How is being able to marry the person you love a 'special right?' If you want politics out of the marriage business, I'll go along. Eliminate marriage as a legal entity. Replace it with a civil union, the government can decide what that means. Religions can decide who they want to marry, since it has no legal status (just like 'baptized,' 'celibate,' and any other fun statuses religions come up with). If they only want to marry people born on the same day of the week, or having the same color eyes, or any other silly arbitrary standard they make up, they'll be free to have fun with that.
Because marriage is a religious invention. Anything else would need a new name, you could basically get married but call it a "civil union" partnership" or anything else but marriage if you do not share the religious views that created the "word marriage" in the first place. By calling it "marriage" you are insulting their religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with it as long as you call it something else lol.
Originally posted by deviliscious Because marriage is a religious invention. Anything else would need a new name, you could basically get married but call it a "civil union" partnership" or anything else but marriage if you do not share the religious views that created the "word marriage" in the first place. By calling it "marriage" you are insulting their religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with it as long as you call it something else lol.
Which religion? If it's a religious invention, which religion?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Originally posted by deviliscious Because marriage is a religious invention. Anything else would need a new name, you could basically get married but call it a "civil union" partnership" or anything else but marriage if you do not share the religious views that created the "word marriage" in the first place. By calling it "marriage" you are insulting their religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with it as long as you call it something else lol.
Which religion? If it's a religious invention, which religion?
Different religions have called it different things, as for the English meaning of the word as used by many relgious groups as a man and a woman becoming one in the eyes of GOd, I do believe was created by the Jewish pre-christianity. I do agree though that they should refer to all unions as something else, whether it be a civil union or partnership or whatever as long as they are not calling it marriage in government policy, it would not be as infringing upon various religions. Of course the religious would still disagree depending on their beliefs but that would change how the government deals with marriage regulation. Would that not make all parties happy? Or would people still be ranting that churches refused to "Marry them in the eyes of God"? I mean justa s people should not force their religious views on others, others should not force their views on to religion.
Marriage should be left up to religion, since marriage was created by religion. It isn't up to the government to regulate marriage, it is however up to religion to determine. Marriage can be recogonized by governemt as a contract between a man and a woman, because that was how it was created in religion. A "partnership" can be recognized between anyone. Why would anyone want the government regulating religion to force government views upon those who's religion does not agree with the context of their relationships? Marriage isn't just a religious. Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual or legal union, it has never been exclusively to religious. Now I am all for people having a choice as to what they want to do with their life, but that is exactly what it is , a choice. Gay guys sleep with women, lesbians sleep with men.. all of this happens regardless of how they were born. These are all choices. Some are born male. some are born female, some are born hermaphrodite, that is a born condition, just like what color your eyes are what color your hair or skin. That was not a choice. Who you want to sleep with is a choice. Now I do not believe in any group getting special rights simply because they made a choice. I have reviewed all of the information in this matter, and it is wrong. You can show me this nut here says that it is a born condition, and I do not care. A born condition is something you have no choice over. Now because I have kissed girls that makes me a lesbian? No I chose to do that, it is all about choices, and yes by many standards an unnatural choice due to the fact that if nature had intended men to mate with men they would have given the ability to reproduce without the need of a female, the same goes for women if nature had intended for us to mate with each other we would not need a male in order to do that.
Now I have nothing against anyone who wants to partner with someone of the same sex, just that is their choice to do so, and they shouldn't receive special rights for it, that is just silly to think you should. No moreso than if someone wanted to get a boob job, and then say hey I want special rights for people with boob jobs. It makes about as much sense lol. It is their choice to do so, but not something you should be treated special for. LMAO! Uhm..No. Lets start with the undeniable fact that homosexuality is not a choice, and anybody who says it is is downright wrong. Homosexuals fall in love with people of the same sex and are unable to fall in love with people of the opposite sex. As you have probably noticed in your own life, you can not chose who you fall in love with. What homosexuals are asking for is to marry someone they love, JUST like straigth people. That isn't special treatment, it's called equal treatment.
Originally posted by deviliscious Because marriage is a religious invention. Anything else would need a new name, you could basically get married but call it a "civil union" partnership" or anything else but marriage if you do not share the religious views that created the "word marriage" in the first place. By calling it "marriage" you are insulting their religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with it as long as you call it something else lol.
Which religion? If it's a religious invention, which religion?
