U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Labor Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:03 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,582 posts, read 9,590,649 times
Reputation: 2518
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelyinLa View Post
This is not a civil rights issue. If it were a civil rights issue it would be saying that only a particular man (i.e. Black, White, etc.) could be married. As it stands, ALL men are allowed to get married. No, this is about redefining marriage. So as for the genius remark, right back at you.
How thick are you? Not only is your skewing of the issue childish, but it's also wrong. Black people used to be forbidden from marrying whites, even though they could marry each other. That was repealed. It was a civil rights issue.

GENIUS!

 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:04 PM
 
2,022 posts, read 2,573,333 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
Apparently, you haven't read posts here calling for exactly that. And since the protesters are targeting churches, how unfounded were my concerns, REALLY?
Demanding that churches lose their tax exempt status for getting involved in politics is COMPLETELY different than demanding that churches lose their tax exempt status for refusing to marry a gay couple. The former scenario is completely plausible, the latter scenario is very unlikely.
 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
754 posts, read 888,277 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangodoodles View Post
I care about the word marriage because it shouldn't only apply to Christians. The goverment uses it to describe all straight people who have entered into a civil union including atheists and you seem to have no problem with that. Your problem comes when the government considers using it to describe a same sex couple. That doesn't seem fair, does it? Like some other people have mentioned, maybe the government should call all marriages civil unions and give everyone the exact same rights. Would that be a suitable compromise? I think so. That way everyone uses the same name for a union without redefining religion as it is defined in the bible. Then people who get married in church can say they were married but "officially" they have a civil union. Then anyone can say they are "married," gay couples included, but officially all marriages are known as civil unions by the government. Does that sound fair?

In my last post, I didn't bring up the civil rights movement and we wouldn't have to bring it up if you guys didn't want excuses for why gay people deserve the same rights. There are many parallels between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement just as there are many parallels between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. We draw on history and our experiences to give examples of how we believe things affect us and the world. If you choose to get offended by this common practice of drawing on personal experiences to explain our points, then that's your prerogative. In the post you claim you won't "stoop to my level" which I guess is expressing my opinion honestly? Yet you "stoop" to calling me pathetic and desperate because I think that Yes on 8 people are jerks and bigots. I'm just being honest, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just telling you what I think of you.

But hey, it is a bit comforting to know that you aren't happy that gay people now have less rights than you and I have.
I'm glad you realize that I'm not getting some kind of perverted joy from all of this. I'm definitely not, as a matter of fact it's just the opposite. This entire issue has raised my blood pressure.

Anyway, eliminating the word marriage from everyone would definitely be one way to end this, but again, you continue to use the word married which I have to ask, why?

I said I wouldn't stoop to your level because I respect your opinions and I don't feel the need to call you a name simply because you disagree with me about this. But you're right, you're entitled to that opinion.

I can't get beyond this whole civil rights comparison. How is it a civil rights issue when the rule is true across the board? It doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't say only some men can marry men. Actually, this is more about sexual preferences if anything. Remember Gay people are people first and Gay second.
 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:16 PM
 
2,022 posts, read 2,573,333 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelyinLa View Post
I'm glad you realize that I'm not getting some kind of perverted joy from all of this. I'm definitely not, as a matter of fact it's just the opposite. This entire issue has raised my blood pressure.

Anyway, eliminating the word marriage from everyone would definitely be one way to end this, but again, you continue to use the word married which I have to ask, why?

I said I wouldn't stoop to your level because I respect your opinions and I don't feel the need to call you a name simply because you disagree with me about this. But you're right, you're entitled to that opinion.

I can't get beyond this whole civil rights comparison. How is it a civil rights issue when the rule is true across the board? It doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't say only some men can marry men. Actually, this is more about sexual preferences if anything. Remember Gay people are people first and Gay second.
I agree that some people have a hard time understanding the comparisons being made between gay rights and civil rights but like I said, we draw on our own knowledge or history and our past experiences and it is easiest for most people to describe something using an example that has parallels. I just see the similarities. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking when you say that the rule is true across the board but do you mean how a gay man can marry but he has to marry a woman? Because some people have been saying, "Oh, well a gay man or a lesbian woman can get married, it would just have to be to someone of the opposite sex." Which I think defeats the purpose. But I'll be happy to answer your question so long as you clarify it for me.

