Same-sex marriage blocked in Washington

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreakyLocz14 said:
There shouldn't be a uniform definition of marriage under federal law.

There shouldn't be any government definition of marriage at all, state or federal, IMO.
Click to expand...
That leaves the door open for discrimination. A school might not recognize a same-sex parent's right to have involvement in their partner's biological children's schooling. A hospital might not allow a partner to visit or make medical decisions because to them they aren't family.

While I agree that the government shouldn't tell us how to define our marriages, neither should other people. We need someone to make sure that other people don't discriminate against us and that's a duty that should fall on the shoulders of the government. That's why we need a basic guideline - and I mean basic - that says that marriage is two consenting adults who agree to be married, or something similarly worded.
 
Livewire said:


That's not what I advocated with that post. There shouldn't be a uniform definition or description of marriage in law, at all. And that goes for the states passing same sex marriage bans.
Click to expand...

I agree that marriage shouldn't regulated by the government.

Scarf said:
That leaves the door open for discrimination. A school might not recognize a same-sex parent's right to have involvement in their partner's biological children's schooling. A hospital might not allow a partner to visit or make medical decisions because to them they aren't family.

While I agree that the government shouldn't tell us how to define our marriages, neither should other people. We need someone to make sure that other people don't discriminate against us and that's a duty that should fall on the shoulders of the government. That's why we need a basic guideline - and I mean basic - that says that marriage is two consenting adults who agree to be married, or something similarly worded.
Click to expand...

Parents are free to give anybody they want the right be involved in their children's education, and a person can give anyone they want hospital visitation rights. Existing contract law can take care of those situations.

Your definition of marriage discriminates against me if I want to marry two men at the same time, or a man and a woman.

The problem with state-regulated marriage is that someone is always going to be left out.
 
I personally dont feel the government or people have any right to legislate who I can and cant marry, Im not gay but I believe banning gay marriage is wrong.
 
Funny way to make a second post. I'm a bisexual guy, and even though I'm offended by what feels like ignorance that most politicians or big religion or whatever spews out I could care less if gay marriage becomes legal or remains illegal. It's an opinion really but to me it's just a signed paper and ring. I don't need that to prove I love my boyfriend or to signify eternity with him. Again, just how I am on it. Only time I'd be outraged is if being homosexual becomes a crime.
 
This will probably get me all manner of hate, or at least get me told I'm somehow ignorant, but I never understood how someone could claim to be against (emphasis on the against there) same sex marriage without shoving it down their throats. Just because you don't scream hatred for gays or their marriage rights down the halls of every place you go doesn't mean you aren't imposing your ideals on them.

The way I always saw it was that if the ban gets passed, and you voted for it, then how are you not shoving it down their throat? Because you don't tell them you did, or why you think it's wrong? Wouldn't knowingly restricting their right to marry be, in essence, shoving it down their throat?

My apologies if I sound too confrontational. I really don't intend to.
 
I disagree. That's kind of like saying that if you express an opinion that's different than someone else's, that means you're shoving it down their throat. For example:

"Dogs are my favorite animal. I think they're the best!"
"Nah, I like cats better. I think they're a lot fuzzier."

Just cause the cat person disagrees doesn't necessarily mean they're shoving it down their throat. It is okay to disagree, it's okay to express that you disagree and why you disagree. It is not okay to force people into agreeing with you and attempting to change your views and tell you that you're wrong. That is shoving opinion down someone's throat. Just because it's something voted on doesn't make a difference either. I might vote for, say, Morkula to rule PC because I like his views better than Lightning's, who is also running for PC presidency (or something). You might vote for Lightning because you like her views better. You're not shoving it down my throat.

So while I understand where you're coming from, I don't think your view of pushing opinions on someone is correct. I hope that makes sense...without you thinking I'm trying to push my opinion on you. lol
 
Well that wasn't exactly what I meant, but I still can see the obvious faults in my argument. So thank you for, you know, being rational and not eating me alive right there.

To clarify, (really I should just drop this, but I'm stubborn) I was trying to say that by being restrictive, and not allowing someone to get married as they wish, it seems like shoving it down their throat. I'm fine when people don't approve of same sex marriage, but when they take it to the extreme of banning it is when I have a problem.

Or, to use your example:

"Dogs are my favorite animal."
"No, I like cats better. You can only like cats."

That looks silly in writing, but it's kind of a silly point I was trying to prove anyways. It's really not my intent to make myself look like a crazy radical with a bloodlust.
 
People need to get over this. We're all human beings and we all deserve to love. If people keep fighting over trivial things like this we'll never have world peace or any kind of future. Look at the interacial marriage debates half a century ago. Isn't it funny how stupid those people look to us today? Hopefully the same thing can be said about people opposing gay marriage so strongly in the future.
 
mew42003 said:
People need to get over this. We're all human beings and we all deserve to love. If people keep fighting over trivial things like this we'll never have world peace or any kind of future. Look at the interacial marriage debates half a century ago. Isn't it funny how stupid those people look to us today? Hopefully the same thing can be said about people opposing gay marriage so strongly in the future.
Click to expand...
Many of us don't hate gay people at all we just think marrige is between man and women i think if they were fighting for stronger civil unions no one (aside from the KKK and westboro baptist church) would be arguing
 
Rodriguezjames55 said:
Many of us don't hate gay people at all we just think marrige is between man and women i think if they were fighting for stronger civil unions no one (aside from the KKK and westboro baptist church) would be arguing
Click to expand...

You're wrong on that count. There are MANY groups out there who would be arguing against civil unions. In fact, there are quite a few groups out there who are pushing to make sexual relations between gays and lesbians illegal once again. Some of the groups that are against civil unions (of any kind) are:

- The Catholic Church
- The LDS Church
- The Family Research Council
- The National Organization for Marriage
- The American Family Association

All of these are some of the most powerful and influential groups in U.S. politics today.

Also, I have to ask. You believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, by what authority do you have to force your personal beliefs onto others? And keep in mind that I live in a country where same-sex couples DO have the right to be married.
 
Jay_37040 said:


You're wrong on that count. There are MANY groups out there who would be arguing against civil unions. In fact, there are quite a few groups out there who are pushing to make sexual relations between gays and lesbians illegal once again. Some of the groups that are against civil unions (of any kind) are:

- The Catholic Church
- The LDS Church
- The Family Research Council
- The National Organization for Marriage
- The American Family Association

All of these are some of the most powerful and influential groups in U.S. politics today.

Also, I have to ask. You believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, by what authority do you have to force your personal beliefs onto others? And keep in mind that I live in a country where same-sex couples DO have the right to be married.
Click to expand...

I am catholic trust me we wont be arguing
 
Rodriguezjames55 said:
I am catholic trust me we wont be arguing
Click to expand...

Case in point:

A Colorado proposal to recognize same-sex civil unions is a "dangerous and unjust" effort to redefine marriage warns Bishop James D. Conley, the apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Denver.
Click to expand...

The Colorado Catholic Conference is urging parishioners to oppose the state's pending civil unions bill, the Denver Post reports, and is distributing flyers during mass asking church goers to pressure lawmakers into defeating the measure. "The key flaw with civil unions legislation is that it creates an alternative parallel structure to marriage," the Conference says. "[M]arriage is the cornerstone of our society that exists for the benefit of children and the protection of women"
Click to expand...

Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper's call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation.
Click to expand...

Colorado's Catholic churches are handing parishioners a pledge card in which those that sign vow to oppose the pending civil unions bill.

Bishop Conley urged people to participate in the campaign because "it allows each of us to speak the truth – to ask the government to respect the plan for marriage God has given us." "Doing so protects children, protects marriage and, ultimately, protects the common good of all of us." He warned that recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples would allow them to adopt children and infringe on religious liberties for many groups.
Click to expand...

You say the Catholic church is not opposing civil unions for gay couples? I think you need to look a little closer before making such a claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top