Different religions have called it different things, as for the English meaning of the word as used by many relgious groups as a man and a woman becoming one in the eyes of GOd, I do believe was created by the Jewish pre-christianity. I do agree though that they should refer to all unions as something else, whether it be a civil union or partnership or whatever as long as they are not calling it marriage in government policy, it would not be as infringing upon various religions. Of course the religious would still disagree depending on their beliefs but that would change how the government deals with marriage regulation. Would that not make all parties happy? Or would people still be ranting that churches refused to "Marry them in the eyes of God"? I mean justa s people should not force their religious views on others, others should not force their views on to religion.
But are we adhering to any of the ways that they've defined marriage in the past?
If no religion has invented it, no religion can be offended when we expand it, any more than Islam's definition of marriage offends Christianity.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
1. The State should issue Certificates of Civil Union. The criteria for receiving these certificates and the benefits gain by those who enter into a civil union should be decided by law: that is, we should vote on it and decide just what people should get. My guess is things like insurance, taxation, legal wills, etc should be covered. As for who should be covered, IMO it should be pretty much any adult or group of adults of either sex or sexual orientation. There would be (legal)problems with disolving such a civil union, just as there are right now with legally disolving a marriage.
2. The question of marriage: what it means, who is recognized as being married and what it takes to be married, not to mention how one dissolves a marriage should be a matter of society, not the state. That is, whatever religion you adhere to (or none), or whatever social norm exists within the society you are in. Maybe it's a church. Maybe it's a synagogue. Maybe it's by general acclaim. Maybe you and someone say something to one other under the blinking red light at a 4-way intersection. It would have NO legal bearing. It's meaning would be entirely what you and others placed on it, nothing more and nothing less.
Heck, you don't even need to call #2 marriage. You can call it whatever you want: handfasting, together, coming to an agreement, friends with benefits. It's a purely social agreement and the benefits and penalties for breaking it are socially enforced/upheld. No government involved at all.
Anyway, that's how I think it should work. Get the state out of the legal marriage business.
Marriages ought to be at the State Level, not the Federal Level. Each State will decide for itself.
A difference of Government Unions and Religious Marriages already exist in California.
However, such Unions are not good enough, it is considered a "Separate but Equal" clause, even with Partnerships and Marriage being identical for legal purposes.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I don't feel like reading the whole thread, so I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in.
What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is not the government's business.
Everyone clear on that? The only place where you can even argue government intervention would be in the very rare case of adult consensual incest and then it would have to be confined to preventing reproduction. Otherwise, anyone should be able to enter into a marriage with whoever and however many consenting adults they please.
Although I do enjoy the irony here. Gays trying to legalize gay marriage while heterosexuals are abandoning the oppressive religious institution. <shrugs> Kinda funny, no?
"The only place where you can even argue government intervention would be in the very rare case of adult consensual incest and then it would have to be confined to preventing reproduction. Otherwise, anyone should be able to enter into a marriage with whoever and however many consenting adults they please.."
By tossing out the government, then Marriage becomes entirely Religious, which most religious organizations will not support same-sex marriages. Thus the government is needed for civil unions or partnerships.
"Although I do enjoy the irony here. Gays trying to legalize gay marriage while heterosexuals are abandoning the oppressive religious institution. <shrugs> Kinda funny, no?"
Yes I do see the irony there. Also there is some more irony, there is only a small percentage of homosexuals who will marry if given the possibility, most do not.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
By tossing out the government, then Marriage becomes entirely Religious, which most religious organizations will not support same-sex marriages. Thus the government is needed for civil unions or partnerships. Change the definition and let both be entirely disjoint. The government should not explicitly endorse anything religious due to separation of church and state, but I guess that sort of went down the tubes when America spawned more fanatically religious nutters that would sooner burn a homosexual on a stake than accept evolution. Yes I do see the irony there. Also there is some more irony, there is only a small percentage of homosexuals who will marry if given the possibility, most do not. It's just a battle in the war against secularism.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
"Although I do enjoy the irony here. Gays trying to legalize gay marriage while heterosexuals are abandoning the oppressive religious institution. <shrugs> Kinda funny, no?"
Yes I do see the irony there. Also there is some more irony, there is only a small percentage of homosexuals who will marry if given the possibility, most do not.
I don't know all homosexuals, or even a significant sample thereof, so I can't make a claim of most. I do know several that have been together since before I was old enough to even know what a homosexual was. Given, most of them are lesbians, but homosexual does not always equal recklessly promiscuous.
Marriages ought to be at the State Level, not the Federal Level. Each State will decide for itself.
