yes.....defined by me as a man and a woman. And does not matter what you say or how you paint it, the only definition I accept is a man and a woman

I, and my wife, care what name you give it...for two anyway...perhaps nobody else does. The rights of which you speak exist for MARRIAGE. The issue is whether the current definition of marriage be changed.

I did not get married for income tax protection. I did not get married for any of the reasons being given. NINE years ago, the very act of homosexuality was illegal. This does mean, as I am sure you and others will take it, that I want any rights taken away from anyone. Let me say that again....what you do in your bedroom or whom you chose to see and live with is absolutely none of my business. I didnt ask for any of this...I actually hate to type this, but I am trying to be honest.

I do not want to take away anyones rights....they do not have those rights now and they are bringing in to our law something that does not exist, thus I am taking NOTHING AWAY.

Look, to you and others I look like a bigot, a hate monger..whatever you choose to call me.....I believe that marriage is between a man and a women. I, nor anyone else is denying rights. A group is asking us to change this definition to give them rights. That is how I frame the question.

Nobody, certainly not me, is taking anything AWAY. I am being asked to agree to GIVE up my definition (which heretofore had existed for all mankind) and GIVE rights that heretofore were not there, but they were NEVER taken away.

I will not give up my beliefs....I will live the law...that is part of living in this country...majority rules or something like that...I accept that as a US citizen, but when they legalize marijuana that does not mean I condone it....but with it they will get rights that do not exist today. Probably a poor comparison but nonetheless makes the point.

Again, I see NOTHING being denied. I see something being asked for.

I know my many gay friends understand what I am saying and by the way a number of them do not agree with a change in that definition and one fellow called to tell my wife and that which I thought was so cool. He said he respected our feelings and how and why we entered our marriage. He lives with a man and we visit often.

As someone who is political and active in many forums and groups relative to this subject, I had to make a decision. Hide from how I feel and not opine at all...or when asked be honest and not be hypocritical about it. I have done the latter in each case where it came up and most, if not all totally understand my feelings. It is not comfortable and I hope you understand that.

Can you explain to me precisely what the difference there is between a gay and /or lesbian marriage by a judge or justice of the peace in a civil ceremony than between a man and woman marriage by a judge or justice of the peace in a civil ceremony?

You are searching for a definitive answer to something that has none for me.

If you want a response...that diminishes my marriage. To me, and this is me.....if you read my last post on here it will explain.

I believe in marriage as a man and a woman. I am not, nor am proposing TAKING AWAY FROM ANYONE ANY RIGHTS. Those in issue DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS YOU ALLUDE to....they are asking us to change a definition to GET NEW RIGHTS.

That does not make them bad....but nobody has ever proposed taking anything away from anyone.

If a supporter of marriage between man and woman cannot describe the difference between a civil ceremony of a man and woman and a civil ceremony of a gay or lesbian couple - there is no difference.

I can understand some doubting a religious ceremony but not a civil ceremony to give all the legal rights to a gay or lesbian couple as to a straight couple.

Remember that only in the 1960's it was illegal for a mixed racial couple to marry. Now, we have the offspring of one such couple in the White House.

It is only a matter of time that gay and lesbian couples will be able to marry legally and have all the legal rights as straight couples.

With that final word, I am on hiatus and off to the Caribbean for a while.

AMF

If you are saying that a civil ceremony is somehow less than a religious ceremony for some reason, I disagree. It is MARRIAGE and has been since the beginning of time.

Oh my. :confused:

They can do that now. It's just not marriage. It may be a legal partnership, but it's not marriage.

why and where does the terminology of being "Straight" come from as the opposite of being gay, and it's intent?

btk

For me, "straight" is easier to understand than "gay".

straight: properly ordered or arranged, free from curves, bends, angles, or irregularities

gay: happily excited, given to social pleasures

I'm not sure how "gay" became the word that describes someone being attracted to someone of their own sex.

The people do have a right to vote however, those laws are subject to review. I understand the religious aspect of this issue...I would support civil unions in place of marriage as long as they were actually equal. Currently they are not.....

Remember, interracial marriage was also banned in this country and I can still see the protest signs during the school desegregation fight "The bible says don't mix the tribes"

I support equal rights for all.

Wow. Where in the bible does it say that?

I also support equal rights for all !!!! TOTALLY

I do not support changing the ages old definition of marriage !

That's what the signs I saw said.....don't really know the bible that well.

So could even you and I agree on Civil Unions with all of the rights equal?

The time honored and traditional definition of the word "marriage" has been changed by liberal fiat to mean something it's never meant before.

The "legal joining of one man and one woman", has been transmogrified by the liberal factions of our society to now mean the "legal joining of one human to another human"

(I hope I'm not offending the rights of the "trans-species relationships" proponents)

:22yikes:

When the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision in the Loving vs VA case, struck down the anti-miscegenation laws on the books in 12 states, 45 years ago next month on June 12, 1967, polls said that 70% of the people disapproved of inter-racial marriages at the time. The courts have to decide what is constitutional, not what public opinion is at the time.


Loving Decision: 40 Years of Legal Interracial Unions : NPR

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

Me thinks this might have also happened when Corporations were given personhood.

Just saying.

Pretty clever Cologal. I like a thinker.

I think most people, and I believe Bucco is one, that would agree with that.

I guarantee you though, that your "solution" is not acceptable to the homosexual rights activists.

They don't want just equal legal status; they want to force equal moral status.

They want to legally force people to accept the "normalcy" and "equality" of their lifestyles in the face of thousands of years of accepted human behavior.

Can that be done by legal fiat??..................

The reason "civil unions" are not enough is that there are benefits to the word "marriage" - over 1600 of them according to a congressional study some years ago.

If you have a "civil union", you don't have a "marriage". TO make an example, a health insurance company could say "we don't recognize civil unions - only marriages" for joint health insurance. This is why gays want "marriages" - so they don't have to pass 1600 laws in 50 states to get equal right.