Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Irony
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
What I have described is California.
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.
Honestly, I used to think so. Until one of the users here (Olddaddy) convinced me differently.
My church does not perform civil unions. It performs marriages. And again, honestly, I'm really kind of fed up with my church being minimized or negated by my government. Especially when the Constitution of my country says that is illegal.
I find it so terribly troubling that American's cannot see through their own personal feelings to understand what it is exactly that they are allowing. Like Gnomexxx said, we do not live in a democracy. I have equal rights to every other citizen. And as long as the government is recognizing one marriage over another, it is recognizing one religion over another.
I am not asking for special privilege or more special treatment. I'm simply asking to be given the same treatment and recognition as everyone else.
Why not force all marriage endorsed by government to be a civil union? It would finally separate church from state, upholding the ideals of the constitution and satisfy the religious crazies at the same time. Everybody would receive the same treatment and nobody would have to hear about this bullshit on the TV anymore.
I
And that's great. It really is.
What's happening now is that the homosexuals are trying to pervert the ideology of marriage and that's not right in my opinion.
What's happening now is that you have a perception on marriage and you want that enforced on everybody else.
Don't try to suggercoat it.
It sounds like a he has a perception of religion he wants to enforce on everyone else too. And I find that the most troubling thing. It shows exactly why the founding fathers put the things in our founding documents they did. I'm glad they had the foresight to protect minorities like me.
These people really scare me. I wonder sometimes if some of the members of this group would have no problem attacking my church or some of its members. Look at his own words, he has called us a perversion. Our church has been vandalized on MANY occasions already.
Want to hear something cool though? The Jewish synagogue down the street has come and has helped us clean it up each time. Funny, we get along with them just fine. They are very cool!
--------------------------------------
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
I know lots of gay people who have children. There are a lot of ways we can have kids. So, that negates that point.
And are you going to deny those tax benefits to gay couples raising children? Or, would you rather just go into their homes and steal their kids?
And plenty of unbiased studies have shown that children in gay households turn out to be fine adults. So that point has been negated too.
--------------------------------------
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
1-2. You're completely brainwashed: There is even homosexuality in the animal kingdom, as rare as it might be, of course you're Christian and consider yourself something special, so the rules of nature don't apply to you and you have the choice to become a homosexual if you so wish. I suppose?
Overpopulation indeed. The gay friends I've had never said they wouldn't have sex with a woman if it meant the death of the species; it's just that we're so far removed from that at the moment and they prefer to have sex with men over women. It's not a big deal. What about men who have anal sex with women? How are they any different? There is no rational explanation for your complete hatred of peoples' sexual preferences. If indeed sex should only be used for procreational purposes, then you should stop having sex without condoms, or we should stop having sex altogether and do everything in vitro ( which is generally more effective anyway ) to stop spreading diseases and optimize the population.
Of course the last part of your argument has to be addressed in my next one..
3. There is nothing scientific to support your conclusion. If you really want to convince people, then bring up some sample statistics and their corresponding sample sizes.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Honestly, I used to think so. Until one of the users here (Olddaddy) convinced me differently.
My church does not perform civil unions. It performs marriages. And again, honestly, I'm really kind of fed up with my church being minimized or negated by my government. Especially when the Constitution of my country says that is illegal.
I find it so terribly troubling that American's cannot see through their own personal feelings to understand what it is exactly that they are allowing. Like Gnomexxx said, we do not live in a democracy. I have equal rights to every other citizen. And as long as the government is recognizing one marriage over another, it is recognizing one religion over another.
I am not asking for special privilege or more special treatment. I'm simply asking to be given the same treatment and recognition as everyone else.
Any church can perform a marriage ceremony between any two people. The 'state' can't do anything to stop this. The ceremony does not make a marriage valid to the state. Its the filling out the forms that do it. That why you can go get married in front of a judge. Also even if Prop 8 was voted down a church still would be free to perform a marriage ceremony on any two people it pleases. The key word is ceremony.
There are people who believe that marriage is the sacred bond between one man and one woman. This belief holds some marriages together. By holding out for one word - marriage when everything else is equal seems to me intolerant to the people who hold on to a traditional sense of the word marriage.
So you are willing to offend many people over a word. (Remember I prefaced it as saying Civil Unions and Marriage are equal is every respect under the law).
