Same Sex Marriage? - Page 13 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 18th, 2012, 08:29 AM   #241
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,161
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
You do not need to explain anything to me. I dont need to understand why your relationship with your God is important to you. You feel your relationship with God is just and right then carry on as you see fit. Where I take issue is when you use that relationship with God as justification to tell others how to live their lives. Live and let live. I realize evangelism is part of the Church, spreading the word of God and all that. But when you start denying others ability or right to live their lives as they see fit, do not start crying that you feel you will be persecuted in the future because you are a Christian.



Good for you. At least you believe in something. To many have no core principles. But YOU live it out. What you believe to be true and right will never be a universal fit for everyone else.



The gay movement has heard you. They are not interested. Move on.



No one is telling you that you can not practice Christianity. But you are telling others they can not pursue a course that makes them happy based on your Christian principles.
It's about redefining marriage. I think if they left the term marriage alone they may get somewhere. But as Scott mentioned would private organizations go alone with it to give them the bennies they so long to aquire.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 18th, 2012, 08:56 AM   #242
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,508
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
It's about redefining marriage. I think if they left the term marriage alone they may get somewhere. But as Scott mentioned would private organizations go alone with it to give them the bennies they so long to aquire.
They will be forced to.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 09:09 AM   #243
Kevlar
Newbie
 
Kevlar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-04-12
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 29
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Kevlar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
They will be forced to.
I agree. If a couple is legally married in the eyes of the government, a company cannot choose whether to recognize that or not. That would be a blatant case of discrimination. It would be no different from a company denying rights to the white spouse of a black employee because they choose not to "recognize" interracial marriages. Helloooo ACLU lawsuit!
Kevlar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 10:39 AM   #244
jeepinRRT
Senior Member
 
jeepinRRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-13-08
Location: Grand Rapids,MI
Posts: 3,627
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
You probably also wanted to save the trout didnt you??
I'm sure that would still be a poor analogy if I knew what you were referencing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jeepinRRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 10:48 AM   #245
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,508
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevlar View Post
I agree. If a couple is legally married in the eyes of the government, a company cannot choose whether to recognize that or not. That would be a blatant case of discrimination. It would be no different from a company denying rights to the white spouse of a black employee because they choose not to "recognize" interracial marriages. Helloooo ACLU lawsuit!
Kinda sounds like Obamacare . . . you know, something the government wants and forces on the rest of us even though we the people don't want it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepinRRT View Post
I'm sure that would still be a poor analogy if I knew what you were referencing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why does it not surprise me that you don't know what I'm talking about . . . lol, webwheeler!
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 01:17 PM   #246
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,446
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Here's my question...
How much will they really get in these "benefits" you are all discussing as opposed to how much they will have to pay extra?
Scenario 1:
Two spouses, one is working, the other gets benefits and stays at home to be a dirt ass, raise kids, whatever...
Scenario 2:
Two spouses, two are working, both probably get benefits FROM THEIR EMPLOYERS, their income is combined and they get ass raped in a higher tax bracket.

the gay couples I know are scenario 2, but they still want to be married. How common will it be to find gay stay at home wives? In fact, most of the married couples I know who are straight are in scenario 2. I know some people want to stay home and raise their own kids, more power too them or whatever, but what is the likelyhood of that in a gay relationship? I would be really interested for someone to show me that it is a rampant issue for consideration.

Also the government doesn't generally pay for spousal benefits, the employer does. If their employee was straight or turned straight they would have to pay for a portion of spousal benefits anyway. When you consider your overhead on any employee you always have to factor in that they could take the maximum in benefits when you determine their total compensation. In fact, when you go to hire, you determine what you want to pay in total compensation. I have never once told HR to go find me a gay person so I can go halfsies on the benefits so I can lower my total compensation... Maybe I am doing business all wrong apparently??
kerryann is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 01:27 PM   #247
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,994
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by generalyota View Post
hmmm. why is it that religion, which is responsible for more death and destruction than anything else in the world, be the main reason closed minded people are against 2 people who love each other joining together in marriage?
Welcome to the thread! I think you'll find that most of us "closed minded people" have no issue with them loving each other or even having the same benefits. It's the term, and it's the reason so many of us have an issue with it. (see below in my response to Jeepinrrt)

As far as the "more deaths then anything else" thing. It's a witty line, not the first time I've heard it, and probably not the last time I will. Here's the deal though, Religion is a very powerful thing. People have used it to do horrible things. I would like to point out that with out it though, our world would be far worse off. How many Resuce missions are Christian based? Missionaries? Child adoption agencies? You get my point I hope. While it has, in the past, been one of the largest reasons people war and fight, it's also one of the largest group of people that help other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepinRRT View Post
My bad I thought I quoted the silly chief when I replied. People like you are less of an issue than aber and chiefwhoohaw.

But what you are saying is that people can't be afforded rights because marriage is used as a metaphor?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I'm saying that the name should be different.

The point I've been trying to get to is that even if they call it "Marriage" will that really change how the private companies deal with it?

