Sad day for WI

[matthewk]

Look out, I'm back!!!

Yes I live in WI, and yes I voted for the amendment. I have nothing against gays. If that is the life they choose, so be it. It's their business to be a couple. I have friends that are gay, and I have no problem with them.

Where I do have an issue is with the state recognizing them as legally married and giving them the same state rights that other married couples get. If you are gay and find a church that will provide a marriage ceremony for you, then that's great. However, I do not think the state should be forced to recognize this.

I suppose if someone lives alone with their cats the state should recognize that as a marriage too. If you disagree, then you are making a judgement on what constitues marriage just as the amendment does. The only difference is that your definition stops at a different point.

The people that are jump out calling others names do not understand this point. It's not that we want to outlaw gays living together, we just don't want it to be a marriage as it is recognized by the government. And to those that complain about the government getting into church business, just what do you think a marriage license is? I don't see people up in arms that this should be abolished. My taxes are affected by my marriage status, so I would say that the state already is involved. This just clarifies what constitues marriage in the eyes of the state.

[pk500]

If there's anything I've learned, it's don't talk about gay marriage at your local Digital Sportspage.

I think we all have or should learn something from this. Amongst friends or not politics just don't mix well. Just like at work, politics are touchy subjects, as is religion.

I have learned that ranting about s*** I cant control is not worth losing cyber friends from DSP over

If we don't discuss these issues, then we'll become apathetic about them. Debate about politics is like muscles or your brain: Use it or lose it.

Plus if you lose a friend by stating your opinion about a political issue, then that person wasn't much of a friend, anyways.

I still like Badgun. I still consider him a DSP bud. I just disagree vehemently with him on this issue.

That doesn't make him a bad guy. Just a Badgun. (Couldn't resist; I'll be here all week ... )

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

I hope that I can get an amendment regulating loud stereos, or maybe fence heights.

We already have laws for these things. Guess you never had to get a building permit before.

...I'm moving to Montana and starting my own country

You just opened yourself up to all kinds of Brokeback Mountain jokes with that one

[Dave]

I guess I just don't see the problem with providing the same state-provided rights to a gay couple that married couples get. Also don't get how cats = homosexuals in that example. Didn't realize I should be filing tax returns for my cats...

Would an amendment outlawing interracial marriage have passed at some point in this country's history?

[XXXIV]

You are calling me a warmonger? Please!! I proudly served my country and I am also proud to say I am a military veteran who opposes this war. I Politics drive wedges and we are here to unite as a gaming community.

I wasnt calling anyone a warmonger...I was making an anology...It didnt have to be warmonger it could have been anything else.

As for your service...Thank you.

[Leebo33]

I guess I just don't see the problem with providing the same state-provided rights to a gay couple that married couples get. Also don't get how cats = homosexuals in that example. Didn't realize I should be filing tax returns for my cats...

Would an amendment outlawing interracial marriage passed at some point in this country's history?

Let's not use the cats example. Let's use this one. There are two thirty-something guys living together. They've been friends for life and have lived together and shared expenses since the end of high school. They don't have sex with each other. In fact, they frequently have sex with members of the opposite sex, but have no interest in ever marrying a woman. One of the men has a great job with excellent benefits. The other goes from job to job and has no health insurance. Should they be allowed to get married? Aren't they essentially married by doing everything married people do but have sexual intercourse? Would it be descrimination against them to say they *have* to be gay to get married? What if they were both asexual plutonic friends?

I'm with Matt on this one and I wouldn't consider myself a homophobe. I think it's perfectly fine for a state's citizens to decide how they want to define marriage.

[Dave]

Let's not use the cats example. Let's use this one. There are two thirty-something guys living together. They've been friends for life and have lived together and shared expenses since the end of high school. They don't have sex with each other. In fact, they frequently have sex with members of the opposite sex, but have no interest in ever marrying a woman. One of the men has a great job with excellent benefits. The other goes from job to job and has no health insurance. Should they be allowed to get married? Aren't they essentially married by doing everything married people do but have sexual intercourse? Would it be descrimination against them to say they *have* to be gay to get married? What if they were both asexual plutonic friends?

And there's something stopping two different-sex friends from doing the same thing?

[Leebo33]

Let's not use the cats example. Let's use this one. There are two thirty-something guys living together. They've been friends for life and have lived together and shared expenses since the end of high school. They don't have sex with each other. In fact, they frequently have sex with members of the opposite sex, but have no interest in ever marrying a woman. One of the men has a great job with excellent benefits. The other goes from job to job and has no health insurance. Should they be allowed to get married? Aren't they essentially married by doing everything married people do but have sexual intercourse? Would it be descrimination against them to say they *have* to be gay to get married? What if they were both asexual plutonic friends?

And there's something stopping two different-sex friends from doing the same thing?

That's my point. Where do you draw the line? Apparently, the voters have decided to draw the line as a union between a man and woman.

[spooky157]

I guess I just don't see the problem with providing the same state-provided rights to a gay couple that married couples get. Also don't get how cats = homosexuals in that example. Didn't realize I should be filing tax returns for my cats...

Would an amendment outlawing interracial marriage passed at some point in this country's history?

Let's not use the cats example. Let's use this one. There are two thirty-something guys living together. They've been friends for life and have lived together and shared expenses since the end of high school. They don't have sex with each other. In fact, they frequently have sex with members of the opposite sex, but have no interest in ever marrying a woman. One of the men has a great job with excellent benefits. The other goes from job to job and has no health insurance. Should they be allowed to get married? Aren't they essentially married by doing everything married people do but have sexual intercourse? Would it be descrimination against them to say they *have* to be gay to get married? What if they were both asexual plutonic friends?

I'm with Matt on this one and I wouldn't consider myself a homophobe. I think it's perfectly fine for a state's citizens to decide how they want to define marriage.

What's to stop a hetero man and woman from committing the same fraud? If you're talking about legislating against outright fraud, then I'm with you. Aren't there plenty of fraudulent hetero marriages that happen for citizenship purposes? Why not ban those marriages too?

[Leebo33]

What's to stop a hetero man and woman from committing the same fraud? If you're talking about legislating against outright fraud, then I'm with you. Aren't there plenty of fraudulent hetero marriages that happen for citizenship purposes? Why not ban those marriages too?

Who said it's fraud? I just used health insurance as an example of a benefit of marriage they couldn't get while single. Why shouldn't two lifelong best friends who have lived together for years be forbidden to get married? Why should they have to be straight or gay?

[Slumberland]

Are there a lot of these asexual platonic male friends threatening to marry eachother? Why haven't I heard about them on the news? Someone look into this!

[Leebo33]

Are there a lot of these asexual platonic male friends threatening to marry eachother? Why haven't I heard about them on the news? Someone look into this!

You probably could have said the same thing in the US about homosexuals 50 years ago.

[spooky157]

What's to stop a hetero man and woman from committing the same fraud? If you're talking about legislating against outright fraud, then I'm with you. Aren't there plenty of fraudulent hetero marriages that happen for citizenship purposes? Why not ban those marriages too?

Who said it's fraud? I just used health insurance as an example of a benefit of marriage they couldn't get while single. Why shouldn't two lifelong best friends who have lived together for years be forbidden to get married? Why should they have to be straight or gay?

Why should they have to be 2 men? Why not a man and woman? Then why not ban hetero marriages too?

[brendanrfoley]

Matt, I have a few problems with your post and want to take a minute to address them.

Yes I live in WI, and yes I voted for the amendment. I have nothing against gays. If that is the life they choose, so be it.

First, people don't "choose" to be gay. It's like having black skin, brown hair, or blue eyes. It's just not something people choose. So, "penalizing" them for it is discriminatory.

Where I do have an issue is with the state recognizing them as legally married and giving them the same state rights that other married couples get. If you are gay and find a church that will provide a marriage ceremony for you, then that's great. However, I do not think the state should be forced to recognize this.

There are two institutions of marriage. The religious, and the legal. It seems to me you're combining the two, which is dangerous. You're also not clarifying why you think same sex couples don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I suppose if someone lives alone with their cats the state should recognize that as a marriage too. If you disagree, then you are making a judgement on what constitues marriage just as the amendment does. The only difference is that your definition stops at a different point.

With all due repsect, this is insulting. To compare love, marriage, and legal rights to pet ownership is ludicrous.

It's not that we want to outlaw gays living together, we just don't want it to be a marriage as it is recognized by the government. And to those that complain about the government getting into church business, just what do you think a marriage license is?

Unfortunately, you have your facts wrong on this one. A marriage license, granted by the state, has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with legal rights.

I was married a month ago. The application for the marriage license did not ask about religion. We were not asked WHO was performing the ceremony. Heck, we were told a court magistrate could perform the ceremony -- with NO religious affiliation. A gov't marriage license is about rights, not God.

If churches want to outlaw same sex marriage, fine (though I disagree with it). But I have a real issue with churches telling the gov't what's right and wrong.

There was a time in this country where laws prevented blacks from marrying whites. I don't see how this is any different.

[Slumberland]

Are there a lot of these asexual platonic male friends threatening to marry eachother? Why haven't I heard about them on the news? Someone look into this!

You probably could have said the same thing in the US about homosexuals 50 years ago.

Clearly, the answer is that couples must perform the sexual act in front of a government official before they're granted a marriage license.

[Dave]

brendan, great post.

To me, too many of the arguments against allowing same-sex marriage holds those couples to a higher moral standard than traditional, 50% divorce rate man-woman marriage.

[Leebo33]

To me, too many of the arguments against allowing same-sex marriage holds those couples to a higher moral standard than traditional, 50% divorce rate man-woman marriage.

Which begs the question why these homosexuals would want to join such as f*cked up institution in the first place.

[Dave]

Which begs the question why these homosexuals would want to join such as f*cked up institution in the first place.

The state and federal benefits, of course!

[DivotMaker]

First, people don't "choose" to be gay. It's like having black skin, brown hair, or blue eyes. It's just not something people choose. So, "penalizing" them for it is discriminatory.

Your statement is made as if there is undeniable, scientific proof that what you state is true. I have yet to see anything published publicly that confirms what you are saying. Did I miss this important discovery or is this your personal opinion?

[Leebo33]

BTW, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't want anyone to think I'm a "closet c*cksucker".

[DivotMaker]

If it is any consolation, I was never worried....

[matthewk]

brendan, great post.

To me, too many of the arguments against allowing same-sex marriage holds those couples to a higher moral standard than traditional, 50% divorce rate man-woman marriage.

I'm married and never been divorced. I do think that the %50 divorce rate spits in the face of the sanctitiy of marriage. That doesn't change how I feel on this particular issue.

Leebo made a much better analogy than I did. I just thought of another.

Should polygamy be recognized by the state? I recall a guy getting arrested for this recently, but none one here was outraged by it.

[matthewk]

First, people don't "choose" to be gay. It's like having black skin, brown hair, or blue eyes. It's just not something people choose. So, "penalizing" them for it is discriminatory.

Your statement is made as if there is undeniable, scientific proof that what you state is true. I have yet to see anything published publicly that confirms what you are saying. Did I miss this important discovery or is this your personal opinion?

You beat me to it

[matthewk]

There are two institutions of marriage. The religious, and the legal. It seems to me you're combining the two, which is dangerous. You're also not clarifying why you think same sex couples don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

No, I am trying to seperate the two. Those screaming about the govt. needing to stay out of religion are mixing them together. I think it's fine if a religion will recognize them as married. I just said that I did not agree that the state should do the same.

I consider marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. What more reasons do I need to provide? Remember, this is only what the state recognizes as marriage that I am talking about. I am NOT saying they should not be allowed to adopt kids, live together, etc..

With all due repsect, this is insulting. To compare love, marriage, and legal rights to pet ownership is ludicrous.

Bad example on my part. I came up with a better one. Polygamy. Is that ok? How about arranged marriages. That good too? My point is that is gay marriage is ok, then any other kind of arrangement someone considers marriage must be valid with you as well.

[RobVarak]

Look out, I'm back!!!



Where I do have an issue is with the state recognizing them as legally married and giving them the same state rights that other married couples get. If you are gay and find a church that will provide a marriage ceremony for you, then that's great. However, I do not think the state should be forced to recognize this.

Nobody's trying to "force" the states to recognize anything. That's what the referendum is for.

I suppose if someone lives alone with their cats the state should recognize that as a marriage too. If you disagree, then you are making a judgement on what constitues marriage just as the amendment does. The only difference is that your definition stops at a different point.

That's specious. If you can't see why, then you either think very poorly of gay human beings or very highly of cats