Honestly, I used to think so. Until one of the users here (Olddaddy) convinced me differently.
My church does not perform civil unions. It performs marriages. And again, honestly, I'm really kind of fed up with my church being minimized or negated by my government. Especially when the Constitution of my country says that is illegal.
I find it so terribly troubling that American's cannot see through their own personal feelings to understand what it is exactly that they are allowing. Like Gnomexxx said, we do not live in a democracy. I have equal rights to every other citizen. And as long as the government is recognizing one marriage over another, it is recognizing one religion over another.
I am not asking for special privilege or more special treatment. I'm simply asking to be given the same treatment and recognition as everyone else.
Why not force all marriage endorsed by government to be a civil union? It would finally separate church from state, upholding the ideals of the constitution and satisfy the religious crazies at the same time. Everybody would receive the same treatment and nobody would have to hear about this bullshit on the TV anymore.
I
And that's great. It really is.
What's happening now is that the homosexuals are trying to pervert the ideology of marriage and that's not right in my opinion.
What's happening now is that you have a perception on marriage and you want that enforced on everybody else.
Don't try to suggercoat it.
It sounds like a he has a perception of religion he wants to enforce on everyone else too. And I find that the most troubling thing. It shows exactly why the founding fathers put the things in our founding documents they did. I'm glad they had the foresight to protect minorities like me.
These people really scare me. I wonder sometimes if some of the members of this group would have no problem attacking my church or some of its members. Look at his own words, he has called us a perversion. Our church has been vandalized on MANY occasions already.
Want to hear something cool though? The Jewish synagogue down the street has come and has helped us clean it up each time. Funny, we get along with them just fine. They are very cool!
Awww, time to put on the innocent face. Big bad Sargoth or someone like him is gonna attack me or my 'church'. I'd like to tell you what I really think of your little innuendo but I'm not allowed to on this site. I resent the accusation that you make. I prefer a debate to a fist fight. Spin your little sob story how you will.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In California, Civil Union is not used rather, Domestic Partnership as can be read from here:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/
Legal Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
For additional information of the differences of Domestic Partnership and Marriage can be found in the Wikipeida:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_Marriage
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.
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
1-2. You're completely brainwashed: There is even homosexuality in the animal kingdom, as rare as it might be, of course you're Christian and consider yourself something special, so the rules of nature don't apply to you and you have the choice to become a homosexual if you so wish. I suppose?
Overpopulation indeed. The gay friends I've had never said they wouldn't have sex with a woman if it meant the death of the species; it's just that we're so far removed from that at the moment and they prefer to have sex with men over women. It's not a big deal. What about men who have anal sex with women? How are they any different? There is no rational explanation for your complete hatred of peoples' sexual preferences. If indeed sex should only be used for procreational purposes, then you should stop having sex without condoms, or we should stop having sex altogether and do everything in vitro ( which is generally more effective anyway ) to stop spreading diseases and optimize the population.
Of course the last part of your argument has to be addressed in my next one..
3. There is nothing scientific to support your conclusion. If you really want to convince people, then bring up some sample statistics and their corresponding sample sizes.
Meh, you've been brainwashed to not think for yourself and always wanting stats and studies. Do you think that the original philosophers needed stats or studies? I choose to talk principles and ideas not to see who can google better and find stats to fit their stories. Like I said, if you can't understand what I've said I'm done.
I don't hate either. Hate would allow me to exact physical violence. I don't like, nor accept, but I do not hate.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
Actually just because they are unable to have children does not mean that they serve no "use". There are many theories how homosexuality is beneficial to evolution.
You claim it's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. None of the laws regarding marriage say that being able to have a child is a requirement to get married, in fact, straigth couples who are unable to have children are still able to get married. Gay couples can also choose to adopt a child.
Also, I think it's very strange that you consider reproduction the only possible way to postively contribute to society.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
Ofcourse I demand scientific studies because the scientific studies I have, of which i'd be more than happy to share with you if you're interested, show that children of gay couples are on the same level as children of straigth couples.
What you're really saying is "don't ask for evidence for my claims or else i'm done with you". That way of thinking doesn't hold up for a moment in the real world, imagine if we used that flawed logic in court. imagine if a judge said "You're guilty of a crime, but I don't need any evidence to support it!"