Scenerio 1 - They call it Gay marriage. Any company or Organization that does not recognize this as a valid spousal relationship will be forced to by the government. Welcome to big Government being able to force people to do what they don't want to.

Scenerio 2 - They change the Governmental name to "Civil watermelon". Any company that does not recognize this as a Valid spousal relationship will be forced to comply by the Government. Once agian, Welcome to big Government being able to force people to do what they don't want to.

So, out of the two options, the only difference is the name. If we're going to be forced to comply anyways, why not change the name. Then the Xians won't have anything to complain about and we can start making the world a better place (because obviously, this is the only thing we think about everyday).


Oh, and Marriage is not just A metaphor, It's THE metaphor and believed to the ultimate example of Christ and the church. It's also believed to be one of the greatest things God has given us. Go read what Jesus says about coming back. He uses Wedding and marriage talks (in context to the age) to explain his relationship to the church.

Plus the first marriage was Adam and Eve, Before sin. So...It's more then just a Metaphor.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #248
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

.

Last edited by Scott2.0; May 18th, 2012 at 02:37 PM. Reason: Stupid iPhone
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #249
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

No one is trying to change your religious definition of marriage. Marriage can remain the union of a man and woman in the eyes of your god, church, book, etc. It's the legal marriage that is the question which has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:37 PM   #250
Kevlar
Newbie
 
Kevlar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-04-12
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 29
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Kevlar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
No, I'm saying that the name should be different.

The point I've been trying to get to is that even if they call it "Marriage" will that really change how the private companies deal with it?

Scenerio 1 - They call it Gay marriage. Any company or Organization that does not recognize this as a valid spousal relationship will be forced to by the government. Welcome to big Government being able to force people to do what they don't want to.

Scenerio 2 - They change the Governmental name to "Civil watermelon". Any company that does not recognize this as a Valid spousal relationship will be forced to comply by the Government. Once agian, Welcome to big Government being able to force people to do what they don't want to.

So, out of the two options, the only difference is the name. If we're going to be forced to comply anyways, why not change the name. Then the Xians won't have anything to complain about and we can start making the world a better place (because obviously, this is the only thing we think about everyday).


Oh, and Marriage is not just A metaphor, It's THE metaphor and believed to the ultimate example of Christ and the church. It's also believed to be one of the greatest things God has given us. Go read what Jesus says about coming back. He uses Wedding and marriage talks (in context to the age) to explain his relationship to the church.

Plus the first marriage was Adam and Eve, Before sin. So...It's more then just a Metaphor.
Here's the big difference that you missed: Only one of your scenarios tells an entire group of people that they are second-class citizens undeserving of the same rights as the rest of society.

Do we need to go back and relearn a lesson from racial segregation in this country? "Separate by equal" is not equal. This country is not a theocracy, and democracy without the protection of minorities is mob rule.

Also, Adam and Eve? Seriously? THAT is a metaphor. Oh the irony...

(Wait... you don't believe the world is actually 6,000 years old or whatever, do you?)
Kevlar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:38 PM   #251
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,994
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott2.0 View Post
No one is trying to change your religious definition of marriage. Marriage can remain the union of a man and woman in the eyes of your god, church, book, etc. It's the legal marriage that is the question which has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
Not in the opinion of the people that have issues with this. If it were about the legal name then why would it be so hard to change it to something different? For everybody.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:45 PM   #252
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Not in the opinion of the people that have issues with this. If it were about the legal name then why would it be so hard to change it to something different? For everybody.
I dont understand your concern. You church does not have to call it marraige nor recognize it. Not everyone is religious so why would a religious opinion have any impact on a legal one. If there's a difference between a religious marraige and a legal one then so be it, but a straight couple can go to a courthouse and get a marraige certificate that has zilch to do with religion. Again, I understand your religious beliefs don't synch up with callin two men or woman together a marraige, but why should that impact the legal definition in any way?
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:51 PM   #253
Kevlar
Newbie
 
Kevlar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-04-12
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 29
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Kevlar
Default

Here's what I think is the "ideal" solution:

Get the government out of "marriage." For the purposes of taxes/spousal benefits/rights, allow couples, gay or straight, to get "civil unions" (or some similar name). Then leave "marriage" as a term for the religious (as opposed to legal) union. If a church/synagogue/temple/whatever doesn't want to perform same-sex "marriage," they have every right not to. Christians get to keep their "marriages," gays get the same legal rights as straights... it's win-win.
Kevlar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 03:16 PM   #254
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,446
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevlar View Post
Here's what I think is the "ideal" solution:

Get the government out of "marriage." For the purposes of taxes/spousal benefits/rights, allow couples, gay or straight, to get "civil unions" (or some similar name). Then leave "marriage" as a term for the religious (as opposed to legal) union. If a church/synagogue/temple/whatever doesn't want to perform same-sex "marriage," they have every right not to. Christians get to keep their "marriages," gays get the same legal rights as straights... it's win-win.
I agree with this.. and seriously.. we have bigger fish to fry.
kerryann is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 03:44 PM   #255
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,994
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevlar View Post
Here's the big difference that you missed: Only one of your scenarios tells an entire group of people that they are second-class citizens undeserving of the same rights as the rest of society.

