Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Gay marriage


detlef
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But "not let the other side be" or "ready for a last word" sort of sounds like a trivialization of one sides rather legitimate quest for equality. I would imagine that any of us, if faced with a constant attack on our rights, would also "not let the other side be".

 

I can't say for sure, but I'd like to think that, were gays granted equal rights, they'd "let the other side be". I can certainly say this, if the solution was as Savage Beatings suggests and the states just got out of the marriage game and simply recognized legal unions between consenting adults and let churches define marriage as they liked (which is exactly how I feel it should be handled), I would not be an ally to any gay person who tried to fight any church to recognize their marriage.

 

It also happens that every gay person I've spoken to would be more than happy to let churches define marriage as they pleased and would simply not choose to join that church.

 

It would be a logical solution, but unfortunately, likely not good enough for a side that seems hell bent on defining a sector of our society as wrong and beneath the rest of us. But that's not two sides refusing to let the other be. That's one side hell-bent on attacking the other and the other refusing to lie down.

 

 

I am suggesting that were gay marriage fully recognized that the religious right would not settle for that as the status quo. They will continue to battle the issue and continue to put legislation and constitutional measure on the ballot to change that. I am also suggesting that gays and those who view this as a fundamental civil rights issue, or those who view it perhaps as an issue limiting the scope of government, will never settle for less than full access to the legal, state sanctioned, recognized legal status and its concurrent benefits.

 

I am not suggesting that the sides have equally valid legal positions in my eyes. In fact I believe one side to have the wholly valid position. Mine was a point about politics, not the constitutionality of the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I support civil unions for same-sex couples, and believe a civil union should be offering the same benefits currently granted to married couples. According to our Constitution, we are all equal regardless of sexual orientation, race, or whatever. Allowing civil unions would fall under the category of equal rights for all.

 

I just don't think it should be called "marriage," because by definition and in tradition a marriage is between a man and a woman. And yes, traditions do matter.

 

On the other hand, I don't think the federal government should be interfering with state issues; it's best not to let the government make our decisions and allow elected state legislatures and voters to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support civil unions for same-sex couples, and believe a civil union should be offering the same benefits currently granted to married couples. According to our Constitution, we are all equal regardless of sexual orientation, race, or whatever. Allowing civil unions would fall under the category of equal rights for all.

 

I just don't think it should be called "marriage," because by definition and in tradition a marriage is between a man and a woman. And yes, traditions do matter.

 

On the other hand, I don't think the federal government should be interfering with state issues; it's best not to let the government make our decisions and allow elected state legislatures and voters to decide.

This is on the state ballot and it prohibits all legal unions between same sex partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think it should be called "marriage," because by definition and in tradition a marriage is between a man and a woman. And yes, traditions do matter.

Traditions do indeed matter. Many of them have been scrapped over the years as enlightenment spread. Slavery, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditions do indeed matter. Many of them have been scrapped over the years as enlightenment spread. Slavery, for instance.

You should know the difference between tradition and slavory. Slavory is a human problem that affects the whole world, it did not begin in the U.S. but it certainly ended here. Luckily the United States caught on quickly and stopped that BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should know the difference between tradition and slavory. Slavory is a human problem that affects the whole world, it did not begin in the U.S. but it certainly ended here. Luckily the United States caught on quickly and stopped that BS.

The United States was by far the last advanced country to stop slavery and it took a civil war to do it.

 

Whatever, the point I was making is obvious - traditions aren't all perfect. Usual practice is no excuse for the denial of rights to a minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States was by far the last advanced country to stop slavery and it took a civil war to do it.

 

Whatever, the point I was making is obvious - traditions aren't all perfect. Usual practice is no excuse for the denial of rights to a minority.

How is calling it a civil union and giving gays the same rights as a married couple a denial of rights to a minority? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is calling it a civil union and giving gays the same rights as a married couple a denial of rights to a minority? :wacko:

It isn't. How is using the word "marriage" - which it undoubtedly would be since people married outside church are in a "marriage" and even if no church married gays they would still be married in the eyes of the state - a problem? The only alternative to refusing the use of the word marriage to gays would be to refuse it to all not married in church, a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't.

I'm glad we agree.

 

How is using the word "marriage" - which it undoubtedly would be since people married outside church are in a "marriage" and even if no church married gays they would still be married in the eyes of the state - a problem?

Because the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman. My argument is that they would be joined together in a civil union, with the same rights as a marriage in the eyes of the state.

 

The only alternative to refusing the use of the word marriage to gays would be to refuse it to all not married in church, a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Why is that the only alternative?

 

Like I said, if an individual state votes to call it a marriage then who am I to say otherwise? These are just my opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote no

Homosexuality is wrong. What is the most important, most basic desire a species has?

It has to procreat to continue. In humans it takes a Male and Female to do that.

So at the root of Nature homosexuality is WRONG, it does not help a species procreate.

We had better ban anyone who can't have children from getting married then. They don't help procreation either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote no

Homosexuality is wrong. What is the most important, most basic desire a species has?

It has to procreat to continue. In humans it takes a Male and Female to do that.

So at the root of Nature homosexuality is WRONG, it does not help a species procreate.

And if there's one thing we can all agree upon, is that we absolutely need to be making as many babies as possible. There's simply not enough people on this planet, so we can't afford to have people partnering up and not making babies. :wacko:

 

And yes, I will be voting "no" on the amendment banning gay unions.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we agree.

 

 

Because the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman. My argument is that they would be joined together in a civil union, with the same rights as a marriage in the eyes of the state.

 

 

Why is that the only alternative?

 

Like I said, if an individual state votes to call it a marriage then who am I to say otherwise? These are just my opinions.

Where is this definition you keep referring to? The bible? OK, sounds fine. So, in other words, if you want your marriage to be recognized by a church who has decided to stick to the word of the bible in that regard (despite the fact that they have hopefully moved on from other literal interpretations of the bible), then I'd suppose you'd need to be a man and a woman.

 

Sounds good to me. So, anyone who doesn't care what that particular church says can just go ahead and get married outside the jurisdiction of that church? Like, for instance, in a courthouse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this definition you keep referring to? The bible? OK, sounds fine. So, in other words, if you want your marriage to be recognized by a church who has decided to stick to the word of the bible in that regard (despite the fact that they have hopefully moved on from other literal interpretations of the bible), then I'd suppose you'd need to be a man and a woman.

 

Sounds good to me. So, anyone who doesn't care what that particular church says can just go ahead and get married outside the jurisdiction of that church? Like, for instance, in a courthouse?

I don't know. Can anyone actually do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am suggesting that were gay marriage fully recognized that the religious right would not settle for that as the status quo. They will continue to battle the issue and continue to put legislation and constitutional measure on the ballot to change that. I am also suggesting that gays and those who view this as a fundamental civil rights issue, or those who view it perhaps as an issue limiting the scope of government, will never settle for less than full access to the legal, state sanctioned, recognized legal status and its concurrent benefits.

 

I am not suggesting that the sides have equally valid legal positions in my eyes. In fact I believe one side to have the wholly valid position. Mine was a point about politics, not the constitutionality of the question.

Makes sense. :tup:

 

And if there's one thing we can all agree upon, is that we absolutely need to be making as many babies as possible. There's simply not enough people on this planet, so we can't afford to have people partnering up and not making babies. :wacko:

This whole thing has been a fishing trip, but I fully support your decision to not bring anymore whiny pedantic beyotches onto this planet. Good job sir. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information