I use the word married because I think most people would still like to call themselves married. It's hard not to use the word marriage. I personally don't see it as a religious word with religious connotations but a lot of people obviously do. The word marriage is used to describe people who have their ceremony at the courthouse as well as the people who choose to have their ceremony at a church and it would be difficult to get out of the habit of using it. So, if you get married you can say, "My husband and I got married last year." If my cousin gets married he can say, "My husband and I got married last year." BUT...both of you in reality have entered into a civil union with the exact same rights. That way, religion isn't involved at all but you can have a ceremony in the church if you so choose. Gay couples can also have their ceremonies in a church or temple that is willing to perform them such as Unitarian Universalist churches.
 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Hot Springs, AR
5,612 posts, read 9,110,314 times
Reputation: 3589
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangodoodles View Post
Demanding that churches lose their tax exempt status for getting involved in politics is COMPLETELY different than demanding that churches lose their tax exempt status for refusing to marry a gay couple. The former scenario is completely plausible, the latter scenario is very unlikely.
Whether you pronounce it to-MAY-to or to-MAH-to, you'll still end up with a red piece of fruit.
 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:46 PM
 
2,022 posts, read 2,573,333 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
Whether you pronounce it to-MAY-to or to-MAH-to, you'll still end up with a red piece of fruit.
Really? Because refusing to marry gay people isn't grounds for removing tax exempt status but donating money and voters to a partisan political cause certainly is grounds for removing tax exempt status. There is a big difference, you just want to argue about it.

P.S. You know where you can put that tomato, right?
 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:55 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,582 posts, read 9,590,649 times
Reputation: 2518
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
Whether you pronounce it to-MAY-to or to-MAH-to, you'll still end up with a red piece of fruit.
Yes, and murder is the same thing as self-defense!
 
Old 11-09-2008, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Hot Springs, AR
5,612 posts, read 9,110,314 times
Reputation: 3589
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangodoodles View Post
Really? Because refusing to marry gay people isn't grounds for removing tax exempt status but donating money and voters to a partisan political cause certainly is grounds for removing tax exempt status. There is a big difference, you just want to argue about it.

P.S. You know where you can put that tomato, right?
Very mature. Nastiness because one can't have an adult conversation. Lots of non-profit organizations donate to political causes and recruit voters including Gay ones. I guess they should lose their non-profit status as well. You do want to be treated fairly, right?
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:02 PM
 
3,288 posts, read 2,542,677 times
Reputation: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
Very mature. Nastiness because one can't have an adult conversation. Lots of non-profit organizations donate to political causes and recruit voters including Gay ones. I guess they should lose their non-profit status as well. You do want to be treated fairly, right?
Nobody cares because this hasn't actually happened not is there proof that it would happen, whereas gays being denied the right to a legal marriage has happened.
 
Old 11-09-2008, 05:04 PM
 
2,022 posts, read 2,573,333 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
Very mature. Nastiness because one can't have an adult conversation. Lots of non-profit organizations donate to political causes and recruit voters including Gay ones. I guess they should lose their non-profit status as well. You do want to be treated fairly, right?
No, we're talking about religious organizations. A religion shouldn't be able to create a shell group to funnel money into a political cause. Non-profit organizations vary widely. I work for a non-profit that exists to tutor children who live in public housing. They don't donate to political causes. It would be fine if Mormons individually decided to donate but their church told them to. And yeah, like I said previously, all religions that get involved in politics should lose their tax exempt statuses. This includes whether or not I agree with their positions. They shouldn't be allowed to tell their members what to do. And that wasn't nastiness, get a sense of humor already...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top