Gay Marriage Issue In San Fran.......

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:49 pm

Originally posted by MadDoctor
mr. peepee goes into mrs. vagina = wonderful feeling
mr. peepee goes into other things = wonderful feeling

It's not always about having a baby.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:50 pm

Originally posted by MadDoctor
mr. peepee goes into mrs. vagina = wonderful feeling
mr. peepee goes into other things = wonderful feeling

It's not always about having a baby.

That’s great that sex has been turned into just a thing done for pleasure to anyone or anything.

No real respect left for the act at all

No thing reserved till marriage

It makes me sick

And that is my Personal Opinion.

Zilog B · Post by **Zilog B** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:51 pm

Originally posted by MadDoctor
mr. peepee goes into mrs. vagina = wonderful feeling
mr. peepee goes into other things = wonderful feeling

It's not always about having a baby.

I'm not quite getting what you are saying. Can we have some diagrams or some other sort of visual aid?

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:03 pm

I am in a monogamous relationship, however I am not ready for the responsibility of raising children, maybe i never will be. Does that mean that I should not be having sex then? Is the expression of my love for my partner wrong, if it first and foremost isn't about procreation???

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:06 pm

Originally posted by schlurpee
I'm not quite getting what you are saying. Can we have some diagrams or some other sort of visual aid?

Whenever Maddoc is involved Id be careful of what you ask for.

Spicer · Post by **Spicer** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:07 pm

Originally posted by Blisster
I am in a monogamous relationship, however I am not ready for the responsibility of raising children, maybe i never will be. Does that mean that I should not be having sex then? Is the expression of my love for my partner wrong, if it first and foremost isn't about procreation???

No actually it doesn't.....We were given to each other to enjoy all aspects....

Spice

PS...Unless of course it involves the need for Pornography...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........Gotcha!!!...

Spice

MadDoctor · Post by **MadDoctor** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:32 pm

Originally posted by Brent
That’s great that sex has been turned into just a thing done for pleasure to anyone or anything.

You're over generalizing. Sex is many things: having children, enjoying each other’s physically, and re-establishing the bond of friendship and love between partners.

No real respect left for the act at all

Of course there is respect. Life is not two dimensional.

No thing reserved till marriage

Many couple reserve many things until after marriage. Don’t denounce the entire race on the actions of some.

It makes me sick

Take draminine

And that is my Personal Opinion.

Mine too

Spicer · Post by **Spicer** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:41 pm

Originally posted by Brent
That’s great that sex has been turned into just a thing done for pleasure to anyone or anything.

DEFINE.....Anything or Anyone..?????

Have I Told Ya'll Ya'll.....How much I love this place....

LMAO!!.....Totally In Awe..!

I might call in and take the summer off too..

Spice

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:52 pm

Originally posted by Brent
ah but see, I didn't mention the bible in this thread

i simply said man and women can create a baby, a man and a man cannot, or a women and a women cannot

our civilization, our world, is populated by the sexual intercourse of a man and a women

even if you don't believe in the bible, one can see how nature designed this process to happen so that humans will live on for as long as we are makin babys

gays = population controll!

teaaememy · Post by **teaaememy** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:18 pm

Originally posted by CiscoKid
gays = population controll!

Actually being a cali resident, from what I have gathered these people are obtaining marriage licenses and being married and the certificates are valid until a judge says otherwise. Many of the couples that have been interviewed have said it doesn't matter to them but they do want the recognition. One man mentioned inherritance purposes and medical purposes being able to label that person as their spouse.
I used to be all homophobic until my best friend (guy) came out. So as far as what I am willing to fight I also keep in mind people like him who feel for their "partner" as strongly as I feel for my spouse.

Spicer · Post by **Spicer** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:57 pm

Alot of marriages in a week...LOL!!

Spice

The city's assessor-record's office said that about 2,500 gay and lesbian couples have been married since Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to defy state law and grant same-sex marriage licenses last Thursday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... cisco_dc_2

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm

I have nothing against gay people and if they want to be in love and live together then fine, thats cool.. But IMO, this entire issue has absolutely nothing to do with love. You don't need a license to be in love and live together.. The only thing you need the license for is to gain public marriage benefits; which is what this all boils down to.

IMHO, If they let the gays have marriage benefits then ANYONE and EVERYONE living in a permanent residency with another person (regardless of any variables such as sex, race, etc.) should be able to apply for the same benefits..

Its all or nothing; Gay people are not the only people that live together without the potential to reproduce as a family unit. Many siblings live together (no, I'm not talking incest), best friends, lifelong roommates, long term co-workers etc.. I know of at least 3 households of non-gays that have been living together for a long time and I think it would be wrong to grant a gay couple down the street benefits that these households would be denied..

just my .02

Spicer · Post by **Spicer** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:25 pm

Originally posted by koldchillah
I have nothing against gay people and if they want to be in love and live together then fine, thats cool.. But IMO, this entire issue has absolutely nothing to do with love. You don't need a license to be in love and live together.. The only thing you need the license for is to gain public marriage benefits; which is what this all boils down to.

Well....I'm guessing they love each other....

It's just another issue to me that I'll never agree with, nor do I care....They don't affect me..Let them live their lives any which way they choose..

The marriage is as you say...A legal route in which to gain all the benefits of Spousal Recognition...

Spice

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:29 pm

Originally posted by Spicer
It's just another issue to me that I'll never agree with, nor do I care....They don't affect me..Let them live their lives any which way they choose..

The marriage is as you say...A legal route in which to gain all the benefits of Spousal Recognition... Spice

I agree.. let them live their lives as they choose.. but don't call something discriminatory and put up a fuss just to make it further discriminatory to the other non-gay households who contain people that are willing to go out of the way in the same regard for one another.

Spicer · Post by **Spicer** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:34 pm

Originally posted by koldchillah
I agree.. let them live their lives as they choose.. but don't call something discriminatory and put up a fuss just to make it further discriminatory to the other non-gay households who contain people that are willing to go out of the way in the same regard for one another.

Hmmmm.....Tough One...In the eyes of the law...

I hear where you're coming from though...

Spice

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:37 pm

I don't think a domestic partnership is the same as say, two siblings or two friends living together. A spousal commitment is alot different.

For instance, a gay couple can be together for 30 years, but when one fo them passes away, rather than the partner having any say in what happens regarding thier shared estate, the immediate family has control. That's just not right IMO.
This is just one of many issues revolving around marriage and all the rights and benefits that come with it.
Married couples recieve tax benefits that unmarried couples are not entitled to.
Insurance coverage, etc. etc.

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:49 pm

Originally posted by Blisster
I don't think a domestic partnership is the same as say, two siblings or two friends living together. A spousal commitment is alot different.

no I don't think a spousal commitment is much different in the eyes of the law which is really the scope this should remain in. I hear where your comin' from though, and many of my friends share the same opinion.. but I still have to disagree on this one..

IMHO, the only difference between spouse and commited friend/sibling is the sexual aspect of the relationship.. I know my friends who are brothers and living together would go just as much out of the way for each other as any spouse would for their mate. Only difference is that gays and normal married couples are typically sexually active which should be regarded by law as an attempt to reproduce and not a means of pleasure. If its going to be lawful it needs to be clear cut; that is all.

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:53 pm

Originally posted by koldchillah
no I don't think a spousal commitment is much different in the eyes of the law which is really the scope this should remain in. I hear where your comin' from though, and many of my friends share the same opinion.. but I still have to disagree on this one..

IMHO, the only difference between spouse and commited friend/sibling is the sexual aspect of the relationship.. I know my friends who are brothers and living together would go just as much out of the way for each other as any spouse would for their mate. Only difference is that gays and normal married couples are typically sexually active which should be regarded by law as an attempt to reproduce and not a means of pleasure. If its going to be lawful it needs to be clear cut; that is all.

but do the two brothers who live together share a checking account? Pay into the same retirement plan? Own a house together? Make EVERY decision in there lives based on how it will affect the both of them?

Siblings already have alot more rights than a gay couple does.

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:42 pm

Originally posted by Blisster
but do the two brothers who live together share a checking account? Pay into the same retirement plan? Own a house together? Make EVERY decision in there lives based on how it will affect the both of them?

Siblings already have alot more rights than a gay couple does.

no, no, yes, yes, and of course. another case in which involves my parents friends of 3 (2 siblings one non-related friend) who live together and in their case its yes, no, yes, yes, yes.

those things can be done without marriage licenses.. all you have to do is sign the papers that way. Marriage is not defined by those things.. My wife and I don't share checking or pay into the same retirement, but we do own a house together. Just things we never felt the need to change after marriage..

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:16 pm

Originally posted by koldchillah
no, no, yes, yes, and of course. another case in which involves my parents friends of 3 (2 siblings one non-related friend) who live together and in their case its yes, no, yes, yes, yes.

those things can be done without marriage licenses.. all you have to do is sign the papers that way. Marriage is not defined by those things.. My wife and I don't share checking or pay into the same retirement, but we do own a house together. Just things we never felt the need to change after marriage..

Even in domestic partnerships they do not get the same tax breaks or medical coverage and straight couples. Yesterday, a male couple who have been together for almost 50 years, got married.

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:27 pm

Originally posted by CiscoKid
Even in domestic partnerships they do not get the same tax breaks or medical coverage and straight couples. Yesterday, a male couple who have been together for almost 50 years, got married.

your right they don't have the same tax breaks or medical coverage as straight couples.. My point is that neither do other people who might live together and care of one another the same.. If you give it to the gays, then fine.. cool.. good for them.. but give it to the rest as well rather than discriminate based on sexual activity and so called "love" which is "by law" not a requirement for marriage.. Marriage "by law" is just a paper you sign to gain the benefits.. You cannot base law on emotion in such a way.. its not fair.