A difference of Government Unions and Religious Marriages already exist in California.
However, such Unions are not good enough, it is considered a "Separate but Equal" clause, even with Partnerships and Marriage being identical for legal purposes.
Consider what you wrote.
I'll quote it for you.
...it is considered a "Separate but Equal" clause, even with Partnerships and Marriage being identical for legal purposes.
Can't understand why anyone would call that the exact definition of 'separate but equal' applied to the 'same' schools, the 'same' restrooms, the 'same' busses.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Ok guys lets go for it, lets take religion completely out of government. Why shouldn't gays get married? I mean they love each other right? why stop there.. we should let brothers marry brothers, moms marry their kids sisters marry sisters and since we have now equipped dolphins and chimpanzees with communication devices, why not if you want to make dolphin love wanna marry a dolphin? go for it! why not? I mean there is no religious holy roller bible thumper telling you you can't? Why not? If they "love each other " why deny them the right to have equal rights to do so?
Ok guys lets go for it, lets take religion completely out of government. Why shouldn't gays get married? I mean they love each other right? why stop there.. we should let brothers marry brothers, moms marry their kids sisters marry sisters and since we have now equipped dolphins and chimpanzees with communication devices, why not if you want to make dolphin love wanna marry a dolphin? go for it! why not? I mean there is no religious holy roller bible thumper telling you you can't? Why not? If they "love each other " why deny them the right to have equal rights to do so?
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Ok guys lets go for it, lets take religion completely out of government. Why shouldn't gays get married? I mean they love each other right? why stop there.. we should let brothers marry brothers, moms marry their kids sisters marry sisters and since we have now equipped dolphins and chimpanzees with communication devices, why not if you want to make dolphin love wanna marry a dolphin? go for it! why not? I mean there is no religious holy roller bible thumper telling you you can't? Why not? If they "love each other " why deny them the right to have equal rights to do so?
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
No not at all, I think that if we should allow for same sex marriages we should allow for everything else. Plain and simple. Why not ? the same arguements that c an be made for same sex marriage applies to all of these others as well. Might as well take care of them all in one move. It is the same thing. LOL!
What I can't figure out though is why these people even want to get married .. it is a cruel religious torture.. and they want to partake in it LMAO!
If you believe nothing else, believe this: gay people are NOT your enemy and not a "threat" (lmfao having to write that) to YOUR marriage.
Why do gays want to marry, then? Marital rights. Spousal elections. Medical reasons. Visitations.
This is NOT a threat to YOUR or the "institution of marriage," and stop saying it is to cloak your bigotry and ignorance on the issue.
CONSTITUTION DO NOT LET THEM RESTRICT RIGHTS SO INTIMATE AS MARRIAGE IN YOUR FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTION.
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
If you believe nothing else, believe this: gay people are NOT your enemy and not a "threat" (lmfao having to write that) to YOUR marriage.
Why do gays want to marry, then? Marital rights. Spousal elections. Medical reasons. Visitations.
This is NOT a threat to YOUR or the "institution of marriage," and stop saying it is to cloak your bigotry and ignorance on the issue.
CONSTITUTION DO NOT LET THEM RESTRICT RIGHTS SO INTIMATE AS MARRIAGE IN YOUR FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTION.
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
It is not forcing churchs to recognize gay marriage - at all.
It allows, rather, through wills and trusts to leave one's loving partner an estate.
It is not just that "gay marriage" is legal or illegal. Until it is legal --i.e., gay marriage-- partnerships between same-sex loving couples have no legal rights. The courts will not recognize them.
It is a very serious issue. It does not mean YOUR church has to perform gay marriages - at all.
I know my church will not.
For me, faith has nothing to do with gay marriage. It really does not. My faith is my relationship between myself and God.
It is unfortunate how people have taken God, religion, and words like "institution" to prevent two loving people from having a legal relationship.
If you believe nothing else, believe this: gay people are NOT your enemy and not a "threat" (lmfao having to write that) to YOUR marriage.
Why do gays want to marry, then? Marital rights. Spousal elections. Medical reasons. Visitations.
This is NOT a threat to YOUR or the "institution of marriage," and stop saying it is to cloak your bigotry and ignorance on the issue.
CONSTITUTION DO NOT LET THEM RESTRICT RIGHTS SO INTIMATE AS MARRIAGE IN YOUR FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTION.
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
It is not forcing churchs to recognize gay marriage - at all.
It allows, rather, through wills and trusts to leave one's loving partner an estate.