In California, Civil Union is not used rather, Domestic Partnership as can be read from here:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/
Legal Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
For additional information of the differences of Domestic Partnership and Marriage can be found in the Wikipeida:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_Marriage
There are some differences. The way the CA employees retirement fund treats spouses is a important one. So its not equal in every respect.
I just think a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership or whatever term that has confers the same rights and responsibilities as a current marriage could be a compromise that both sides could agree on.
I think it's ridiculous that legalizing gay marriage even has to be debated. Give it another 20-30 years for more of those who cling to outmoded religious dogma to die off.
Once old people die=progress.
Oh sure, there are younger ones with their "reasons." Definitely in the minority though and they won't be a problem.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Wow,,,,,So to some of you. If two people of the same sex get married it somehow cheapens your wedding vows? That is such a silly idea. If your marriage hinges on the actions of others behind closed doors, You really need to ask yourself how much that marriage of yours is worth? Because I know my marriage of 12 years means no less to me because of what 2 dudes down the street do.
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
1-2. You're completely brainwashed: There is even homosexuality in the animal kingdom, as rare as it might be, of course you're Christian and consider yourself something special, so the rules of nature don't apply to you and you have the choice to become a homosexual if you so wish. I suppose?
Overpopulation indeed. The gay friends I've had never said they wouldn't have sex with a woman if it meant the death of the species; it's just that we're so far removed from that at the moment and they prefer to have sex with men over women. It's not a big deal. What about men who have anal sex with women? How are they any different? There is no rational explanation for your complete hatred of peoples' sexual preferences. If indeed sex should only be used for procreational purposes, then you should stop having sex without condoms, or we should stop having sex altogether and do everything in vitro ( which is generally more effective anyway ) to stop spreading diseases and optimize the population.
Of course the last part of your argument has to be addressed in my next one..
3. There is nothing scientific to support your conclusion. If you really want to convince people, then bring up some sample statistics and their corresponding sample sizes.
Meh, you've been brainwashed to not think for yourself and always wanting stats and studies. Do you think that the original philosophers needed stats or studies? I choose to talk principles and ideas not to see who can google better and find stats to fit their stories. Like I said, if you can't understand what I've said I'm done.
I don't hate either. Hate would allow me to exact physical violence. I don't like, nor accept, but I do not hate.
And we come right now to it ladies and gentlement. The prime deflection of the religious followers...
SCIENCE IS EVIL!!! GOD GIVES ALL!!! DON'T QUESTION HIS WILL!!! TO FOLLOW SCIENCE IS TO QUESTION HIS WILL!!!
yadda, yadda, yadda....
Here's a hint for you all religious peeps... get a frackin' clue! Science has proven far, far, far more than the little black, red, green, whatever colored book you get your "facts" <snickers> from.
Oh... and to claim someone who actually thinks away from religion as someone who is "brainwashed" is absurdity on a whole new level.
I would agree with you on that, except then the phrase "separate, but equal" comes into play; a validation of equality you can say.
Though not all differences are listed, there is one item that favors domestic partners over marriages and that is with Health Benefits. Domestic Partners are allowed immediate access to Health Benefits, while opposite-sex couples living in the same residence are not. In order for opposite-sex couples to gain Health Benefits, they must be married.
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.
Honestly, I used to think so. Until one of the users here (Olddaddy) convinced me differently.
My church does not perform civil unions. It performs marriages. And again, honestly, I'm really kind of fed up with my church being minimized or negated by my government. Especially when the Constitution of my country says that is illegal.
I find it so terribly troubling that American's cannot see through their own personal feelings to understand what it is exactly that they are allowing. Like Gnomexxx said, we do not live in a democracy. I have equal rights to every other citizen. And as long as the government is recognizing one marriage over another, it is recognizing one religion over another.
I am not asking for special privilege or more special treatment. I'm simply asking to be given the same treatment and recognition as everyone else.
Any church can perform a marriage ceremony between any two people. The 'state' can't do anything to stop this. The ceremony does not make a marriage valid to the state. Its the filling out the forms that do it. That why you can go get married in front of a judge. Also even if Prop 8 was voted down a church still would be free to perform a marriage ceremony on any two people it pleases. The key word is ceremony.
There are people who believe that marriage is the sacred bond between one man and one woman. This belief holds some marriages together. By holding out for one word - marriage when everything else is equal seems to me intolerant to the people who hold on to a traditional sense of the word marriage.
