| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:29:19 AM · #726 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
Why can't marriages, performed by the state, of hetero couples be called civil unions?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:34:53 AM · #727 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
Why can't marriages, performed by the state, of hetero couples be called civil unions? |
That would be wonderful. |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:34:57 AM · #728 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
[
I'm not intolerant. I have gay friends and I wish them well in their relationships. I have no problem with, as you say, "...accommodating people in love...". |
I never suggested YOU were... my comment was a generalization. My apologies if I offended you.
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
I am not an American citizen and am not at all familiar with the laws of your country, but would strongly recommend you peruse the contents of this article...Marriage vs Civil Union as it might shed some light on the matter.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-02-17 01:38:11. |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:40:07 AM · #729 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
But, why does it matter? I mean really and truly? Why? |
So you're saying it doesn't matter, and therefore you have no problem with it being called a "civil union"?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:41:35 AM · #730 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
Why can't marriages, performed by the state, of hetero couples be called civil unions? |
That would be wonderful. |
That solves my double standard paradox I stated above about people picking and choosing when to use religion as an excuse (ie banning prayer in school, but saying gay marriage is immoral).
IF a couple is wed by the state (gay or straight) they should be in a civil union. It is then up to the Church to decide if they are "married".
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:42:35 AM · #731 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I never suggested YOU were... my comment was a generalization. My apologies if I offended you. |
Oh, no, you didn't offend me. Well, maybe a little ;)
Anyway, no worries :) |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:44:48 AM · #732 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
Why can't marriages, performed by the state, of hetero couples be called civil unions? |
That would be wonderful. |
That solves my double standard paradox I stated above about people picking and choosing when to use religion as an excuse (ie banning prayer in school, but saying gay marriage is immoral).
IF a couple is wed by the state (gay or straight) they should be in a civil union. It is then up to the Church to decide if they are "married". |
No it's gotta be marriage (gay or straight). There's nothing "civil" about any union after a few years into it. :P |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:46:51 AM · #733 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
But, why does it matter? I mean really and truly? Why? |
So you're saying it doesn't matter, and therefore you have no problem with it being called a "civil union"? |
redundant |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:47:01 AM · #734 |
Originally posted by yanko:
No it's gotta be marriage (gay or straight). There's nothing "civil" about any union after a few years into it. :P |
LMAO... sooo true...
After a few years you end up having hallway sex... where you pass your partner in the hall and exchange "f*** yous"
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:48:49 AM · #735 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
But, why does it matter? I mean really and truly? Why? |
So you're saying it doesn't matter, and therefore you have no problem with it being called a "civil union"? |
redundant |
Redundant? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:50:00 AM · #736 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
But, why does it matter? I mean really and truly? Why? |
So you're saying it doesn't matter, and therefore you have no problem with it being called a "civil union"? |
redundant |
Redundant? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. |
I think she meant, why have two names for the same thing? |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:55:53 AM · #737 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
But, why does it matter? I mean really and truly? Why? |
So you're saying it doesn't matter, and therefore you have no problem with it being called a "civil union"? |
redundant |
Redundant? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. |
meaning, you already asked this question :) |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 02:03:35 AM · #738 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
meaning, you already asked this question :) |
OK, so basically you don't care whether a same-sex union is called a marriage or a civil union. Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 02:11:56 AM · #739 |
Anyone but me realize that the creator of this thread hasn't posted in 4 months...? LOL
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 02:16:26 AM · #740 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Anyone but me realize that the creator of this thread hasn't posted in 4 months...? LOL |
Can you blame him/her?? :) |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 09:40:45 AM · #741 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Q:
Do you really know anyone who teaches their children that those books are the Gospel Truth -- the inspired word of God, ...
Originally posted by RonB:
A: Nope. And I don't teach my children that the precepts of the Bible must be faithfully followed under penalty of eternal damnation, either.
|
Are you now arguing that you do not feel the Bible is the word of God?? |
Nope. But you didn't quote the Question - you only quoted half of it. the real question was
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do you really know anyone who teaches their children that those books are the Gospel Truth -- the inspired word of God, with precepts to be faithfully followed under penalty of eternal damnation? |
The original post posed only ONE question that, with the imbedded qualifier of "with precepts to be faithfully followed under penalty of eternal damnation", I had to answer in the negative.
Had it been TWO questions divided at the comma. I would have given TWO answers: Yes to the first, No to the second. |
|
|
|
02/17/2007 11:50:55 AM · #742 |
This thread is just crap! It just sickens me that there are so many closed minded people, that can't just let people in love be joined in "a civil union" Marriage whatever. Just let it be love and let people live their lives, together!!
I don't even care about religion right now. I don't care what you have to say about it. It doesn't concern me in the least. I'm already going to hell... I might as well enjoy my life the way I want to!