It is not just that "gay marriage" is legal or illegal. Until it is legal --i.e., gay marriage-- partnerships between same-sex loving couples have no legal rights. The courts will not recognize them.
It is a very serious issue. It does not mean YOUR church has to perform gay marriages - at all.
I know my church will not.
For me, faith has nothing to do with gay marriage. It really does not. My faith is my relationship between myself and God.
It is unfortunate how people have taken God, religion, and words like "institution" to prevent two loving people from having a legal relationship.
so why shouldn;t brothers who love each other get married? sisters? mom marrying her daughter? if they are in a loving relationship why not let them have the same rights? what about those who enjoy beastiality? Since CHimpanzees have been proven to love, and have now been equipped with communication devices why should we not allow for chimpanzee -human marriages? Would not the same reasoning for allowing Gay marriages apply here?
Last time I checked, Palin isn't running for President. McCain is. McCain is opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage and thinks its up to the states. This is the stance I agree with. I don't want someone from Vermont or Alaska legislating whats best here in California.
Mccain will probably drop dead within his 4 year term. Then we will DEF. have another bush president, this time Female. All Palin is is a milf, LOL. She was on SNL which was surprising....
Anyways, I don't understand it either. They talk about this country is so free, lol....ye...free alright. Nothing is free anymore. We can't do many things in this country. Sure we are free to an extent but so are other countries like England for example and Canada. Please Obama get in office so we won't have more Bullshit for the next 4-8 years, lol.I think people need to leave Gay people alone. Oh and Abortion, don't let me get started on that. Women gets raped and they think she should have to keep her baby? Give me a break. I think their needs to be certain rules to Abortion but I think it does need to exist. Some things and how they are ran in this country are ridiculous..
Mccain will probably drop dead within his 4 year term. Then we will DEF. have another bush president, this time Female. All Palin is is a milf, LOL. She was on SNL which was surprising....
Anyways, I don't understand it either. They talk about this country is so free, lol....ye...free alright. Nothing is free anymore. We can't do many things in this country. Sure we are free to an extent but so are other countries like England for example and Canada. Please Obama get in office so we won't have more Bullshit for the next 4-8 years, lol.
Ohh yes just what we need More of the Bush Cheney bloodline.. does this guy have any more cousins we can elect if 4 more years?
Ok guys lets go for it, lets take religion completely out of government. Why shouldn't gays get married? I mean they love each other right? why stop there.. we should let brothers marry brothers, moms marry their kids sisters marry sisters and since we have now equipped dolphins and chimpanzees with communication devices, why not if you want to make dolphin love wanna marry a dolphin? go for it! why not? I mean there is no religious holy roller bible thumper telling you you can't? Why not? If they "love each other " why deny them the right to have equal rights to do so?
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
No not at all, I think that if we should allow for same sex marriages we should allow for everything else. Plain and simple. Why not ? the same arguements that c an be made for same sex marriage applies to all of these others as well. Might as well take care of them all in one move. It is the same thing. LOL!
What I can't figure out though is why these people even want to get married .. it is a cruel religious torture.. and they want to partake in it LMAO!
And then there's the fact that we've already applied those arguments. I mean those very dangerous arguments were the ones that allowed black people to marry white people. And we all know what that led to. Look, one of those uppity children is running for President.
Why yes, it's terrible that we've changed the definition of marriage over the years. It needs to go back to its original definition - a white Christian male takes a white christian female as his property.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Comments
Because marriage is a religious invention. Anything else would need a new name, you could basically get married but call it a "civil union" partnership" or anything else but marriage if you do not share the religious views that created the "word marriage" in the first place. By calling it "marriage" you are insulting their religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with it as long as you call it something else lol.
Which religion? If it's a religious invention, which religion?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Which religion? If it's a religious invention, which religion?
Different religions have called it different things, as for the English meaning of the word as used by many relgious groups as a man and a woman becoming one in the eyes of GOd, I do believe was created by the Jewish pre-christianity. I do agree though that they should refer to all unions as something else, whether it be a civil union or partnership or whatever as long as they are not calling it marriage in government policy, it would not be as infringing upon various religions. Of course the religious would still disagree depending on their beliefs but that would change how the government deals with marriage regulation. Would that not make all parties happy? Or would people still be ranting that churches refused to "Marry them in the eyes of God"? I mean justa s people should not force their religious views on others, others should not force their views on to religion.
Which religion? If it's a religious invention, which religion?
