Bukake: a thread with both Pearl and babe talking about teh gays.
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Bukake: a thread with both Pearl and babe talking about teh gays.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Many Mormon voters in Utah are probably some of the worst informed (politically) voters out there. Many are sheltered and tend to mix religion with politics too often. I remember a kind neighbor of mind, a wonderful relief society member, commenting on how "nice" it was to have a President in the WH who prayed. This was in reference to Bush just after he signed his ruinous tax cuts and invaded Iraq. She clearly had no idea about his policies. All that mattered was his appearance/level of religiousosity.
As a result, I think many Utah voters fear that if gay marriage continues in Utah then the government may force the church to seal homosexual couples.
I think many believe that homosexuality is a sin. By legalizing it, it gives the appearance as an acceptable lifestyle... Which may or may not lead children to believe that it's acceptable/appealing. Heck, they may even lose the belief that homosexuality is a sin!
I think many are paranoid about the federal government and feel like this is another case of the federal government overstepping.
We as a state could benefits from hearing from other parties, political voices, and religions. Our culture is too one sided
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Some weirdos don't get that. Jim Green, a tea party nut job from Heber City writes weekly into the Dnews and SLTrib about how Utah is a sovereign state. Apparently he still feels as if we are under the AoC and not the Constitution.
But I think most have issue with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was written in reference to slaves. Many feel that activist judges have now stretched the 14th amendment to cover "lifestyles" (since mormons/Christians believe homosexuality is a choice).
Similar to Citizens United. Is money a form of speech? Ummmm no. But I guess an activist judge could make a case for it. Is marriage a right? I guess one could make an argument that loving v Virignia was an activist ruling. As was ruling that a gay marriage ban violates the 14th amendment, which was written in regards to ones race and not lifestyle choice.
The issue that we have here is that Christians don't believe gays are born that way. They believe that hey are choosing a lifestyle of homosexuality. If it isn't a choice then it isn't a sin. If it isn't a sin then Apostle Paul and other religious doctrine is wrong.
Serious question for homosexuals: politics aside, why don't you just go to a state where it's legal and get married? You could still come home and have a big reception if you wanted. I know a ton if straight and gay (I know, heaven forbid) couples who have done this.
And don't give me that crap about "why should I have to?" If marriage were really important to me and I was told I couldn't marry the person I wanted to because of some stupid law in the state I live, but I could go on a vacation/honeymoon to another state and get married, I would do it in a heartbeat.
And don't give me that crap about "why should I have to?" If marriage were really important to me and I was told I couldn't marry the person I wanted to because of some stupid law in the state I live, but I could go on a vacation/honeymoon to another state and get married, I would do it in a heartbeat.
KatieMCR
Well-Known Member
Except the marriage would still not be recognized by the state of Utah under Amendment 3. "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."
Homosexuals shouldn't have to leave their family and friends to get married. Besides, if they returned their marriage would still not be recognized.
I'm not gay, but when I think about having to leave the state I call home, where nearly my entire family lives, to celebrate one of the most important events in my life, I feel sick.
The presence family and friends was a crucial part of my wedding for me and my wife. I had one of the best nights of my life and they were all there to make it awesome and share the experience with me.
This may not be everyone's experience, but I shouldn't have to leave my home just to get married without my friends and family, only to come home and have my marriage mean legally nothing. Or I could just move, away from my family and friends, just to legally love my partner.
Marriage inequality tears families apart for this very reason. For those who tout the "benefits of traditional marriage" and the "importance of family" you should be pulling for marriage equality, IMO.
I actually have always felt that removing the born that way argument makes for a much sounder argument in favor of gay rights. That is, of course, if your position is one that puts the individual as supreme and not society as a collective, and that each individual is, in effect, sovereign over their own lives and are not obligated to live and die for the benefit of the society. In that world, choosing to be gay, or being born that way, is irrelevant. It is unquestionable that the individual has a right to freedom except in such cases as that freedom infringes on the rights and freedoms of others.
In the example of gay marriage, that freedom does not interfere in any whay shape or form on the freedoms of others, so it's a no-brainer from a personal freedom, liberty type point of view...liberty granted to those asking for it.
I understand and agree with what you are both saying, but if "being married" was that important, that is exactly what I do. Regardless of which states recognized it. I would know I was married.
But then again, my marriage is universally recognized, so I really don't know what it feels like.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
No they don't. They cannot get an officially recognized marriage now, with all of the inherent benefits. No company is required to recognize their partner as a "spouse" for legal purposes. Insurance plans are not required to allow a partner to be listed as a spousal beneficiary or dependent. They also do not receive the same tax benefits of married couples. So the "freedom" in this case is the freedom to choose who they want to be "committed" to and not be forced to forfeit benefits as a result of that choice.
We all do this every single day. Insurance companies have very highly-paid individuals whose jobs are to assess risk, and make life and death decisions based on their assessment before the fact. We all use imperfect data to make decisions every single day. We take what evidence we have and either present that as valid reasoning for a decision, or use it to speculate on a course of action. Why is it unreasonable to ask for someone's assessment of future risk of allowing gay marriage, and the evidence behind it, and then debate that assessment?
While still debatable, this is probably the best footing for the anti-gay marriage stance. The function of the family unit in society. I believe that a child would be best served by a loving father and a loving mother. Even in nature we see that the genders take cues and learn from other members of the pack or herd how to behave and maintain the standards of their societies, such as they are. But then we get into the weeds of what makes a fit parent to begin with? And is it better to have 2 loving fathers, or a loving mother and an absentee father, or worse, abusive father? Again, where is the evidence that a stable gay-parenting household is automatically worse than ANY other alternative? Because we certainly allow bad parents to marry and raise kids right now.
Was slavery "right" before the majority was willing to vote it down? In other words, since 30 years before Lincoln any kind of vote on the topic of slavery would have been overwhelmingly pro, does that mean it was right, and suddenly, when the majority decided they didn't like it anymore, it suddenly became "wrong"?
Denying a certain group of the population basic rights based on an arbitrary and ultimately insignificant difference from the majority with no real reason to do so is just not defensible. And fighting the fight drains resources that could go to much more important endeavors. Ergo, fighting an imaginary evil with real resources creates a real detriment to society, and "fixes" only imagined ills.
No, I don't think that's it at all. They just believe that people can control their actions even if they have inborn predilections towards a certain type of behavior (e.g. sinful).
Choosing one's behavior is very different than choosing one's inclinations, wouldn't you say?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So this very topic just hit me here at work. I have an associate who is lesbian, in a long-term committed relationship (20 years+). Her partner had a heart attack over christmas that caused massive damage, and the doctors told her there is nothing they can do. So she took some time off this week to arrange for hospice for her and get some legal things taken care of, such as power of attorney. In the meantime, we had her apply for FMLA since she would undoubtedly be missing work, and that would ensure her job was protected and she had the time she needs, even though I knew the outcome of the request. My company allows the associates to choose to use their vacation time if they want, or to take unpaid time, when using their FMLA, and this would also protect her from burning through all of her vacation taking care of a loved one so she doesn't get fired later in the year due to attendance issues. But, of course, since they cannot be legally married (even though they had the ceremony performed at one point, it ain't legal), her FMLA was denied. Now I have a very solid associate with a devastating life situation that runs a real risk of losing her job, all because she chose to love and be loyal, for over 2 decades, to someone of the same sex.
Of course, I am bucking the trend, and flipped HR the bird, and we are granting her intermittent leave as needed to take care of this situation, but that decision isn't popular because it sets a precedent. But it is the right thing to do.
Edit: this also puts companies in a bad position. On the one hand, I have seen more than a few bogus FMLA claims over the years, so it isn't like we can just throw the letter of the law out the window, as we run a real risk of other issues associated with fraudulent claims. But we want to do the right thing by the individual. I am lucky that I personally am in a position to simply make that call and take care of the people affected on a case by case basis. Often that is not so and there would be no recourse.
Of course, I am bucking the trend, and flipped HR the bird, and we are granting her intermittent leave as needed to take care of this situation, but that decision isn't popular because it sets a precedent. But it is the right thing to do.
Edit: this also puts companies in a bad position. On the one hand, I have seen more than a few bogus FMLA claims over the years, so it isn't like we can just throw the letter of the law out the window, as we run a real risk of other issues associated with fraudulent claims. But we want to do the right thing by the individual. I am lucky that I personally am in a position to simply make that call and take care of the people affected on a case by case basis. Often that is not so and there would be no recourse.
That's brutal.
For all we know they could have the strongest emotional bond in human history. Meanwhile, the guy who has beaten his wife for thirty years will have no problems getting leave under the circumstances. Obviously, these are the most extreme scenarios, but even if all things are equal it's still dumb.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
In California homosexuals had all these "benefits" under civil unions, minus the stay-at-home-mom federal tax benefit, and yet they still demanded their union be called marriage.
They can do risk assessment of things that have already occurred, but we have never had homosexual marriage to assess the effects of...until very recently.
This is a good time to ask your assessment of this phrase in the Mormon Family Proclamation (I assume you still are a Mormon):
"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
What are the calamities foretold? I assume they are sociological/moral calamities that would greatly effect souls, no?
Do you consider the health and well-being of children and the disintegration of the legal and moral framework of our country as "valid?"
The beef I have with homosexuals and parenting is when they purposely bring a baby into the world and deprive that child of a mother or father. The rest is just "weeds" as you say.
The only relevance Lincoln has to this conversation is his signing of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.
Of course I take exception to your use of "basic rights," "arbitrary," "insignificant," "real reason," and "real resources" so the last paragraph was not quite as persuasive as you might have hoped.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The behavior that is a sin is homosexual relations and that ain't against the law and happens before homosexuals tried to redefine the meaning and purpose of marriage, so this "free agency" b.s. can be put to rest.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So what are the detriments of allowing gay marriage? How will it damage society, even if it is just speculation?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Tell that to the Sister Wives.
Log asked you a question, Dumb *** Watson. I know you've made a career out of running your mouth like an incessant fool, hiding when confronted, and then ignoring any/all facts that are presented to you, but come on, just this once, answer the Gods damned question, you chicken **** bag of dump.
"So what are the detriments of allowing gay marriage? How will it damage society, even if it is just speculation?"
"So what are the detriments of allowing gay marriage? How will it damage society, even if it is just speculation?"
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I've already mentioned some, but what do my speculations matter when I'm simply answering the call of Mormon prophets I thought you were a follower of :
"WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
Legally:
If you legally degrade the states/people's power to continue this restriction on marriage you degrade their power to continue other restrictions...# of marriages, age of marriages
Homosexuals will further abuse their new found legal status as a battering ram against the religious rights and livelihoods of Christians.
Homosexuals will not be satisfied with state sanctioned homosexual "marriage" and will demand religions recognize their "legal" marriages or lose their ability to perform marriages. This is about total moral acceptance, an anti-Christian movement.
Morally:
Legal status will empower government schools to teach homosexuality as morally acceptable to children from Christian families.
This is why I ain't a libertarian: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
We already have a hard enough time convincing young males of the value of marriage and of providing for and raising children, this degradation of the purpose and meaning of marriage will only make the civilizing of males that much harder.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Oh really? How many female homicide-bombers are you friends with? You would have to be swimming in burka chick mobs to counter the overwhelming and obvious evidence that human males are inherently the most dangerous creatures on the planet.