Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 How is calling it a civil union and giving gays the same rights as a married couple a denial of rights to a minority? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dethic Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Vote noHomosexuality 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 (edited) Vote noHomosexuality 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. And yes, I will be voting "no" on the amendment banning gay unions. Edited September 24, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 We used to outlaw interracial marriages too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 We used to outlaw interracial marriages too. Traditions matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 We used to outlaw interracial marriages too. ....so Americans wouldn't have been able to marry Russians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2011 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 ....so Americans wouldn't have been able to marry Russians? Just Black Russians. So all you need to do is add milk. Then you're good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 I don't know. Can anyone actually do that? I got married outside the jurisdiction of the church Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I got married outside the jurisdiction of the church Is it a legal marriage in the eyes of the state, and do you get the same rights as those who are married in a church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 Is it a legal marriage in the eyes of the state, and do you get the same rights as those who are married in a church? is that a real question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 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. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 is that a real question? Is that a real answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 whatever happened to a slippery orgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) whatever happened to a slippery orgy Looks like where spain went off to? Edited September 25, 2011 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.