Different religions have called it different things, as for the English meaning of the word as used by many relgious groups as a man and a woman becoming one in the eyes of GOd, I do believe was created by the Jewish pre-christianity. I do agree though that they should refer to all unions as something else, whether it be a civil union or partnership or whatever as long as they are not calling it marriage in government policy, it would not be as infringing upon various religions. Of course the religious would still disagree depending on their beliefs but that would change how the government deals with marriage regulation. Would that not make all parties happy? Or would people still be ranting that churches refused to "Marry them in the eyes of God"? I mean justa s people should not force their religious views on others, others should not force their views on to religion.
But are we adhering to any of the ways that they've defined marriage in the past?
If no religion has invented it, no religion can be offended when we expand it, any more than Islam's definition of marriage offends Christianity.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
1. The State should issue Certificates of Civil Union. The criteria for receiving these certificates and the benefits gain by those who enter into a civil union should be decided by law: that is, we should vote on it and decide just what people should get. My guess is things like insurance, taxation, legal wills, etc should be covered. As for who should be covered, IMO it should be pretty much any adult or group of adults of either sex or sexual orientation. There would be (legal)problems with disolving such a civil union, just as there are right now with legally disolving a marriage.
2. The question of marriage: what it means, who is recognized as being married and what it takes to be married, not to mention how one dissolves a marriage should be a matter of society, not the state. That is, whatever religion you adhere to (or none), or whatever social norm exists within the society you are in. Maybe it's a church. Maybe it's a synagogue. Maybe it's by general acclaim. Maybe you and someone say something to one other under the blinking red light at a 4-way intersection. It would have NO legal bearing. It's meaning would be entirely what you and others placed on it, nothing more and nothing less.
Heck, you don't even need to call #2 marriage. You can call it whatever you want: handfasting, together, coming to an agreement, friends with benefits. It's a purely social agreement and the benefits and penalties for breaking it are socially enforced/upheld. No government involved at all.
Anyway, that's how I think it should work. Get the state out of the legal marriage business.
Whatever makes them forget they took over the banks, amirite?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
seperation of church and state ...
wait ...
except for marriage
oh yeah and abortion that too
and death [penalty
other that that ...
no wait , schools and what they teach cant forget that
yeah ...
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Marriages ought to be at the State Level, not the Federal Level. Each State will decide for itself.
A difference of Government Unions and Religious Marriages already exist in California.
However, such Unions are not good enough, it is considered a "Separate but Equal" clause, even with Partnerships and Marriage being identical for legal purposes.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I don't feel like reading the whole thread, so I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in.
What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is not the government's business.
Everyone clear on that? The only place where you can even argue government intervention would be in the very rare case of adult consensual incest and then it would have to be confined to preventing reproduction. Otherwise, anyone should be able to enter into a marriage with whoever and however many consenting adults they please.
Although I do enjoy the irony here. Gays trying to legalize gay marriage while heterosexuals are abandoning the oppressive religious institution. <shrugs> Kinda funny, no?
"The only place where you can even argue government intervention would be in the very rare case of adult consensual incest and then it would have to be confined to preventing reproduction. Otherwise, anyone should be able to enter into a marriage with whoever and however many consenting adults they please.."
By tossing out the government, then Marriage becomes entirely Religious, which most religious organizations will not support same-sex marriages. Thus the government is needed for civil unions or partnerships.
"Although I do enjoy the irony here. Gays trying to legalize gay marriage while heterosexuals are abandoning the oppressive religious institution. <shrugs> Kinda funny, no?"
Yes I do see the irony there. Also there is some more irony, there is only a small percentage of homosexuals who will marry if given the possibility, most do not.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Zoo
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
"Although I do enjoy the irony here. Gays trying to legalize gay marriage while heterosexuals are abandoning the oppressive religious institution. <shrugs> Kinda funny, no?"
Yes I do see the irony there. Also there is some more irony, there is only a small percentage of homosexuals who will marry if given the possibility, most do not.
I don't know all homosexuals, or even a significant sample thereof, so I can't make a claim of most. I do know several that have been together since before I was old enough to even know what a homosexual was. Given, most of them are lesbians, but homosexual does not always equal recklessly promiscuous.
Consider what you wrote.
I'll quote it for you.
...it is considered a "Separate but Equal" clause, even with Partnerships and Marriage being identical for legal purposes.
Can't understand why anyone would call that the exact definition of 'separate but equal' applied to the 'same' schools, the 'same' restrooms, the 'same' busses.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Ok guys lets go for it, lets take religion completely out of government. Why shouldn't gays get married? I mean they love each other right? why stop there.. we should let brothers marry brothers, moms marry their kids sisters marry sisters and since we have now equipped dolphins and chimpanzees with communication devices, why not if you want to make dolphin love wanna marry a dolphin? go for it! why not? I mean there is no religious holy roller bible thumper telling you you can't? Why not? If they "love each other " why deny them the right to have equal rights to do so?
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
No not at all, I think that if we should allow for same sex marriages we should allow for everything else. Plain and simple. Why not ? the same arguements that c an be made for same sex marriage applies to all of these others as well. Might as well take care of them all in one move. It is the same thing. LOL!
What I can't figure out though is why these people even want to get married .. it is a cruel religious torture.. and they want to partake in it LMAO!
If you believe nothing else, believe this: gay people are NOT your enemy and not a "threat" (lmfao having to write that) to YOUR marriage.
Why do gays want to marry, then?
Marital rights. Spousal elections. Medical reasons. Visitations.
This is NOT a threat to YOUR or the "institution of marriage," and stop saying it is to cloak your bigotry and ignorance on the issue.
CONSTITUTION
DO NOT LET THEM RESTRICT RIGHTS SO INTIMATE AS MARRIAGE IN YOUR FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTION.
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
It is not forcing churchs to recognize gay marriage - at all.
It allows, rather, through wills and trusts to leave one's loving partner an estate.
It is not just that "gay marriage" is legal or illegal. Until it is legal --i.e., gay marriage-- partnerships between same-sex loving couples have no legal rights. The courts will not recognize them.
It is a very serious issue. It does not mean YOUR church has to perform gay marriages - at all.
I know my church will not.
For me, faith has nothing to do with gay marriage. It really does not. My faith is my relationship between myself and God.
It is unfortunate how people have taken God, religion, and words like "institution" to prevent two loving people from having a legal relationship.
I have no greater friend than Jesus:
www.youtube.com/watch
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
It is not forcing churchs to recognize gay marriage - at all.
It allows, rather, through wills and trusts to leave one's loving partner an estate.
It is not just that "gay marriage" is legal or illegal. Until it is legal --i.e., gay marriage-- partnerships between same-sex loving couples have no legal rights. The courts will not recognize them.
It is a very serious issue. It does not mean YOUR church has to perform gay marriages - at all.
I know my church will not.
For me, faith has nothing to do with gay marriage. It really does not. My faith is my relationship between myself and God.
It is unfortunate how people have taken God, religion, and words like "institution" to prevent two loving people from having a legal relationship.
I have no greater friend than Jesus:
www.youtube.com/watch
so why shouldn;t brothers who love each other get married? sisters? mom marrying her daughter? if they are in a loving relationship why not let them have the same rights? what about those who enjoy beastiality? Since CHimpanzees have been proven to love, and have now been equipped with communication devices why should we not allow for chimpanzee -human marriages? Would not the same reasoning for allowing Gay marriages apply here?
Mccain will probably drop dead within his 4 year term. Then we will DEF. have another bush president, this time Female. All Palin is is a milf, LOL. She was on SNL which was surprising....
Anyways, I don't understand it either. They talk about this country is so free, lol....ye...free alright. Nothing is free anymore. We can't do many things in this country. Sure we are free to an extent but so are other countries like England for example and Canada. Please Obama get in office so we won't have more Bullshit for the next 4-8 years, lol.
I think people need to leave Gay people alone. Oh and Abortion, don't let me get started on that. Women gets raped and they think she should have to keep her baby? Give me a break. I think their needs to be certain rules to Abortion but I think it does need to exist. Some things and how they are ran in this country are ridiculous..
Ohh yes just what we need
More of the Bush Cheney bloodline.. does this guy have any more cousins we can elect if 4 more years?
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
No not at all, I think that if we should allow for same sex marriages we should allow for everything else. Plain and simple. Why not ? the same arguements that c an be made for same sex marriage applies to all of these others as well. Might as well take care of them all in one move. It is the same thing. LOL!
What I can't figure out though is why these people even want to get married .. it is a cruel religious torture.. and they want to partake in it LMAO!
And then there's the fact that we've already applied those arguments. I mean those very dangerous arguments were the ones that allowed black people to marry white people. And we all know what that led to. Look, one of those uppity children is running for President.
Why yes, it's terrible that we've changed the definition of marriage over the years. It needs to go back to its original definition - a white Christian male takes a white christian female as his property.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson