gay marriage

[lapietra]

The Deep South

[priceyfatprude]

Labels are for cans of soup, not human beings.

Who was labelling?

[zenbabe]

metrosexual still cracks me up......

[Smartypants]

Don Asmussen in today's San Francisco Chronicle. (I don't know why this won't post as an image.)

[Deviate]

ain't that the truth.

[mememe]

Perhaps I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me the issue of gay marriage isn't about insurance (as most companies & plans allow for "partner" coverage) nor about taxes (yes, getting the two singles tax revenue is great, but as Gays & Lesbians make up a small percentage of the overall population, it won't make much of a dent to lose those taxes).

Bringing this non-issue up is a way for Bush to polarize folks and drum up support from his traditional base -- people who were just starting to question his actions and wonder, "Gee, where are all those WMDs?" or "Why is the economy still sucking swamp water?" or "How come I didn't see any of those tax benefits Bush passed?"

After all, it is an election year...

[Deviate]

actually that's a BIG part of it. most Americans are still against same-sex marriages and Bush is hoping to ride that wave back into the Oval Office. and it would be a black day for our country if that happens.

funny, last year i didn't think there was a chance in hell. now i'm frightened...

[catbelly]

I wonder if more people than not are truly against same-sex marriage? Or, is it made to seem that way via the media? LOL my turn to be a conspiracy theorist

I worry that the easily led and the people on the fence are too influenced by media ... that the reporting is biased, and the "more people than not" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I guess I am the eternal optimist despite being a minority female bisexual person ... I really believe that more people than not would be inclined to be tolerant if they were informed about their choices.

[priceyfatprude]

Nah, here in the Midwest, I have a tough time talking to ppl about this. I say live & let live. Most do not feel that way, although once I debunk their arguments they dont have much to say.

*shrugs*

If they find Osama, he will get back in office. In fact, I'm predicting that will happen this fall, about September or so, right in time for the ol' election. F*cker.

[mememe]

I don't know. Most people (it seems) are supportive of civil unions between same-sex couples, affording them the same legal and tax benefits given to married couples. But they draw the line at actual "marriage." Somehow, that's threatening.

This would be a moot point if all legal "marriages" between couples were civil unions -- that immediately takes religion out of the equation. THEN, if the couple so desires, they can get married in a religious ceremony. And if I'm not mistaken, there are some branches of the Episcopal church that welcome same-sex couples in their congregation, so I would hope it wouldn't be impossible for them to also have a church-style wedding.

This shouldn't be too hard to implement (what's a little more red tape?), and what's more, if you charge $$ for every ceremony, would probably be another form of revenue for whatever city/state the civil union takes place. I bet if states could find a way to make money from this, they'd legalize gay marriage in a heartbeat (that's the cynic in me).

[amfromme]

Or....how about no legal marriage at all?

Like this county in Oregon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564893.stm

I wonder if they could do this in my county and make it about 10 years retroactive.

[esjessi]

Originally posted by azur

They say: if we accept gay marriages it will destabilize society and it will change it in an unbelievable way. I think they are right.

But - in my opinion - there is nothing wrong in changes.

I don't see how it will destabilize society. Society isn't stable anyway. And the recognized union of more stable couples isn't going to change anything, really.

[catbelly]

Originally posted by esjessi
I don't see how it will destabilize society. Society isn't stable anyway. And the recognized union of more stable couples isn't going to change anything, really.

I take that as meaning that things won't be the way they were. IMO that is a good thing in this case!

[nycwriters]

Originally posted by catbelly
I worry that the easily led and the people on the fence are too influenced by media ... that the reporting is biased, and the "more people than not" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Which media are you referring to? We've been running stories non-stop.

[catbelly]

Originally posted by nycwriters
Which media are you referring to? We've been running stories non-stop.

My bad, Peg

I had to hunt for my post because I couldn't remember when I'd posted that ...

will you give me a little leeway, if you read the whole of my post it says:

I wonder if more people than not are truly against same-sex marriage? Or, is it made to seem that way via the media? LOL my turn to be a conspiracy theorist

I worry that the easily led and the people on the fence are too influenced by media ... that the reporting is biased, and the "more people than not" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the context of what I was saying (admittedly with sloppy reference to "media") I was trying to express the thought that people in general might not be as opposed to same-sex marriage as some publications suggested. At the time I posted, there were several that seemed to be publishing only the "why do they have to get married" and "it's an affront to god" - type letters.

But, I realize that you know this and are making a point about my sloppy usage of "media." Point taken, madame!