As for gay couples not being able to procreate.... what about all the children in the world that have no home? What about the kids who live their lives in foster care, because everyone else is too busy making their own families??? I think it's wonderful that gay couples can't procreate... maybe it will give the homeless children a chance to be loved and live in a happy home.
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
02/19/2007 09:20:33 AM · #743 |
This thread has obviously moved on a bit.
One theme that is intriguing, and possibly renders most of the rest of the thread redundant, is that the objection is not to gay people having all the same rights as if they were married, but to the use of the word "married" to refer to that state (rather than, say, "civil union". RonB even appears to endorse this view.
Originally posted by RonB:
For now, it is a religious issue, and will likely continue to be a religious issue until gays, lesbians, et. al., decide, as a group, that civil unions will meet their requirements and stop trying to co-opt the terms "marriage" and "married" which are held so dear by the religious majority. ...
If it were really just legal rights that they wanted, they could have had them years ago, by petitioning, on a state by state basis, for enactment of civil union legislation ( which the majority of Americans support ).
Religious people, in general, do not hate homosexuals ( the Bible, after all, says that one should love one's neighbor ) - but they do love their institutions ( in some denominations marriage is a sacrament ), and they tend to guard them dearly.
If legal rights were the desired result, then the gay community has been dealt a real disservice by those who advised y'all to push for marriage instead of for civil unions. And following that advice has resulted in a backlash leading to a lot of anti-gay-marriage legislation. I hope that y'all can somehow recover from it. |
So - the only issue is the name on the top of the bill. The problem is the conservatism of Christian institutions, rather than any policy, theory or philosophy.
Is this really the argument? For those who have religious reservations, surely there are a million and one more important words and concepts to properly define - like transubstantiation at the eucharist? Why spend so much energy on a vague word like "marriage"?
BTW - The word "marriage" is already a legal/technical one - there are very few places in the world (and only a couple of states in the US) that apply the biblical restrictions on who may get married (eg step-relations), in any case.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2007 11:43:28 AM · #744 |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 09:44:12 PM · #745 |
| I find it fascinating that homosexuality is considered immoral by the majority of the right and yet killing people in an invasion is considered moral by the majority of the same set of people. I just don't understand..... |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 10:26:45 PM · #746 |
Originally posted by robs:
I find it fascinating that homosexuality is considered immoral by the majority of the right and yet killing people in an invasion is considered moral by the majority of the same set of people. I just don't understand..... |
I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, and I am very much against the Iraq war, but, to be fair to the "right", I don't see the logic in your argument. I think that a person from the "right" would simply rebut your argument by saying that although killing for no reason is wrong, the people killed in the invasion in Iraq are an unfortunate consequence of (what the "right" would call) a just war. So what does that have to do with homosexuality?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 11:46:47 PM · #747 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Alright, maybe I'm young and too inexperienced in today's word, but I really don't get why so many people care if homosexuals get married. It doesn't affect anyone else, furthermore, what harm is it?
This sounds like a giant step backwards in civilization to me. If stopping gay marriages passes, then it wouldn't be implausible to me that interracial marriages would be next. Many people disagree with this relationship bond and if discrimination on the line of sexual orientation is accepted, what difference is the discrimination on the line of race?
One could argue that race is not a choice whereas being gay is, but i implore that person to answer the question: why would someone choose a lifestyle that results in being shunned, and terrorized?
Furthermore, To amend the backbone of the law with the goal of singling out and discrimination against a group of Americans should spark alarm in the most conservative individual. If we ammend the constitution, i believe that we should amend to into stopping all public officials from receiving ANY funds from ANY source other than the government once they enter office, or at the very least only allowing people that protect the liberty of ALL it's citizens to serve in major public office.
In my opinion, American's should live and let live. But then again, maybe i'm too young.
What do you guys think?
Edited for grammer and spelling. |
Where do you stop?
How about Polygamy? (multiple spouses)
How about Bestiality? (animals)
How about Pedophilia? (pre-pubescent children)
How about Ephebophilia? (pubescent children)
A quick search will reveal multiple groups that want to have all (and more) of these types of marriages legalized. Open it up to one and the try to keep the others out. You won't be able to use the argument that one (gay marriage) is okay but the others aren't because you disagree. (Apparently you disagree with the majority of people about gay marriage) As for the legal aspects of the ones I mentioned;
Numerous states no longer have a Bestiality law, instead using the animal cruelty laws. If the animal is not hurt during the relationship then who are you to object.
Ephebophilia is already legal in some states. I believe Kentucky allows marriage at 14 if you have parental permission.
Pedophilia has NAMBLA that has a motto of sex after 8 is too late.
Polygamy is a problem in certain parts of this country and some recent headlines indicate that children are primary participants (victims???)
