Dugz02 wrote:

There are two separate issues, in my mind. 1) Religious issues - these change with various religions/denominations, so we can't set one standard that fits all. The best that we can do is fall back on the wisdom of our forefathers, who directed that there should be a separation between the "church" and the "state"... which allows each church to decide whether or not they will support/provide gay weddings. So each religious group can decide how they will treat this issue. Period. 2) Government issues - the legal system has to define who is eligible to receive property in a divorce, so the legal system has to provide a definition of what constitutes a legal union. Call it a marriage or a partnership, it doesn't matter... it has to be defined. I think that room mates... regardless of their sexuality... should be allowed to enter into a partnership that carries all of the legal rights of a marriage. After all, if they share all of the financial burdens, why should two people be forced to forgo the benefits of a partnership? Does that mean that I think that gay "marriages" are blessed by God? No. (Frankly, I don't feel qualified to speak for Him, so I'll refrain.) It just means that I think that people who decide to share their lives can NOT be refused that right by our government.

Bible says Marriage is between a man and a woman.....but that is Religion and Religion is separate from State and I respect that. I will reiterate however that my concern is changing the definition. California citizens have spoken on this issue. They can broaden the benefits of domestic partners but please,Let's not change the definition of Marriage between man and woman. Why is it up to the chest pounding california judges change the will of the people. The people of California have spoken.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

esty wrote:

Armond wrote: Esty, I am Catholic and I take my religion seriously. There are parishoners in our church who are Gay or otherwise. The difference is they dont push their agenda. They dont pound their chest and say "Let's change the definition of marriage" They go about their lives. then perhaps, my son, you could learn a valuable lesson from your gay brethren & sisters.....you could learn to turn the other cheek and not push you agenda or pound your chest proclaiming gay marriage is wrong because 61% of california voters agreed.... but you know armond..in order to learn, one must have an open mind....so...that could rule out my suggestion to you

Uhhh, it's actually the other way around Esty. In addition, having an "open mind" w/o boundaries is reckless.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Could we revisit one of the first posts? BLUNT, I'm ready for those door handles. But first a question -- if I marry you, can I get free parts?

Caution - we must keep our marriage a secret. Wegweiser will be jealous.

Armond wrote:

Bible says Marriage is between a man and a woman.....but that is Religion and Religion is separate from State and I respect that. I will reiterate however that my concern is changing the definition. California citizens have spoken on this issue. They can broaden the benefits of domestic partners but please,Let's not change the definition of Marriage between man and woman. Why is it up to the chest pounding california judges change the will of the people. The people of California have spoken.

Here's the issue. The word 'marriage' is tied up in religion, however, in reality marriage is no longer soley a religious ceremony. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church. I think the problem is people confuse religious marriage with that of a legal marriage. A religious marriage, as defined by the bible, Koran, or whatever, is between a man an a woman. I don't think any state official wants to change that, as that's the preogative of each individual religion. However, the definition of a legal marriage must be changed. Can you give me a good reason why a gay couple SHOULDN'T get all the legal benefits a hetero couple recieves? And no, Civil Unions do not provide this.

In my opinion, there's only two acceptable solutions. Either the legal defnition of a marriage is changed to allow gay marriage, or a legal marriage and a religious marriage are permanently seperated. What I mean is, you are free to get married, in the eye's of God, or whoever, according to the diction of your church, but this union has no legal grounds. In order to have the legal benefits, you must enter into a Civil Union (or whatever you want to call it) with the state.

This way there's two seperate institutions. There's the legal aspect, which anyone can be involved with, and the religious aspect, which is selective based on your beliefs.

Of course, if any of this were implemented there would have to be a grandfather clause for all pre-existing marriages.

Also, going back to your original statement:

Quote:

How will I explain to my Children that Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs. dropped off some cookies?

Do you really think that banning gay marriage will prevent these people from living together? Either way, you're going to have to explain it. But I guess if it's not legalized then you have an excuse to pass your bigotted views onto your children.
_________________
-Brian L.

'91 Galant VR-4 #665/2000

Hey Muskrat,

You obviously havent read all my posts. Try calling me a biggot in my face and let's see what happens. Be carefull with your words.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

45 years ago inter racial marriage was illegal in most states....60 years ago african americans were not considered a whole human...Jim Crow laws...Alot of these laws were based on interprtations of the bible... Being a secularist If two people are committed and love each other Who cares what they do in their personal life?. As to the bible...Anyone care to describe the god Jehovah... That laid waste to cities killed women and children ..Lots of same sex stuff.The new testament had to be a little more appealing to the puritans...My point is you can make anyone or anything say what you want by how you interpret it.....I repeat if two people care and want to make a commitment (marriage)it should not care their color,age or sex....And the final thought....Its really no one elses business....

I have no problem with it at all. I have a couple of good friends that are a lesbian couple and they are waiting to see if it actually spreads past the 2 states that now allow it. As of now, it is merely symbolic because it is not the law of the land.

Let me repeat. The issue I have is the push to change the DEFENITION of Marriage between a MAN and WOMAN. I have no issues with Gay or Lesbian couples. What they do at home is non of my business.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Armond wrote:

Hey Muskrat, You obviously havent read all my posts. Try calling me a biggot in my face and let's see what happens. Be carefull with your words.

I did read all you're posts, actually. You sound pretty intolerant of gay marriage to me.

To quote you: Gay's are "pushing their agenda on the general public". Well, why shouldn't they? The general public is pushing their intolerant agenda on them. If a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, how does that affect you in any way?
_________________
-Brian L.

'91 Galant VR-4 #665/2000

Armond wrote:

Let me repeat. The issue I have is the push to change the DEFENITION of Marriage between a MAN and WOMAN. I have no issues with Gay or Lesbian couples. What they do at home is non of my business.

Ok..Why is that a big deal? They want to change the definition so they can recieve all the legal benefits a hetero couple recieves. The Federal Government doesn't recognize Civil Unions, so in the states that do have them, they are only recieving benefits at the state level, and not the federal level. Nevermind, the plethora of states that don't even give them that.
_________________
-Brian L.

'91 Galant VR-4 #665/2000

Muskrat wrote:

Armond wrote: Let me repeat. The issue I have is the push to change the DEFENITION of Marriage between a MAN and WOMAN. I have no issues with Gay or Lesbian couples. What they do at home is non of my business. Ok..Why is that a big deal? They want to change the definition so they can recieve all the legal benefits a hetero couple recieves. The Federal Government doesn't recognize Civil Unions, so in the states that do have them, they are only recieving benefits at the state level, and not the federal level. Nevermind, the plethora of states that don't even give them that.

ok...so your'e fine with a sister,brother,dads,uncles, man plus dog or donkeys to get married.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Otis wrote:

Could we revisit one of the first posts? BLUNT, I'm ready for those door handles. But first a question -- if I marry you, can I get free parts? Caution - we must keep our marriage a secret. Wegweiser will be jealous.

a couple things otis, im over wegweiser. the cool mirrors originally attracted me to him but hes not as flexible as i like. you seem to be more lean and more my type so im down. perhaps we can rent a room in armonds compound so we will be in the state where its all legal. please drop me an email and tell me which way you want to go, just to clarify i mean which way you want to go on the door handles. because its clear i will be pitching in our relationship
_________________

lowest pricing on new OE bmw parts
email me unkorama@gmail.com

Hey Blunt. You're back! Guess what. I'm putting a Datsun 510 engine in my 02 and swap a honda suspension to my 02...I'm still calling it an 02 though. How bout that?
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Statement about animals. Animals are not CONSENTING HUMAN BEINGS. As to relatives marrying its been going on for along time hetro.....As To you objecting to the definition being changed about marriage.... The definition is what you make it. Many countries recognize same sex marriage.... So only your definition is right??? Why are you so upset if two CONSENTING adults want to have the right to marry???? Whose business is it if their male or female or same sex??? Yours??? The Government????

I think that in California's eyes that might be something that they would consider as ok. They are closer to Japan than to Germany and if you face north Japan is to the left of Germany. so the Marriage of your Japanese suspension and drive train would be deemed legally acceptable by the Supreme Court of Ca.( without out substantial engineering, there would not be any ability to have a follow on lineage to this union).

Otis wrote:

Could we revisit one of the first posts? BLUNT, I'm ready for those door handles. But first a question -- if I marry you, can I get free parts? Caution - we must keep our marriage a secret. Wegweiser will be jealous.

You're too late Otis. Blunt and I tied the knot last weekend. But, he's still your source for lowest BMW OEM parts.

So when you say you're getting married, you're "officially" declaring your love for someone, and willing to devote the rest of your life to that person. So if we say gay folks can't get 'married,' or use the term 'married' to describe their love for each other, then what do we call it? Ok, so some suggest calling it a civil union. So then what, they get 'civil unioned?' Or, 'unionized?' That doesn't sound very sacred does it?

Blunt, the toilet seat was down this morning. WTF man???

Richard,

why discriminate against people who want to marry their family members? as long as they are consenting adults or have miltiple wives? lets all bring it out in the open...forget the definition then..let's change the rules as you and I see fit...I understand it clearly now...crystal clear.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

AndyS wrote:

I think that in California's eyes that might be something that they would consider as ok. They are closer to Japan than to Germany and if you face north Japan is to the left of Germany. so the Marriage of your Japanese suspension and drive train would be deemed legally acceptable by the Supreme Court of Ca.( without out substantial engineering, there would not be any ability to have a follow on lineage to this union).

hahahaha...so true...let's sue and change the name of BMW to Honda BMW.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Armond, You definitley have a problem with homosexuals.... I stated that hetros have been marrying family members for years. Sometimes generations worth even thou their are laws against it.... I would reccomend taking a breather as you are coming across as a homophob and gay hater. If thats what you want keep going your doing a great job.... I still dont understand the hate towards people that want a commitment(marriage)

Armond wrote:

Richard, why discriminate against people who want to marry their family members? as long as they are consenting adults or have miltiple wives? lets all bring it out in the open...forget the definition then..let's change the rules as you and I see fit...I understand it clearly now...crystal clear.

So you believe homosexuality is on the same moral level as incest and beastiality? In homosexual relationships the relationship is the same as a hetero relationship. There are 2 consenting, non-related adults. If we start allowing incest, then it must be for everyone, not just homosexual incest. This leads to degradation of the gene pool, birth defects, etc. which results in unintended victim's suffering due to the relationship.

As far as beastiality is concerned, it doesn't apply. We're talking about union between concenting human beings. Try giving a rational argument, instead of extreme examples.
_________________
-Brian L.

'91 Galant VR-4 #665/2000

You said much better what I was trying to say......

I'm done here. Thanks for a spirited discussion.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Well, that's nice.

I'm going to assume that since you never countered any of my arguments, you can't. Chalk one up in the win column.
_________________
-Brian L.

'91 Galant VR-4 #665/2000

kweebs wrote:

Blunt and I tied the knot last weekend.

As everyone knows, I'm very open minded. Monogamy doesn't matter that much, as long as I get free parts. In fact, we could move to Utah for all I care -- I'm bringing along Biscuit3 and Jesse Jane. Oh, what a sammich we will make.

And I have a solution for Wegweiser, as well. We might as well bring him along, also. What, you thought moi was going to install all of the parts I'm planning on buying from BLUNT?!? Why, you silly bitches!

PS - don't touch the Mango!

Muskrat wrote:

Well, that's nice. I'm going to assume that since you never countered any of my arguments, you can't. Chalk one up in the win column.

Hardly...the battle continues. Again, we are very lucky to live in a country where people can express different views.

Regardless, does not matter to me if you are straight nor gay. I wish all who participated abundant blessings. No hard feelings.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Muskrat and Armond, if you two don't stop fighting, Blunt, Wegweiser, Jesse, Ash, Scott and I are simply NOT going to invite you to the wedding. I've already started the planning. Salt Lake City is so very beautiful this time of year. Big Love, here we come!

http://www.gayweddings.com/

male-male-lg.jpg
Description:
Filesize:	24.07 KB
Viewed:	0 Time(s)

Last edited by Otis on 6-25-08 05:05; edited 1 time in total

Otis wrote:

Muskrat and Armond, if you two don't stop fighting, Blunt, Wegweiser, Jesse, Ash, Scott and I are simply NOT going to invite you to the wedding. I've already started the planning. Salt Lake City is so very beautiful this time of year. http://www.gayweddings.com/

Hey Blunt. I was on the water this afternoon and I took a photo of your old house. Pics to follow.

Otis,Nice Photo. who would be the woman in the relationship? Blunt? I'm sure he could step right in there.
_________________
73 Tii. My Daily driver
Volvo V70 Turbo,Wagon

Ad Deum Per Fidem Mores Culturam

Armond wrote:

who would be the woman in the relationship?

Blunt and I will let the Reverend Jonny decide.

(Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . . to post picture of Jonny's nekked butt . . .)

Anyway, here we are, ready for The Big Day, all decked out in Inka and Fjord. We're registered at Max's - wait a minute, that's not right . . .

Inka Wedding.jpg
Description:
Filesize:	31.24 KB
Viewed:	0 Time(s)