I am wondering gays and k-1 visas?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

There's a huge group of people that think the Creator of this world, instituted Marriage as a sacred union of a man and a woman. While they may or may not "live and let live" in many other ways, their religious convictions about marriage are as valid and to be respected as any others. I wish those who disagree or ascribe to a different set of values would live and let live by respecting the opinions of others enough to refrain from telling them what they "should" support, referring to them as haters or phobics. In short, those who preach tolerance would be wise to practice it as well.

Well said.

Edited August 15, 2008 by spookyturtle

[Gemmie 142]

Hmm, I see what you're saying pushbrk.

I can only speak for myself and I never claimed that someone who disagrees is a "hater". I asked why he hoped it wasn't made legal because I was genuinely interested in his personal view about it. Is it because they see something negative happening if same sex relationships are added to the mix? Or simply a religious/traditional aspect? They're pretty much welcome to tell me to mind my own business if they wish... though I would find it interesting if it was simply because they were against same sex relationships in general, being that this forum is all about accepting and fighting to be with the person you love, regardless of red tape. Some people on here deal with judgement of their relationship in a similar way to same sex relationships since their lover happens to be of a different nationality, sometimes even a different race, religion and culture completely. Gay relationships might not directly have anything to do with the visa process, though when someone on an immigration forum (specifically in the "foreign love" forum) shows their disapproval for letting them be together (via a visa), that strikes me as odd.

But that's just my own view. I wasn't looking to belittle his, just know more about it.

[paothao 0]

The AFM addresses the issue, available here from the USCIS site.

(I) Same Sex Marriages . Whether an alleged marriage is valid for purposes of immigration is a question of Federal law, not of State law. In 1996 Congress clarified the Federal law concerning recognition of marriage by enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996). Pub. L. 104-199 provides a statutory definition of "marriage", and of the concomitant term, "spouse". Section 7 of the Defense of Marriage Act (Pub. L. 104-199) states:

Sec. 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse .' In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

For a relationship to qualify as a marriage for purposes of Federal Law, one partner must be a man, and the other a woman. This definition applies to the construction of any Act of Congress and to any Federal regulation. USCIS , therefore, must administer the Immigration and Nationality Act in light of section 7 of Pub. L. 104-199 and deny any relative visa petition (or any other application for an immigration benefit) which is based on a same sex marriage.

That's going to be the way it is unless and until Congress changes the law.

Thank God!

Let's hope it stays that way.

I couldn't agree more ...

[*Robert* 2]

Hmm, I see what you're saying pushbrk.

I can only speak for myself and I never claimed that someone who disagrees is a "hater". I asked why he hoped it wasn't made legal because I was genuinely interested in his personal view about it. Is it because they see something negative happening if same sex relationships are added to the mix? Or simply a religious/traditional aspect? They're pretty much welcome to tell me to mind my own business if they wish... though I would find it interesting if it was simply because they were against same sex relationships in general, being that this forum is all about accepting and fighting to be with the person you love, regardless of red tape. Some people on here deal with judgement of their relationship in a similar way to same sex relationships since their lover happens to be of a different nationality, sometimes even a different race, religion and culture completely. Gay relationships might not directly have anything to do with the visa process, though when someone on an immigration forum (specifically in the "foreign love" forum) shows their disapproval for letting them be together (via a visa), that strikes me as odd.

But that's just my own view. I wasn't looking to belittle his, just know more about it.

Please read Post #42.

[Gemmie 142]

I already have, and that's your opinion.

I'm not arguing whether or not adding gay people to the process makes it more difficult - of course it does. I just like the idea of equal rights for all humans that are in love.

[*Robert* 2]

I already have, and that's your opinion.

I'm not arguing whether or not adding gay people to the process makes it more difficult - of course it does. I just like the idea of equal rights for all humans that are in love.

Then if that doesn't answer your question about why I feel the way I do, then pushbrk couldn't have said it any better for me.

I have so many gay and lesbian friends, it isn't even funny, and therefore I don't like people calling me something I'm not. One of my best friends, who is gay, would find the comments on this thread very amusing. That, however, should be irrelevant to this conversation.

I'm all about the "sanctity of marriage", and how it is defined both in legal terms and religious terms.

[Gemmie 142]

My apologies, I didn't realise that you were the original poster that made the statement.

I asked if the disapproval was due to a religious/traditional aspect OR because it makes the process more difficult... which is understandable. The rest of my post concerned the belief that it was wrong to be gay. But since you already answered it way back, my mistake.

It does answer the question about why you disapprove.

[IAMX 3,055]

The OP had to do with gay/lesbian couples getting a K-1 visas. Since it is against Federal law, it simply isn't allowed. This issue, to me, has nothing to do with whether a person is gay or a lesbian, nor does it really pertain to gay marriages.

This has to do with immigration and the definition of marriage. As an immigration issue, I see nothing but added problems. For all the people who think the immigration process' are bad now, what do you think would happen if gay/lesbian couples got thrown into the mix?

Its easy for all the people right now who think not letting gay/lesbian couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples is wrong, to have the Federal government change the laws, and thereby convolute the entire immigration process, because they will already be finished. If however those same people were affected by such radical changes in the immigration laws and saw their wait times and fees go up immeasurably, it would be a whole different story, and they would be crying crocodile tears and complaining about how much easier it was in the past before gay/lesbian couples were allowed to be part of the immigration process.

If people would even stop and think for a moment how many new problems there would be, if every man and woman could claim they had a partner in another country, and how much harder it would be for the USCIS and DOS to try and determine if their relationships were bona fide or not, then you would start to see the actual impact to the system, because people would surely abuse the system, even more than they are right now.

