Homosexual Marriage

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Tycoon That's not what I was thinking, I was thinking more along the lines that a gay would refer to his partner as his husband, or a lesbian to her partner as her wife. Together they would be referred to as husbands or wives.

That makes sense. If you did do the husband/husband thing though I don't think it would be too hard to get used to for Joe Blow down the street, and he's the one with the super hard head.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Then work to make the changes so that they do. The only difference there should be is that the church doesn't get to bless a civil union.

If civil unions were identical to marriages in all ways, not just at the state level but also nationally and internationally, then this would be an argument about mere semantics. However, it is not the case, because anything short of marriage is less than marriage.

TC

[yourmaster]

Tyke, I get the impression you've never met somebody you would truly want to spend the rest of your life with, when you do trivialities like you've mentioned will seem stupid.

That beside I agree with you, civil unions do just appear to me as a method some politician came up with to appease gay people and religous people at the same time.

[Hurt]

Quote by: yourmaster Tyke, I get the impression you've never met somebody you would truly want to spend the rest of your life with, when you do trivialities like you've mentioned will seem stupid. That beside I agree with you, civil unions do just appear to me as a method some politician came up with to appease gay people and religous people at the same time.

I'm sure that it pales in comparison to spending your life with someone but I don't think it means that you should give up on the concept altogether. I mean, less is less, why settle?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal If civil unions were identical to marriages in all ways, not just at the state level but also nationally and internationally, then this would be an argument about mere semantics. However, it is not the case, because anything short of marriage is less than marriage. TC

Which is the level it should be reduced to.
The only difference would be that a marriage occurs in a church with the priest giving gods blessing.
The church stole the right for people to marry for themselves. And that is all that is being asked to give back. Let them keep their mumbo jumbo service it is of no importance.

[Tycoon]

It's hard to describe why I consider 'civil unions' to be less than marriage.

The best way to say it is that when I hear the words 'civil union' it doesn't convey the feelings that you're trying to express in a relationship. Not the way marriage does.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Tycoon It's hard to describe why I consider 'civil unions' to be less than marriage. The best way to say it is that when I hear the words 'civil union' it doesn't convey the feelings that you're trying to express in a relationship. Not the way marriage does.

Consider the amount of people who get divorced in marriage, then consider the feelings that you're trying to express in a relationship.
The ceremony is but one day in your life, the feelings go on forever.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Which is the level it should be reduced to. The only difference would be that a marriage occurs in a church with the priest giving gods blessing. The church stole the right for people to marry for themselves. And that is all that is being asked to give back. Let them keep their mumbo jumbo service it is of no importance.

Nobody is FORCING churches in CA or MA to perform same-sex marriages, and nobody is planning to. However, marriage is a legal status, not a religious one, so people can indeed go in front of a judge (or a notary, sea captain, or whatever) and get married.

The supposed compromise would be for gays to have marriage in all but name, instead having it called a civil union. The problem is that, semantics aside, it doesn't carry the same legal weight. This is significant because the federal DOMA has yet to be properly tested, and it's not even vaguely constitutional.

TC

[Aussie]

Quote by: Tycoon It's hard to describe why I consider 'civil unions' to be less than marriage. The best way to say it is that when I hear the words 'civil union' it doesn't convey the feelings that you're trying to express in a relationship. Not the way marriage does.

It definitely does sound like marriage for the 'others', like everyone who doesn't fit into the marriage qualification should go sit over there and get one of 'those'.

There should be just marriage, and if you want to be married in a church, go for it, you're not harming anyone!

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Hurt I'm sure that it pales in comparison to spending your life with someone but I don't think it means that you should give up on the concept altogether. I mean, less is less, why settle?

It doesn't become irrelevant or void, just you end up realising that it all really is just triviality.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Nobody is FORCING churches in CA or MA to perform same-sex marriages, and nobody is planning to. However, marriage is a legal status, not a religious one, so people can indeed go in front of a judge (or a notary, sea captain, or whatever) and get married. TC

I'm pretty sure the issue here is that this can only happen in two of the U.S states.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: yourmaster I'm pretty sure the issue here is that this can only happen in two of the U.S states.

The issue is the evil and unconstitutional federal DOMA which allows states to pass local DOMAs that prevent the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.

TC

[Tycoon]

The issue is the evil and unconstitutional federal DOMA which allows states to pass local DOMAs that prevent the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.

Which is all an obvious violation of the idea of separation of church and state. Conservative Christians hide behind other, invalid reasons to justify their alterior motives of satisfying the will of the ignorant and intolerant religious community that follows them.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Tycoon Conservative Christians hide behind other, invalid reasons to justify their alterior motives of satisfying the will of the ignorant and intolerant religious community that follows them.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So many sheeple out there, sharing the same brain cell. Shameful.

[ItsADirtyRag]

I Wouldn't blame the sheeple complex (love that word, by the way) conservative christains soley on their ignorance. I have been going to a few churches lately, and watching bigger preachers on the internet. It seems the larger the congregation (the larger the customer base), the more sheeple-like preaching is done. The churches I have been in lately (one with an older preacher, another with a younger one) are doing less buisness, so they have to preach in a way that keeps their customers, but invities new ones without alienating anyone. They need to make more money, so they have to play nice and actually love everyone like their book says.

"Conservative Christians hide behind other, invalid reasons to justify their alterior motives of satisfying the will of the ignorant and intolerant religious community that follows them" The will of the followers is structured by the leaders, not the other way around. The popular will appears as a desire to hate and be ignorant because that is how the leaders (preachers) want it. The conservative christain movement has a monopoly on certain kinds of orgaized hatred, and they use it to attain goals.

[Hurt]

Quote by: yourmaster It doesn't become irrelevant or void, just you end up realising that it all really is just triviality.

You've settled.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Then work to make the changes so that they do. The only difference there should be is that the church doesn't get to bless a civil union.

Look, it's really very simple. If a civil union offers fewer rights than a marriage, as is the case today, then it's blatantly unfair and should be replaced with marriage. And if it it offers the same exact rights as a marriage, then why aren't we just admitting that it IS a marriage?

As I pointed out on another thread, South Park once made fun of this by suggesting that, instead of calling it a marriage, they'd call it "butt buddies".

Finally, the idea that civil unions are something a church can't create would mean that gays would be forced to get married by a judge. This is silly. Why wouldn't we allow any sufficiently non-bigoted church to marry same-sex couples if they're willing to?

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: yourmaster I'm pretty sure the issue here is that this can only happen in two of the U.S states.

Well, yes, and moreover, the fact that a same-sex marriage from one of those two states is not immediately recognized by all other states and the federal government.

TC

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Hurt You've settled.

He left me. So not really.

[Tycoon]

I Wouldn't blame the sheeple complex (love that word, by the way) conservative christains soley on their ignorance. I have been going to a few churches lately, and watching bigger preachers on the internet. It seems the larger the congregation (the larger the customer base), the more sheeple-like preaching is done.

Yes, but it is the followers that carry the weight of the majority that the Conservative Christian politicians hide behind.

The will of the followers is structured by the leaders, not the other way around. The popular will appears as a desire to hate and be ignorant because that is how the leaders (preachers) want it. The conservative christain movement has a monopoly on certain kinds of orgaized hatred, and they use it to attain goals.

Yes, but we're not talking about preachers, we're talking about politicians.