Do we need to go back and relearn a lesson from racial segregation in this country? "Separate by equal" is not equal. This country is not a theocracy, and democracy without the protection of minorities is mob rule.
Let me Clarify. The term would be used for both homosexual and straight Unions. there would be Absolutely no difference legally. Gay or Straight

Quote:

Also, Adam and Eve? Seriously? THAT is a metaphor. Oh the irony...

(Wait... you don't believe the world is actually 6,000 years old or whatever, do you?)
I'm not going to open that can of worms in this thread. If you want to go around and around about this, I'd be glad to join another thread in the PGR forum to talk about what I believe, why, and how closed minded it is to think that there is just one Scenario for how the Universe began. I will also try my hardest to play nice. Promise.

inb4commentonhowfunnyitisthatachristianwouldsaysom eoneelseisclosedminded

Quote:
Scott 2.0 Said

I dont understand your concern. You church does not have to call it marraige nor recognize it. Not everyone is religious so why would a religious opinion have any impact on a legal one. If there's a difference between a religious marraige and a legal one then so be it, but a straight couple can go to a courthouse and get a marraige certificate that has zilch to do with religion. Again, I understand your religious beliefs don't synch up with callin two men or woman together a marraige, but why should that impact the legal definition in any way?
Because our language is already so complicated there is no reason to add different definitions for the same word when just making up another word woudl be easier. I don't get why you think it needs to be called a marriage? What is the reason the government couldn't call it something else?
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 04:18 PM   #256
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Because our language is already so complicated there is no reason to add different definitions for the same word when just making up another word woudl be easier. I don't get why you think it needs to be called a marriage? What is the reason the government couldn't call it something else?
If your argument is that the current language is too complicated, I would argue that creating a second legal definition of what is essentially the same thing, is adding complication to something that's pretty straightforward when you think about it. Not to mention the whole separate but equal issue.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 09:17 PM   #257
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,161
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott2.0 View Post
I dont understand your concern. You church does not have to call it marraige nor recognize it. Not everyone is religious so why would a religious opinion have any impact on a legal one. If there's a difference between a religious marraige and a legal one then so be it, but a straight couple can go to a courthouse and get a marraige certificate that has zilch to do with religion. Again, I understand your religious beliefs don't synch up with callin two men or woman together a marraige, but why should that impact the legal definition in any way?
The church you speak of has called it marriage since the begining of time. Time as Christians know it(real time) I do believe people of faith have the right to call it marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. So after all that L4CX has explained to you I do see how," you don't understand."
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 09:31 PM   #258
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
The church you speak of has called it marriage since the begining of time. Time as Christians know it(real time) I do believe people of faith have the right to call it marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. So after all that L4CX has explained to you I do see how," you don't understand."
And I completely agree; the church can define it however they wish. They overstep their boundaries when the religious definition is used to restrict the legal one. You are missing the fact that despite how strong your religious beliefs are, they have absolutely no right to restrict others' lives. Believe whatever you wish, just mind your own business. The holy-rollers really come off as busy-bodies when they want to intervene in everyone's private lives. No one cares what you do, show others the same respect.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 09:38 PM   #259
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,161
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott2.0 View Post
And I completely agree; the church can define it however they wish. They overstep their boundaries when the religious definition is used to restrict the legal one. You are missing the fact that despite how strong your religious beliefs are, they have absolutely no right to restrict others' lives. Believe whatever you wish, just mind your own business. The holy-rollers really come off as busy-bodies when they want to intervene in everyone's private lives. No one cares what you do, show others the same respect.
The church and God were the first ones to call it a marriage. If anybody is over stepping boundries it would be the gay community.
If you want to understand where Christians are coming from and why we hold marriage between 1 man and 2 woman so strongly then you will need to ask a pastor of a church, "why"?
Nobody is tellin them they can't live together and do thier own thing.
Do you know that approx.80% of Americans call them selves Christians. There are more of us than you. Get used to it.
Another question for you, Are you gay? is that why you are so persistant on this subject?
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 09:47 PM   #260
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
The church and God were the first ones to call it a marriage. If anybody is over stepping boundries it would be the gay community.
If you want to understand where Christians are coming from and why we hold marriage between 1 man and 2 woman so strongly then you will need to ask a pastor of a church, "why"?
Nobody is tellin them they can't live together and do thier own thing.
Do you know that approx.80% of Americans call them selves Christians. There are more of us than you. Get used to it.
Another question for you, Are you gay? is that why you are so persistant on this subject?
Nope but so what if I was? I may not be gay but im 100% pro freedom and believe every American has the right to live their lives, provided they dont hurt anyone, as they see fit without others butting in. In following this thread, it seems that you are in fact the one outnumbered. I can't help myself from speaking up when the self-righteous think they have the right to control others' lives. It comes down to simple respect for others and for minding one's own business. Again, no one cares what you do. Quit trying to control other people.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.51640 seconds with 81 queries