Now, I am not saying that homosexuality is the same, just that people will make the same argument once gay marriage is legalized. Some of these groups make it well known that gay marriage is the way to "legalize" their alternative lifestyles.
Until 1973, homosexuality was listed in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a sexual deviancy. It is now being argued that Pedophilia and other disorders of this nature, which are still listed as deviant behavior should be removed. This is seen by some groups as a first step to legal and social acceptance of these behaviors.
Leave marriage alone (1 man, 1 woman) and stick with civil unions which can only be enforced in court, by a judge.
Just my 2 cents |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 07:28:53 PM · #748 |
I can't believe that the ignorance, intolerance, and fear is still playing out here.
Rob has stated that he can't take it any more after three years, there have been numerous occasions where acceptance and understanding have been called for, just for people to be left in peace, and these requests for decency are ignored.
People keep trying to make this a religious issue based on the world's most misunderstood, misquoted, and outdated document that was never even written in English yet is to be obeyed VERBATIM today, here and now, and it just stinks.
Two people that want to be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other couple that make a commitment to each other should be entitled to do so.
Who here that walks this earth as a mere mortal has any place saying what is right or wrong in God's eyes?
I get so tired of that ridiculous narrow-minded shit I can't even begin to tell you.
My God tells me to be the best man that I can, love my neighbor, do the next right thing, and that HE will stand in judgement if need be.
MY GOD TELLS ME TO SUPPORT MY GAY FRIENDS WHO STRIVE FOR THE SAME CIVIL RIGHTS I ENJOY!!!!!!!!!
My 6th grade daughter was attacked on her school bus and hazed because she had a Freedom to Marry button on her bookbag.....I mentioned this before.....and I had to explain to her about intolerant assholes and how this boy was learning fear and ignorance at home.
So my daughter was attacked because she believes in equal rights.
Any of you anti-gay people wanna take a stab at explaining how an innocent 11 year old should be attacked for believing in civil rights?
We have had to do more work explaining to our daughter how unfair the world is because of narrow-minded and intolerant people than telling her she has to worry about all the problems gay people are going to cause her.
Oh.....and just what would these problems be that I need to warn her about?
Somehow, just like three weeks ago, this will be largely ignored because there is no reason to torment and run someone else's life just because they want to live a little differently than you do.
Oh.....a couple of salient points.
My wife and I have been together for 28 years......NOBODY we knew from then is still together.
I am a Unitarian Universalist.......NO creeds, NO dogma, we support your right to worship your God your way and we will encourage you to achieve and develop your spirituality and faith in your own way and time.
We are a welcoming congregation......we celebrate diversity in ALL forms.
When my wife and I "made it legal", we were joined in a civil union at a district magistrate's office at ten in the morning, NOT a church.
We have many friends that are somewhat different than us.....some are black, some are Hispanic, some are European, some are old, some are young, some are gay, some are straight.......you getting the picture here?
ALL of my friends are in my life because I was gifted by their presence for whatever reason. I love them all because of their differences as well as in spite of them.
The only thing I'm really bothered by are intolerant, ignorant people.......but you know what?
My God tells me to be accepting and tolerant of them too, because who knows, maybe some day they'll see the light and realize it's better to try to get along with everyone 'cause you never know how they'll grace your life by being in it.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 08:01:41 PM · #749 |
I couldn't agree more with  NikonJeb's post. Your daughter had real courage to wear that button - but what a shame courage is required! There were plenty of people openly against marriage between blacks and whites for so-called moral reasons before it became utterly uncouth to acknowledge such sentiments.
And as for the argument that gay marriage will lead to legal unions involving bestiality and pedophilia - what a lame sham to attempt to cover the same tired discrimination that once led people to speak out against interracial marriage. Gay marriage, like straight marriage, is between consenting adults. Consenting adults being the key.
All adult citizens should have the right to marry whom they chose, as long as the other party is also a consenting adult. Anything else is unjust. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 08:28:19 PM · #750 |
Originally posted by Baron152:
Where do you stop?
How about Polygamy? (multiple spouses)
How about Bestiality? (animals)
How about Pedophilia? (pre-pubescent children)
How about Ephebophilia? (pubescent children)
|
This is a non-argument, the second example being mere bluster. Do you honestly believe there is a potential for people to ask to extend the meaning of marriage to mean a union between one human and one animal, with all the afforded legal rights and obligations? If you do, I believe you are being disingenuous and disruptive.
In June of 2005, the law here in Canada redefined marriage as a union between two people, not restricted by sex. Before that date, gay marriage was already legal in other provinces, most notably Ontario, Canada's largest. Since then, none of the aforementioned groups have asked for any kind of special treatment, to nobody's surprise.
edit: fat finger fluster
Message edited by author 2007-02-25 20:32:33. |
|