So you are willing to offend many people over a word. (Remember I prefaced it as saying Civil Unions and Marriage are equal is every respect under the law).
What offends me is the government recognizing one religious marriage over another. To me, marriage is just as much a bond as it is to heterosexual couples (the ones who take it serious at least). I consider it a promise and vow said in front of God and one that I plan to keep.
If the government did not recognize marriages at all, then there would be no problem. Let the government call it something else. And then the churches can call it whatever. "Civil unions" for everyone is a good idea.
--------------------------------------
Honestly, I used to think so. Until one of the users here (Olddaddy) convinced me differently.
My church does not perform civil unions. It performs marriages. And again, honestly, I'm really kind of fed up with my church being minimized or negated by my government. Especially when the Constitution of my country says that is illegal.
I find it so terribly troubling that American's cannot see through their own personal feelings to understand what it is exactly that they are allowing. Like Gnomexxx said, we do not live in a democracy. I have equal rights to every other citizen. And as long as the government is recognizing one marriage over another, it is recognizing one religion over another.
I am not asking for special privilege or more special treatment. I'm simply asking to be given the same treatment and recognition as everyone else.
Why not force all marriage endorsed by government to be a civil union? It would finally separate church from state, upholding the ideals of the constitution and satisfy the religious crazies at the same time. Everybody would receive the same treatment and nobody would have to hear about this bullshit on the TV anymore.
I
And that's great. It really is.
What's happening now is that the homosexuals are trying to pervert the ideology of marriage and that's not right in my opinion.
What's happening now is that you have a perception on marriage and you want that enforced on everybody else.
Don't try to suggercoat it.
It sounds like a he has a perception of religion he wants to enforce on everyone else too. And I find that the most troubling thing. It shows exactly why the founding fathers put the things in our founding documents they did. I'm glad they had the foresight to protect minorities like me.
These people really scare me. I wonder sometimes if some of the members of this group would have no problem attacking my church or some of its members. Look at his own words, he has called us a perversion. Our church has been vandalized on MANY occasions already.
Want to hear something cool though? The Jewish synagogue down the street has come and has helped us clean it up each time. Funny, we get along with them just fine. They are very cool!
Awww, time to put on the innocent face. Big bad Sargoth or someone like him is gonna attack me or my 'church'. I'd like to tell you what I really think of your little innuendo but I'm not allowed to on this site. I resent the accusation that you make. I prefer a debate to a fist fight. Spin your little sob story how you will.
You have attacked me repeatedly throughout this whole thread. Anyone can go back and read it. I have been called unnatural by you, mentally unstable, a perversion, unfit to raise a child, and more. Yet, I am somehow expected to keep my cool and not take offense to what you say.
The only sob story is your actions of attacking people without warrant. Where actions like that come from, I don't know. Your raising perhaps.
--------------------------------------
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
1-2. You're completely brainwashed: There is even homosexuality in the animal kingdom, as rare as it might be, of course you're Christian and consider yourself something special, so the rules of nature don't apply to you and you have the choice to become a homosexual if you so wish. I suppose?
Overpopulation indeed. The gay friends I've had never said they wouldn't have sex with a woman if it meant the death of the species; it's just that we're so far removed from that at the moment and they prefer to have sex with men over women. It's not a big deal. What about men who have anal sex with women? How are they any different? There is no rational explanation for your complete hatred of peoples' sexual preferences. If indeed sex should only be used for procreational purposes, then you should stop having sex without condoms, or we should stop having sex altogether and do everything in vitro ( which is generally more effective anyway ) to stop spreading diseases and optimize the population.
Of course the last part of your argument has to be addressed in my next one..
3. There is nothing scientific to support your conclusion. If you really want to convince people, then bring up some sample statistics and their corresponding sample sizes.
Meh, you've been brainwashed to not think for yourself and always wanting stats and studies. Do you think that the original philosophers needed stats or studies? I choose to talk principles and ideas not to see who can google better and find stats to fit their stories. Like I said, if you can't understand what I've said I'm done.
I don't hate either. Hate would allow me to exact physical violence. I don't like, nor accept, but I do not hate.
I don't care if you hate or not. You can hate me all you want to. Doesn't bother me one bit.
But when you come trying to take away my freedoms and rights, I will fight. It's my country as much as yours. And I've got no intentions of giving up that citizenship nor what comes with it. Those inalienable rights that my God and creator gave to me.
--------------------------------------
I would agree with you on that, except then the phrase "separate, but equal" comes into play; a validation of equality you can say.
Though not all differences are listed, there is one item that favors domestic partners over marriages and that is with Health Benefits. Domestic Partners are allowed immediate access to Health Benefits, while opposite-sex couples living in the same residence are not. In order for opposite-sex couples to gain Health Benefits, they must be married.
If there are two different terms to convey the vows then it's always going to be at risk of some kind of unequal treatment. That's the one thing that I'm pretty sure will play out.
I don't think that the state just calling them all something else is going to cause any problems. Everyone is given something like a Civil Union, or whatever neutral thing it's called. Then everyone can be happy and that word marriage isn't used as far as the government is concerned.
I bet you though that even if the word marriage were taken out of the equation, there would still be a large group of people who fight it. They just do not want us to have any equality. They want us to feel like second rate citizens in everything we do.
--------------------------------------
Honestly, I used to think so. Until one of the users here (Olddaddy) convinced me differently.
My church does not perform civil unions. It performs marriages. And again, honestly, I'm really kind of fed up with my church being minimized or negated by my government. Especially when the Constitution of my country says that is illegal.
I find it so terribly troubling that American's cannot see through their own personal feelings to understand what it is exactly that they are allowing. Like Gnomexxx said, we do not live in a democracy. I have equal rights to every other citizen. And as long as the government is recognizing one marriage over another, it is recognizing one religion over another.
I am not asking for special privilege or more special treatment. I'm simply asking to be given the same treatment and recognition as everyone else.
Any church can perform a marriage ceremony between any two people. The 'state' can't do anything to stop this. The ceremony does not make a marriage valid to the state. Its the filling out the forms that do it. That why you can go get married in front of a judge. Also even if Prop 8 was voted down a church still would be free to perform a marriage ceremony on any two people it pleases. The key word is ceremony.
There are people who believe that marriage is the sacred bond between one man and one woman. This belief holds some marriages together. By holding out for one word - marriage when everything else is equal seems to me intolerant to the people who hold on to a traditional sense of the word marriage.
So you are willing to offend many people over a word. (Remember I prefaced it as saying Civil Unions and Marriage are equal is every respect under the law).
What offends me is the government recognizing one religious marriage over another. To me, marriage is just as much a bond as it is to heterosexual couples (the ones who take it serious at least). I consider it a promise and vow said in front of God and one that I plan to keep.
If the government did not recognize marriages at all, then there would be no problem. Let the government call it something else. And then the churches can call it whatever. "Civil unions" for everyone is a good idea.
What I'm saying is the government would recognize the unions equally. And what you consider your union to be would not change in the slightest iota. If you're committed to your partner what the government calls it doesn't change that committment at all.
My proposal would be a compromise. And in a compromise you don't get everything you want. What you would be giving up is the official word 'Marriage'. You can still call your union a marriage or anyother name if you like. To me that would be a small thing to give up to appease the other side.
Honestly, I used to think so. Until one of the users here (Olddaddy) convinced me differently.
My church does not perform civil unions. It performs marriages. And again, honestly, I'm really kind of fed up with my church being minimized or negated by my government. Especially when the Constitution of my country says that is illegal.
I find it so terribly troubling that American's cannot see through their own personal feelings to understand what it is exactly that they are allowing. Like Gnomexxx said, we do not live in a democracy. I have equal rights to every other citizen. And as long as the government is recognizing one marriage over another, it is recognizing one religion over another.
I am not asking for special privilege or more special treatment. I'm simply asking to be given the same treatment and recognition as everyone else.
Any church can perform a marriage ceremony between any two people. The 'state' can't do anything to stop this. The ceremony does not make a marriage valid to the state. Its the filling out the forms that do it. That why you can go get married in front of a judge. Also even if Prop 8 was voted down a church still would be free to perform a marriage ceremony on any two people it pleases. The key word is ceremony.
There are people who believe that marriage is the sacred bond between one man and one woman. This belief holds some marriages together. By holding out for one word - marriage when everything else is equal seems to me intolerant to the people who hold on to a traditional sense of the word marriage.
So you are willing to offend many people over a word. (Remember I prefaced it as saying Civil Unions and Marriage are equal is every respect under the law).
