved by God, develop one (e.g., gorriage -- God-ordained marriage).

 

[One Brow]

making bombs, blowing things up, killing. . . . pretty much "guy stuff".

I know too many men, and too many women, who are counter-examples to believe this. We train boys to like blowing things up and girls to dislike it, but it is not innate.

 

[default]

I neither support gay marriage, nor am I against it either. Just because I do not live one way doesn't mean it needs to be legally restricted, as long as it is not infringing on other citizen's safety and rights. I view it as a personal issue and not a legal issue. There are too many laws restricting citizens. Free agency should be allowed as long as if doesn't infringe upon others.

 

[colton]

I agree with dalamon here. Your view makes sense, colton, in that if you buy into the religious assumptions behind, and see government as some gatekeeper of morality in the area of marriages, than your position is a reasonable result. I even took care to distinguish your position from another poster, whose responses barely rise from incoherence to the level of self-contradiction. I even disputed the Hitler analogy E. J. Wells first brought in.

I appreciate its frustrating to be in the minority (on this board) regarding such an important topic, but such petulance is beneath who you usually are.

I was going for humor rather than petulance with the Hitler reference. Apologies if that didn't come through.

 

[Stoked]

I was going for humor rather than petulance with the Hitler reference. Apologies if that didn't come through.

It came thru just fine. People here just like to play like they are super cereal all the time.

 

[Harambe]

It came thru just fine. People here just like to play like they are super cereal all the time.

Internet is Serious Business.

 

[LogGrad98]

If a law was passed that referred to all interracial, legal couplings as civil unions, but not marriages, would you claim there was no intent to say interracial, legal couplings were inferior, or that the law would have no effect of stigmatizing such couplings?

For better or worse, the same legal term should be used, and the term is now and likely will remain marriage. If you want separate word for marriages that you think are approved by God, develop one (e.g., gorriage -- God-ordained marriage).

Mormons have a different word for this: sealing.