Marriage is to spend your life with someone you love. That should have nothing to do with your race, religion nor your gender. God will punish the prejudice among us. I think maybe one must be a minority like Black, Gay, or even a women to understand what it is like to be treated like a second class citizen by so many simple minded red necks. When I used the term red neck, I mean no offense, just trying to indicate those that do not use an open mind when it comes to equal rights of others.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

You are not taking this into account:

Whenever states have voted on gay marriage, a significantly smaller than majority percentage of the electorate actually votes. In the North Carolina vote only 34% of eligible voters showed up.

Over about 50 years polls have shown a steady climb of those approving of legalizing same sex marriage. The age breakdowns tell the story. Retirees are the last holdouts, clinging to what we always thought. Only 26% of us currently approve of same sex marriage. Therefore, the percentages of young people approving are very high, showing there truly is a strong shift in society on this issue.

Not surprisingly, this is the same pattern which historically developed regarding attitudes toward slavery, women's rights and racial equality.

Old thinking, tradition and attitudes toward others die very, very slowly.

It's only the people who care enough to vote that matter in any discussion of any referendum. Pretty simple when you think about it.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Marriage is to spend your life with someone you love. That should have nothing to do with your race, religion nor your gender. God will punish the prejudice among us. I think maybe one must be a minority like Black, Gay, or even a women to understand what it is like to be treated like a second class citizen by so many simple minded red necks. When I used the term red neck, I mean no offense, just trying to indicate those that do not use an open mind when it comes to equal rights of others.

lol

The original post addressed the fact that Obama is without shame and would use his young children as a prop and a cover from opponents concerning a controversial issue that like abortion divides the nation..... Gosh if his own young children see same sex as an embracing and fairness issue who is he or anyone to oppose it.

It was predictable that the thread would soon turn to the issue itself because it is such a highly personal issue that leads many people to an emotional state. Some will be making specious civil rights claims while others will portray loving couples who should be allowed to love and live as they choose. Those opposed focus first on the act, an act that has been found throughout the ages to be unnatural. To redefine and legitimize marriage as being between two people vis a vis a man and woman is to legitimize the act. The act is against nature, its unfortunate and my heart honestly goes out to these folks as it does to others who suffer life's unfairness. But to redefine marriage is to leave wide open further intrepetations of what some would define as loving realtionships. Just how far some would go is left to one's imagination

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

You are not taking this into account:

Whenever states have voted on gay marriage, a significantly smaller than majority percentage of the electorate actually votes. In the North Carolina vote only 34% of eligible voters showed up.

Over about 50 years polls have shown a steady climb of those approving of legalizing same sex marriage. The age breakdowns tell the story. Retirees are the last holdouts, clinging to what we always thought. Only 26% of us currently approve of same sex marriage. Therefore, the percentages of young people approving are very high, showing there truly is a strong shift in society on this issue.

Not surprisingly, this is the same pattern which historically developed regarding attitudes toward slavery, women's rights and racial equality.

Old thinking, tradition and attitudes toward others die very, very slowly.

I am not sure nor do I know how to digest whatever your definition of "Old thinking, tradition and attitudes" is......

I believe that in this country everyone should have all the rights given to them by the constitution no matter their color, religion, ethnicity or sexual persuasion (since it applies in this discussion).

We have many laws on the books to protect those rights and I support total enforcement of such.

To force me to condone homosexuality and most important a definition of marriage that is not between a man and woman would be asking me to be a total moral hypocrite.

Sometimes in life, we must accept what it is, instead of finding a way to change it so we can be comfortable. That does not condemn those who practice homosexuality as that is none of my business and my life contains folks who do that, not that I ever asked...they told me. That does not make me treat a homosexual any differently in any way, nor would it nor has it ever made me feel differently about those people.

I am not a a hypocrite nor will I be swayed to say things because of political pressure, or any other kind of pressure.

If your implication is that I am old fashioned, I suppose I am and frankly to me that is not a bad thing. I would never support or not support a person on one issue and that includes this one. I believe, and don't know if right or not, that my feelings are oft times reflected in those ballot boxes on this issue.

If you folks feel you are advanced ahead of me, so be it. Perhaps you are more advanced, smarter, more sophisticated but that is how it is for me.

No one is asking you to compromise your morals.

But don't deny others civil rights on the premise that you are the keeper of absolute truth.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

No one is asking you to compromise your morals.

But don't deny others civil rights on the premise that you are the keeper of absolute truth.

If you actually read my post, I thought I made that very clear. I am just tired of implications that anyone who believes as I do believes in some kind of civil rights violations. I am probably the most pro civil rights person you could meet.

The issue is MARRIAGE......it is not about anything but that in my mind...MARRIAGE. This issue always strays to other things...it is about MARRIAGE.

Folks always say we should in this country stay out of their bedrooms...I agree. This is a case where the bedroom is being taken to the public.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

No one is asking you to compromise your morals.

But don't deny others civil rights on the premise that you are the keeper of absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Bucco

If you actually read my post, I thought I made that very clear. I am just tired of implications that anyone who believes as I do believes in some kind of civil rights violations. I am probably the most pro civil rights person you could meet.

The issue is MARRIAGE......it is not about anything but that in my mind...MARRIAGE. This issue always strays to other things...it is about MARRIAGE.

Folks always say we should in this country stay out of their bedrooms...I agree. This is a case where the bedroom is being taken to the public.

Exactly right Bucco; equating marriage with civil rights is bogus and convoluted thinking. It's done to shut up the opposition.

If a state wants to enact legislation that give the same legal allowances and rights to same sex partners as they do married couples, that's what they should do and stop the political nonsense.

Calling anything something it's not for political purposes is ludicrous.

Obama is avoiding the gay "marriage" issue today and with good reason. The issue has cost him support among independents. Imagine that??

Twice as many independent voters say it will make them "less likely" to vote for Obama as "more likely". Obama is going to need those independents if he has any chance of repeating.

If this trend continues, I envision him reiterating to America that even though he has an opinion, it's up to the states to decide, and he has nothing to do with the issue.

As it is, all he ever did was say that same sex couples should be able to marry. He pointedly never said they had the right.

Six in 10 Say Obama Same-Sex Marriage View Won't Sway Vote

Poll: Obama’s gay marriage push hurts him with independents | The Daily Caller

Originally Posted by Bucco

If you actually read my post, I thought I made that very clear. I am just tired of implications that anyone who believes as I do believes in some kind of civil rights violations. I am probably the most pro civil rights person you could meet.

The issue is MARRIAGE......it is not about anything but that in my mind...MARRIAGE. This issue always strays to other things...it is about MARRIAGE.

Folks always say we should in this country stay out of their bedrooms...I agree. This is a case where the bedroom is being taken to the public.

Yes, MARRIAGE. The word which carries with it certain rights granted to some because of their sex and denied others for the same reason. Who cares what name you give a relationship. It's about rights granted or denied. And, as you have so repeatedly insisted, it has nothing to do with peoples' bedrooms.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Yes, MARRIAGE. The word which carries with it certain rights granted to some because of their sex and denied others for the same reason. Who cares what name you give a relationship. It's about rights granted or denied. And, as you have so repeatedly insisted, it has nothing to do with peoples' bedrooms.

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?

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.