What offends me is the government recognizing one religious marriage over another. To me, marriage is just as much a bond as it is to heterosexual couples (the ones who take it serious at least). I consider it a promise and vow said in front of God and one that I plan to keep.
If the government did not recognize marriages at all, then there would be no problem. Let the government call it something else. And then the churches can call it whatever. "Civil unions" for everyone is a good idea.
What I'm saying is the government would recognize the unions equally. And what you consider your union to be would not change in the slightest iota. If you're committed to your partner what the government calls it doesn't change that committment at all.
My proposal would be a compromise. And in a compromise you don't get everything you want. What you would be giving up is the official word 'Marriage'. You can still call your union a marriage or anyother name if you like. To me that would be a small thing to give up to appease the other side.
Just change the name of the license to something like "Consensual Union License". Then it will all be over. Everyone will be under the same set of laws and there will be no temptation to change one license later on and not the other.
Oh, and I voted NO on Prop 8 btw. We also took our kids to some of the protests to let them see what exactly was going on. I've never heard such hateful speech than what we heard coming from the people who were for this proposition. I did not hear one single bit of hateful speech coming from our side, but the people on the other side were down right scary.
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
Hmm, maybe you just didn't go to the right place then.
Hmm, maybe you just didn't go to the right place then.
Too bad they didn't kick her ass: I know if that old bitch walked in my neighborhood with that yellow dress and that cross.. she'd end up on a milk carton.
Yeah, we anti 8's are gangsta.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
1-2. Lol, you can't figure out what's fundamentally wrong with homosexuals? The human race is made up of men and women with parts specifically designed for interaction to continue with the population. That's the fundamentals. It's a negative aspect to society because they are not increasing the population. One of the reasons for marriage is to give tax benefits to couples to make it easier to raise a child. Overpopulation is another argument at this point.
3. Men and women are much like the yen and yang. They provide both aspects of a personality to properly temper a child. There is not a direct harmful effect, but the child is deprived of the natural course of parental education. Your confusing 'not harmful' and 'more beneficial'. A child benefits more from a proper home with a mother and father over any other situation in life.
If this does not make sense to you and you still demand scientific studies then I'm done talking with you.
1-2. You're completely brainwashed: There is even homosexuality in the animal kingdom, as rare as it might be, of course you're Christian and consider yourself something special, so the rules of nature don't apply to you and you have the choice to become a homosexual if you so wish. I suppose?
Overpopulation indeed. The gay friends I've had never said they wouldn't have sex with a woman if it meant the death of the species; it's just that we're so far removed from that at the moment and they prefer to have sex with men over women. It's not a big deal. What about men who have anal sex with women? How are they any different? There is no rational explanation for your complete hatred of peoples' sexual preferences. If indeed sex should only be used for procreational purposes, then you should stop having sex without condoms, or we should stop having sex altogether and do everything in vitro ( which is generally more effective anyway ) to stop spreading diseases and optimize the population.
Of course the last part of your argument has to be addressed in my next one..
3. There is nothing scientific to support your conclusion. If you really want to convince people, then bring up some sample statistics and their corresponding sample sizes.
Meh, you've been brainwashed to not think for yourself and always wanting stats and studies. Do you think that the original philosophers needed stats or studies? I choose to talk principles and ideas not to see who can google better and find stats to fit their stories. Like I said, if you can't understand what I've said I'm done.
I don't hate either. Hate would allow me to exact physical violence. I don't like, nor accept, but I do not hate.
He has been brainwashed?
That's laughable.
The scientific method has been proven to be effective countless times. Human assumption, however, has been the cause of many of the worlds myths.
A person who does research and looks at the facts will be much more educated than somebody who jumps to conclussions.
Hmm, maybe you just didn't go to the right place then.
We went to two different gatherings.
I'm sorry, but when you're holding up signs condemning a group of people to hell, how much more wicked can someone be?
EDIT:
Wait a minute, all I see is some grumpy old guy yelling at her, but for the most part I see a crowd allowing her to protest. The worse thing I see from the crowd is them chanting "shame on you". Yeah, shame on her. So what?
Where we went we saw a wash of signs condemning folks to hell, calling them abominations, talking about them being a disease upon society, and rounding them up and sending them someplace or making them "disappear". How does that compare to a group chanting "shame on you?"
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid