The W
Views: 95573865
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.4.07 1112
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - CT Approves Civil Unions for Gay Couples
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(294 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (11 total)
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 755/859
EXP: 1686638
For next: 86150

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2046 days
Last activity: 912 days
#1 Posted on 20.4.05 1739.39
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1751.52
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=7&u=/ap/20050420/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_civil_unions

There will likely be lots of fallout and I applaud them for their efforts. If we are about people being monogamous, and people having health care and "family" then this a a great move.

    Originally posted by Yahoo news
    HARTFORD, Conn. - Connecticut on Wednesday became the second state to offer civil unions to gay couples and the first to do so without being forced by the courts.



    About an hour after the state Senate sent her the legislation, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law a bill that will afford same-sex couples in Connecticut many of the rights and privileges of married couples.

    "The vote we cast today will reverberate around the country and it will send a wave of hope to many people, to thousands of people across the country," said Sen. Andrew McDonald, who is gay.
    ...

    Roman Catholics and pro-marriage activists plan a big rally Sunday in opposition to the bill.






Promote this thread!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1719/1759
EXP: 4824516
For next: 168354

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1126 days
Last activity: 7 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 20.4.05 2202.07
Reposted on: 20.4.12 2202.29
I actually think this is a good thing. I don't mind at all if a state, through proper legislative channels, decides to expand marriage benefits to include same sex couples. The only things I object to is those who call it discriminatory when you don't (it just isn't... I am sorry - we aren't talking about denying blacks the right to vote here), and when the courts ignore the laws of the state and force the government to allow it anyway.

But heck - if a state wants to do it all on their own - power to them. If those opposed to it don't like it - protesting is fine. Just don't go to the courts and expect them to re legislate your morality.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 20.4.05 2003)
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 2419/3934
EXP: 16326012
For next: 485403

Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 20.4.05 2216.11
Reposted on: 20.4.12 2217.20
While I'm not thrilled that they did define marriage in the bill... hey, we had to go through separate but equal, right? Good step for the state.
puffdyw
Longanisa
Level: 14

Posts: 6/32
EXP: 10371
For next: 2700

Since: 21.4.05
From: California

Since last post: 2234 days
Last activity: 2234 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 27.4.05 1550.09
Reposted on: 27.4.12 1551.29
I gotta say that what other people do is their business, but i still dont agree with that decision... If anyone wants to be gay thats fine, but i dont think that the state should be involved in marrying them. Personally i believe that God made men and women to be togather not men/men and women/women. Whatever peeps wanna do it their business, but i dont think the government should support them.
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 590/793
EXP: 1362337
For next: 35848

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 2994 days
Last activity: 2994 days
#5 Posted on 27.4.05 1609.02
Reposted on: 27.4.12 1614.20
    Originally posted by puffdyw
    Personally i believe that God made men and women to be togather not men/men and women/women. Whatever peeps wanna do it their business, but i dont think the government should support them.


Too bad there's that pesky separation of church & state thing. I also think this a great step forward for CT.
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 41

Posts: 172/374
EXP: 479906
For next: 243

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2521 days
Last activity: 2511 days
#6 Posted on 28.4.05 0001.20
Reposted on: 28.4.12 0002.56
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The only things I object to is those who call it discriminatory when you don't (it just isn't... I am sorry - we aren't talking about denying blacks the right to vote here),

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 20.4.05 2003)


What if homosexuality is genetic? Then you're denying someone a right _ the right to get married _ based on their genetics. Which is EXACTLY the same thing as denying black people the right to vote.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 291/449
EXP: 633852
For next: 26317

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 357 days
Last activity: 223 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 28.4.05 0243.39
Reposted on: 28.4.12 0244.21
Just for the record, and I suppose this might be the mod's job, but does this discussion really need to go down this road again? I assume most people have fleshed out their homosexual is genetic or not arguments already.

Edit/

What is worth mentioning is the Bible never calls homosexuality a sin in the Greek or Hebrew. It calls homosexuality unJewish, which is a far different manner. Homosexuality for the Jewish people was put on par with rules about eating the right foods and not mixing certain types of cloth.

These rules weren't put in place in any manner concerning sinfulness, rather they were to create a clear seperation between the Jewish people and the Gentile people, who did practice homosexuality, ate "dirty foods" and mixed the wrong fabrics. But again, no Christian in their right minds would call these practices sinful, and therefore homosexuality should not be considered so either.

(edited by messenoir on 28.4.05 0048)
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 2433/3934
EXP: 16326012
For next: 485403

Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on 28.4.05 2135.40
Reposted on: 28.4.12 2138.15
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Edit/

    What is worth mentioning is the Bible never calls homosexuality a sin in the Greek or Hebrew. It calls homosexuality unJewish, which is a far different manner. Homosexuality for the Jewish people was put on par with rules about eating the right foods and not mixing certain types of cloth.

    These rules weren't put in place in any manner concerning sinfulness, rather they were to create a clear seperation between the Jewish people and the Gentile people, who did practice homosexuality, ate "dirty foods" and mixed the wrong fabrics. But again, no Christian in their right minds would call these practices sinful, and therefore homosexuality should not be considered so either.

    (edited by messenoir on 28.4.05 0048)


Yeah, but you're going to get the people who'll cherrypick for their own purposes no matter what. Like you said, most people have their minds made up anyways.

Ergo, let's not get into nature v. nurture here. Just preemptive, is all.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 292/449
EXP: 633852
For next: 26317

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 357 days
Last activity: 223 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 28.4.05 2206.24
Reposted on: 28.4.12 2210.19
Ah, I agree with you on the nature vs nurture argument, but I wanted to present the new "homosexuality is not actually condemnded by the Bible" argument, as homosexuality as against Christian teachings seems to be taken for granted by people no matter what side their own, and I simply do not see the Bible supporting this claim.

The problem when you have fallible people translating religious texts. Errors get in.

Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 41

Posts: 175/374
EXP: 479906
For next: 243

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2521 days
Last activity: 2511 days
#10 Posted on 29.4.05 1131.29
Reposted on: 29.4.12 1131.29
    Originally posted by drjayphd
    Yeah, but you're going to get the people who'll cherrypick for their own purposes no matter what. Like you said, most people have their minds made up anyways.

    Ergo, let's not get into nature v. nurture here. Just preemptive, is all.


I'm not trying to start up a "my god can beat up your science" thing here. I'm just making the point that if homosexuality is a matter of genetics, then denying gay people the right to marry is exactly the same as denying any ethnic group any right based on the way they look.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 2435/3934
EXP: 16326012
For next: 485403

Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on 29.4.05 2110.22
Reposted on: 29.4.12 2114.07
    Originally posted by Crimedog
      Originally posted by drjayphd
      Yeah, but you're going to get the people who'll cherrypick for their own purposes no matter what. Like you said, most people have their minds made up anyways.

      Ergo, let's not get into nature v. nurture here. Just preemptive, is all.


    I'm not trying to start up a "my god can beat up your science" thing here. I'm just making the point that if homosexuality is a matter of genetics, then denying gay people the right to marry is exactly the same as denying any ethnic group any right based on the way they look.


(Psst: I agree with you on that. Just saying that if it does come up here, well, it shouldn't.)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: UK election fun: The Uncredibles!
Next thread: Liberals & NDP Make Deal: Election May Still Loom In Canada
Previous thread: Good news for the "weight-challenged"
(294 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - CT Approves Civil Unions for Gay CouplesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.161 seconds.