Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
lesbian and gay marriage - Lost-Forum.com
My apologies if there has already been a thread produced.
(I think there has but I couldn't find it.)
Now since I know this is a major controversy and people get easily offended.
I am not starting this thread to offend.
I hope no one will be offensive on purpose.
that being said, how do you feel about a marriage that is not between a man and woman and why?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- to protect the loved one in case something happens
- to benefit from tax returns
- to transmit inheritage to the right person
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why the hell not?
It is the 21st century.
If two people are in love, let them marry.
When I read most debates about the topic, people tend to bring religion in.
I am Catholic, but I am not as hardcore as my parents are.
I feel that starting a law based on religion is not the way to go.
I just tend to focus on the morals of an issue.
Like abortion, for instance.
It is 100% against Catholism, but I do not bring that into debate.
The process is just the most disgusting thing ever.
Anyway, sorry for sidetracking.
Let's not turn this into a debate on a different subject.
Define love/marriage:
-Two people who are physicaly, mentaly, and sexualy attracted to each.
-Two people who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other.
-Two people who want the other person to get everything after they die.
-The list goes ever on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for gay marriage because it's wrong to deny a woman the right to see her dying partner in a hospital.
I'm for gay marriage because of Laurel Hester.
Quote: : Stacie Andree is worried.
The thirty year-old auto mechanic has certainly had more than her fair share of worries over the past eighteen months.
Her domestic partner, Laurel Hester, is dying from terminal cancer.
And after Stacie and Laurel tried to get domestic partner benefits from Laurel's employer--Ocean County, NJ--the two women found themselves embroiled in a protracted and controversial struggle with the five Republican freeholders who govern Ocean County.
But none of that is what troubles Stacie just now.
She is worried that no one knows how grateful she is for all the support she and Laurel received during their long fight for equality--a fight that they finally won last month.
"I've mentioned it to several reporters," says Stacie.
"But I've never seen it printed anywhere and I'm worried people think I don't know we wouldn't be in the place we are now without their support.
I mean all their emails and phone calls and the copies of To Kill a Mockingbird people sent.
It all made a difference.
I'm so thankful to them from the bottom of my heart."
It's not only those who supported Laurel and Stacie that Stacie wants to thank.
She also wants to thank the freeholders who, after opposing extending domestic partner benefits for almost a year, did something the Republican freeholders of Ocean County apparently haven't done in 140 years: taken a public position on something, and then reversed the decision later.
(Four of the five did at any rate.
Freeholder John Kelly was absent during the vote that finally passed the domestic partner benefits.
Kelly later told the press he still would have voted no.)
"I never thought they would reverse themselves," says Dane Wells, the straight man who fought side-by-side with Laurel and Stacie.
"It's so wonderful they finally did."
"I know it sounds funny," says Stacie.
"But I do have respect for the freeholders for holding out so long for what they believe.
Obviously, I disagree with them, but I respect how fiercely they stood for their beliefs.
And I truly appreciate that they were willing to change their position.
I want to personally thank them for signing the resolution."
When asked if she is angry about the time she and Laurel were forced to waste over the past twelve months, Stacie is quiet for a moment.
"No," she says. "I mean what's the point?
I could have been very angry at the freeholders for fourteen months, but I decided to spend that time with Laurel not being mad.
It just seemed like it was better to try and figure out how to get the freeholders to change their minds."
Not that Stacie doesn't regret the energy that went into that fight.
"Laurel and I could have had better nights together if I hadn't had to come home and go online and deal with this paper and that paper.
Yeah, we could have had a lot more quality time together.
But I don't blame people because it's done and over with, and I can't change it by saying `Damn them'."
It's a typical Stacie response.
She comes across as a no-nonsense, practical person.
It's no wonder she wound up partnered with Laurel.
Both women are hardworking, ethical people who only want what they are entitled to and nothing more.
And both want to make the world a better place.
That goal is something that the freeholders inadvertently helped them achieve by holding out for so long thereby bringing national and international attention to their cause.
Dane Wells says of Stacie, "My girlfriend says I've never spoken so highly of anyone.
But I shouldn't be surprised that Laurel is with someone so good.
Stacie is the unsung hero in all this because she's quiet and unassuming.
She works six days a week for minimum wage, won't take a single phone call while on the clock, and works extra hours so she can get extra time off to be with Laurel.
Nor does Stacie realize the gravity of what she's done."
Inspired by Laurel and Stacie's battle, at least four other New Jersey counties added domestic partner benefits, as did several municipalities.
The state legislature dramatically expanded the state's domestic partner benefits.
Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality suspects that Laurel and Stacie's case has even impacted the Supreme Court judges who will be hearing the case concerning New Jersey's laws against same-sex marriage.
"I know Laurel is proud of what we did," says Stacie.
"And she would have been even if we hadn't won in the end, since it would have been all right because of all the other people who would have benefited.
That's why Laurel became a cop, to help people, and this helped a lot of people."
When asked what it's like to be so well-known, Stacie laughs.
"People walk by [the garage where she works] and give me the thumbs up sign.
You know, I haven't had a single bad reaction.
My two bosses tell me people asked about me and said they hoped the freeholders would change their minds.
I never imagined Laurel and I would be so well known." She paused before continuing.
I still don't believe we are.
I was at work this morning, all greasy working on a car, and I thought to myself `I'm not anybody.
I'm just somebody's mechanic working on the cars.'"
It's certainly not the situation Stacie imagined finding herself in when she left Oreland, PA the small town where she grew up.
"No, it wasn't easy to be gay there," she says.
"I was a tom-boy so it was pretty obvious I was a lesbian.
But my family was very open-minded.
My mom was great when I told her I was gay."
In fact, her mom has been a huge source of support in dealing with Laurel's illness.
Stacie lost her father to cancer and her mother took care of him while he was ill.
"I know when I can't be there with Laurel that she's in good hands with my mom.
We really appreciate her."
There is one other person Stacie wants to make sure the world knows she appreciates: Dane Wells, the self-described straight, white, middle-aged Bush supporter who put his life on hold to right the injustice he saw being done to Laurel and Stacie.
When asked about him, Stacie laughs and says, "Dane is all that and a bag of chips.
He was my rock during this whole thing.
When I had bad days, he was there.
He answered questions.
He helped with the freeholders again and again.
Helped with getting Laurel retired, getting her paperwork, her gun, her badge.
He was just great, great support."
Indeed, the two of them have found that they have more than Laurel in common.
Both are race car fanatics.
Dane even has two drag cars.
There is a race track nearby and the two of them plan to go watch the races.
"I've no doubt we'll keep being friends," says Stacie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am for gays union, and i support gays rights, but not marriage.
Whatever we say about it, Marriage has been between a man and a woman since it was created.
You can't expect a whole society & mentalities to suddenly change their point of view about marriage, and sometimes, i think that gays marriage supporters are themselves being intolerant.
Things take time.
It took women years to gain the right to vote.
People aren't used to seeing gays together.
This is a process that is gonna take some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm definitely for gay marriage.
Just because marriage usually means between a man and a woman, doesn't mean it can't be changed.
I think it is rediculous that these 2 people, who love each other very much, cannot have the same rights, such as visiting their dying partner in the hospital (without a legal document), or tax exemptions just because they happen to be gay.
Maybe people should focus on the divorce problem rather than the gay marriage problem.
I find it quite disturbing that the divorce rate is 50% in the US, but everyone is too busy arguing about whether gay people should be able to get married or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm for gay rights and gay marriage is one of those rights.
Traditionally marriage is between a man and a woman, but beyond that, it's simply a gesture to legally bind two lovers.
Sex (gender) has nothing to do with one's capacity to love their partner or to commit their life to supporting that partner.
I think that people today are more accepting of gay/lesbian lifestyles, but there are still hurdles in the way of Equal Rights for homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals.
When someone frowns upon people with differing sexual orientations, I have to wonder where their mind is at.
Why are they so intolerant?
Why do they demonize anything or anyone who isn't like them?
I really wish those people would take a step back and actually think about what they're saying and why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am definitely for gay-marriage and I don't understand how the government could deny it (well here in Canada it is legal but I know other places it isn't).
I mean - to deny gay marriage is to say that these people are not equal and do not deserve the same rights as everyone else which is crazy.
If 2 people are in love it shouldn't matter about their genders.
The only reason I could see anyone could argue against it is because they have a fear of gays or something which is their problem and shouldn't be taken out on honest people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"sanctity" of marriage...oh please, marriage has never been "sacred" or "holy" in anyway, all the cheating , promises and vows can be broken so easily they're just words in the end 'i love you' is only temporary and 'i'll love you forever' is a lie.
Marriage is just a scam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : sack If 2 people are in love it shouldn't matter about their genders.
The only reason I could see anyone could argue against it is because they have a fear of gays or something which is their problem and shouldn't be taken out on honest people.
Exactly.
For those who are against gay marraige, what harm does it do to you?
If these two people want to unite for the reasons jpl56 listed (- to protect the loved one in case something happens - to benefit from tax returns - to transmit inheritage to the right person,) why should it be any different than a heterosexual couple who want to unite for the same reasons?
Quote: : I am for gays union, and i support gays rights, but not marriage.
How can you be for gay rights, yet against gay marraige?
Don't homosexuals deserve the same rights that heterosexuals have, one of which is marraige.
I understand that it will take some people a while to adjust, but holding back the homosexuals' rights isn't helping society adjust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : How can you be for gay rights, yet against gay marraige?
Don't homosexuals deserve the same rights that heterosexuals have, one of which is marraige.
I understand that it will take some people a while to adjust, but holding back the homosexuals' rights isn't helping society adjust.
You see, i think it's a question of word.
In today's society, people care about the words you use.
Words are very important.
They care about the politically and religiously correct.
I think that giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals but calling it something else other than marriage would change a lot of things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I am for gays union, and i support gays rights, but not marriage.
Whatever we say about it, Marriage has been between a man and a woman since it was created.
In the UK, they quickly created a Civil Act that gives a lot of gay rights.
In France, we have PACS, it was difficult to get it, it is not perfect, but it is improving.
Gay "marriage" in France brings fierce demonstrations.
If it is only a question of words, I don't care not calling it "marriage" (in fact, it is not a marriage, we only have the pros and none of the cons ), as long as it gives the advantages I gave before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : In the UK, they quickly created a Civil Act that gives a lot of gay rights.
In France, we have PACS, it was difficult to get it, it is not perfect, but it is improving.
Gay "marriage" in France brings fierce demonstrations.
If it is only a question of words, I don't care not calling it "marriage" (in fact, it is not a marriage, we only have the pros and none of the cons ), as long as it gives the advantages I gave before.
People often say they are against gay marriage, but when you ask them if they should have the same rights, they say yes.
As paradoxical as it sounds, i do think that if in France, for example, we decided to give the PACS, the same value as marriage but under a different name, people would see it differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would think that taking a "same but different" approach, segregating GLBT's and straights isn't much better than the current situation regarding gay equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all for gay marriage.
If 2 people love each other they should be able to join in the union of marriage.
Also, if there is seperation between church and state (in the US) then why does it matter that the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|