The immigration process is already too expensive and stressful enough without adding even more layers of complexity to it. This is not simply a moral issue; it is a legal issue and a security issue.

Well, unfortunately inconvenience you'll have to deal with. Tough ####. The only problems there will be is people who want to define marriage for everyone else.

As I said, have your opinion all you want, I'm not telling you to change your views. I'm saying live and let live.

You can dislike something, you can think it's wrong but there should be freedom for all.

People should be able to live their lives the way they want, and that includes two gay people who are in love and want to share their lives together to be able to marry.

There's a huge group of people that think the Creator of this world, instituted Marriage as a sacred union of a man and a woman. While they may or may not "live and let live" in many other ways, their religious convictions about marriage are as valid and to be respected as any others. I wish those who disagree or ascribe to a different set of values would live and let live by respecting the opinions of others enough to refrain from telling them what they "should" support, referring to them as haters or phobics. In short, those who preach tolerance would be wise to practice it as well.

Your beliefs are entirely valid when applying them to you and yourself, or your kids, or whoever else you're in charge of. Unfortunately, the problem with these beliefs is they are being executed upon gays. Hence, these beliefs are a problem because people wish to push them on gays. "Live and let live" seems to be convenient when prescribing to overbearing beliefs resting upon limiting the rights of others, but not living and letting them have their marriage, so we can move on to more important ####.

Seems we're not in America if we're not persecuting someone for something they can't control. Race, sexuality, gender, religion (atheism/agnosticism) etc.

Edited August 15, 2008 by SRVT

[pushbrk 12,898]

My apologies, I didn't realise that you were the original poster that made the statement.

I asked if the disapproval was due to a religious/traditional aspect OR because it makes the process more difficult... which is understandable. The rest of my post concerned the belief that it was wrong to be gay. But since you already answered it way back, my mistake.

It does answer the question about why you disapprove.

Part of my point is, people can think it's wrong steal without hating the theif. They can also think homosexual acts are wrong without hating the person engaging in them. My remarks about referring to one side as "haters" or were otherwise disrespectful of other views, were with those in mind who actually do that. You haven't.

Just as a point of reference, sometimes a "Why?" question falls in the category of, "I'd like to understand your reason." and sometimes it falls in the category of, "How could you possibly have a valid reason for.....?" At other times it's really just a complaint or whine. It can be pretty difficult for a reader to tell the difference when the full contribution to a conversation at any given moment is, "Why?"

Edited August 15, 2008 by pushbrk

[KimandRuss 0]

Good thing is, you don't have to be gay to be compassionate, and differentiate your beliefs from others rights.

This really says it all better than anything else.

[pushbrk 12,898]

Good thing is, you don't have to be gay to be compassionate, and differentiate your beliefs from others rights.

This really says it all better than anything else.

I get where you're coming from but you are ascribing a "right" not granted by any law or tradition. One does not have a "right" simply by desiring or it or presuming it should be conferred.

One can be compassionate, without legalizing the desires of all those who follow another value system. I don't agree with legalizing pedophilia or incest either. Must I show my compassion for the thief, pedophile, polygamist, or honor killer by legalizing their desired behavior? If I (or perhaps more the the point "you") don't, is it out of "hate"?

[KimandRuss 0]

Apparently compassion is for the weak.

I do respect your opinion Mike and appologize for using the term 'haters' earlier in the thread .. but that is why I put it in quotes. Interpretation. I know... "interpret literally". There have been many posts related to this topic that could quite easily be construed as 'hate'... not yours... and not in the name of any faith, belief or 'God'... simply for the sake of intolerence toward others. That is hate... no matter how you try to write it. Again, sorry to have generalized and put you in that category.

However, to equate or even relate to pedophilia or incest with gay marriage isn't really fair either. I think even you would agree that it is two entirely different things? Or perhaps not. But there, we will have to just agree to disagree.

You're correct, it's not a 'right' yet to petition for a gay fiance but I do honestly believe that is the direction we are headed. Whether it takes a decade or more to get there.

To use the excuse that it will bog down the immigration process even more is just... well yeah, same could be said about many of the relationships going through now.

[IAMX 3,055]

Good thing is, you don't have to be gay to be compassionate, and differentiate your beliefs from others rights.

This really says it all better than anything else.

I get where you're coming from but you are ascribing a "right" not granted by any law or tradition. One does not have a "right" simply by desiring or it or presuming it should be conferred.

One can be compassionate, without legalizing the desires of all those who follow another value system. I don't agree with legalizing pedophilia or incest either. Must I show my compassion for the thief, pedophile, polygamist, or honor killer by legalizing their desired behavior? If I (or perhaps more the the point "you") don't, is it out of "hate"?

Your pre-occupation with gays is their sexual behavior, which is none of your business anyways. It only takes living in an area with plenty of them to figure out there is nothing abnormal about them. They go about their daily things the same way we do. So really your moral outrage stems from sticking your nose into their bedroom. And last I checked gays aren't intrinsically pedophiles, thieves, or having relations with family members of the same sex, so mentioning those along with gays is rather silly. These laws were recent events, and knee-jerk, much like putting god on our currency and pledge of allegiance was a knee-jerk to the red scare and holocaust. You want "live and let live", but it seems you don't prescribe to it when it comes to others and two gay people being happy together just like you and your SO, or myself and my fiancee. Part of this mantra means giving up something. I'd like to see religion demolished for these acts, but instead I live and let people have their beliefs. Time for some compromise.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

hmmm, where to move this thread to

[IAMX 3,055]

hmmm, where to move this thread to

Wonder if a portion of it can be cut off and moved to OT. This is always an interesting discussion.