Noevo · Post by **Noevo** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:28 pm

The argument is losing it's ground in general I think, especially in regards to the "bible says it's wrong" group.

people love who they love, seems to me that simple. I don't look at it any differently really. There's no harm in it, yeah go ahead and say the act is illegal in many states but so is a hell of a lot of what a male and female do. The argument there is don't tell me what I can do behind closed doors, yet a lot of those same people want to do just that when it's a gay couple involved.

Bible thumpers seem to be just told they're not supposed to like it and they follow it blindly like many other things. Scopes monkey trial anyone?

Sex just for procreation? Tell that to any newlywed couple.

As for the law and legal marriages? I have more issues paying for crack addicts and people living off of disability (wrongly) then I would my company paying for insurance coverage for domestic partners.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:33 pm

Originally posted by koldchillah
your right they don't have the same tax breaks or medical coverage as straight couples.. My point is that neither do other people who might live together and care of one another the same.. If you give it to the gays, then fine.. cool.. good for them.. but give it to the rest as well rather than discriminate based on sexual activity and so called "love" which is "by law" not a requirement for marriage.. Marriage "by law" is just a paper you sign to gain the benefits.. You cannot base law on emotion in such a way.. its not fair.

I'm sorry man, but that's a load if I've ever read one. makeing gay marriage ilegal is just that, makeing emotion based laws

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:42 pm

Other domestic paretnerships may or may not deserve the same rights and benefits that a straight married couple have/recieve, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that Gay people have been told specifically that because they are gay, they are NOT allowed to get married and recieve the same rights/benefits that a straight couple have/recieve.

Perhaps your friends and others in domestic partnerships do deserve the same legal rights, but that is a different issue altogether.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:51 pm

also, koldchillah , domestic partnerships or marriage rights should not be given to couples who do not intent to marry.

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:27 pm

What do gay couples have that elevates them above the people that would qualify as domestic partnerships? I can't think of any difference except sexual relationship. I don't buy the whole commitment thing b/c the few cases I know of are just as commited, just in a non sexual way.. besides, how do you measure that type of thing in terms of marriage/partnership law?

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:38 pm

Originally posted by koldchillah
What do gay couples have that elevates them above the people that would qualify as domestic partnerships? I can't think of any difference except sexual relationship. I don't buy the whole commitment thing b/c the few cases I know of are just as commited, just in a non sexual way.. besides, how do you measure that type of thing in terms of marriage/partnership law?

What does any of that have to do with denying gay people the right to get married?

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:32 pm

Originally posted by koldchillah
What do gay couples have that elevates them above the people that would qualify as domestic partnerships? I can't think of any difference except sexual relationship. I don't buy the whole commitment thing b/c the few cases I know of are just as commited, just in a non sexual way.. besides, how do you measure that type of thing in terms of marriage/partnership law?

Because if it were legal, those gay and lesbian couples would have been married years before.

Do you know many gay couples? My cousin has been with his bf since the early 50's and the relationship's still going strong

koldchillah · Post by **koldchillah** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:31 pm

Originally posted by CiscoKid
Because if it were legal, those gay and lesbian couples would have been married years before.

Do you know many gay couples? My cousin has been with his bf since the early 50's and the relationship's still going strong

Yes, you're right about the results of it being legal, I'm sure they would have been married a long time ago, but my question has nothing to do with what would have happened if the marriages were legal.. I'm asking for a justification as to why the gays should be allowed those rights while another smaller set of people in the same situation are still being discriminated against.

I guess the point is, I just don't see the difference between homosexual marriage and non-sexual domestic partnership types or even incestual marriage for that matter.. To me, they are all the same group of civil union. Neither of them should be considered more committed to one another, To me, they should all have the same "marriage-like" rights when it comes to asset inheritance, insurance, etc.. That is all. Maybe they should call it marriage for gays and straights and call it something else for the other relationship types.. regardless, thats all I'm trying to say. By allowing gay marriages the discrimination is just being isolated and applied to a smaller part of the same group.

You fellas don't have to agree with me.. I'm just stating my opinion.. I think I can understand why you guys view it as a separate issue, but to me, I don't see any justification as to why it should be considered a separate issue.

Yes I know some gay couples.. I live in Orlando, they work in just about every corporate environment around here.. I work with probably a dozen or so.. Most gays I've met are good nice people and I am not going to disrespect their freedom of sexual preference, nor am I going to judge them, nor do I think they should be discriminated against.

Love & commitment can be expressed via non sexual avenues when it comes to domestic partnerships and gay couples are just one of those types of domestic partnerships. I don't think that they should have to sleep with each other and pronounce some form of love to gain those rights b/c there is no way to measure such a thing from a legal perspective other than taking a couples word for it..

Straight people that don't love each other get married all the time for benefits; usually cases involving immigrants but not always. I don't think its right, but it happens quite often nonetheless b/c there is no way to measure love within the scope of law in order to prevent it.

I wish the gay people of San Francisco the best of luck in their relationships, but I hope that all the rare cases of non sexual domestic union are someday granted the same ability, b/c after all, its just a piece of paper that grants certain civil spousal rights; the love and customary aspects of commitment exists with or without that piece of paper.

I'm done with this topic.. I stand firm in my opinion.

good debate guys.