Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
How hard did you work to come up with wording that allowed full rights, but still oppressed gays? What rubbage.
What was rubbish about how I see your position? What specifically do you take issue with in my characterization?
I don't understand how somebody can be for gay civil unions but against gay civil marriage. They are the same frickin thing. The law is the law is the law NO MATTER WHAT IT'S CALLED. The law is the same no matter if it's titled "marriage", "union", "partnership", or "lskjasdljf".
Why are you okay with gays having access to a law titled "Civil Union" but not having access to an identical law instead titled "Civil Marriage"? Why do you feel the government should reserve the word "Marriage" within the law especially for heterosexuals? Isn't the law suppose to treat all equally? Isn't the laws suppose to be blind?
The answer is clear - because of your religious beliefs. You want the civil law to be a reflection of your particular religious beliefs. I don't share your religious beliefs and your religious traditions. Why should my civil marriage, and our civil law in general, be defined by your religious beliefs?
What was rubbish about how I see your position? What specifically do you take issue with in my characterization?
I don't understand how somebody can be for gay civil unions but against gay civil marriage. They are the same frickin thing. The law is the law is the law NO MATTER WHAT IT'S CALLED. The law is the same no matter if it's titled "marriage", "union", "partnership", or "lskjasdljf".
Why are you okay with gays having access to a law titled "Civil Union" but not having access to an identical law instead titled "Civil Marriage"? Why do you feel the government should reserve the word "Marriage" within the law especially for heterosexuals? Isn't the law suppose to treat all equally? Isn't the laws suppose to be blind?
The answer is clear - because of your religious beliefs. You want the civil law to be a reflection of your particular religious beliefs. I don't share your religious beliefs and your religious traditions. Why should my civil marriage, and our civil law in general, be defined by your religious beliefs?
Not even sure why I'm bothering again with you. You seem to have some weird obsession with putting your own spin on what a person is telling you outright. So, here goes (again):
-I believe that "marriage" should be a religious ceremony where a man and a woman form a union under God's eyes.
-I believe that those who wish to form a non-religious union should be granted civil unions and this union can cover all types of of-age consensual adults (gays, plural marriages, etc).
-I believe that "marriages" and "civil unions" should have the same rights, under the eyes of the law. Or only civil unions are automatically recognized and those who get married have to bring their signed marriage certificates from their religious leader to have their marriage recognized under federal law.
I realize that this probably won't ever happen (or at least not in my lifetime) and I recognize that my religious views/opinions shouldn't outweigh the rights of others. So, while I believe that gays have not placed enough significance in fighting to have civil unions receive full and equal rights, if the only way for gays to receive full rights equal marriage, then let them marry. It does not change my viewpoint and it does not mean that I agree with gay marriage and/or homosexuality.
Now let's see how you will continue to spin this to make it seem like I want to oppress gays.
Not even sure why I'm bothering again with you. You seem to have some weird obsession with putting your own spin on what a person is telling you outright. So, here goes (again):
-I believe that "marriage" should be a religious ceremony where a man and a woman form a union under God's eyes.
Traditional or religious marriages are private associations between two or more people. Any person should (and does) have the freedom to associate in such a relationship in any way he or she sees fit and any religious institution should be able to (and is able to) define marriage along whatever theological lines it so chooses.
If your Christian religion teaches that marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a women, then great. I wish you happiness in your Christian marriage. If your religion teaches that a marriage is a sexually open arrangement between a women, 3 men, and a desk lamp, then I wish the 5 of you happiness in your marriage.
I personally am an atheist. I have no religious conception of marriage at all. None.
Quote:
-I believe that those who wish to form a non-religious union should be granted civil unions and this union can cover all types of of-age consensual adults.
Sounds great to me. We already have that in our civil law: it's called civil marriage. It's completely separate from and unrelated to religious marriage. It's strictly a secular, government thing. I've never understood people who say us gays are trying to "redefine" marriage. Civil marriage is a law. It has no connection to any religious definition of the word marriage. Civil marriage is created by, and solely defined by, civil marriage law.
If you truly believe in equal treatment under the law, then you'd be fine with - in fact you'd demand - that gays be allowed to access civil marriage law (you know, be treated equally).
Quote:
-I believe that "marriages" and "civil unions" should have the same rights, under the eyes of the law.
Why should "marriages" - which you define as a religious (Christian) ceremonial commitment - have any rights associated with them under our civil, secular law at all?
We have something in this country called separation of Church and State. It's enshrined in our 1st Amendment. The government can't tell me or a church what we can define as a marriage. Likewise, religion can't define or inform our laws (including our civil marriage laws). To entangle religious and civil marriages would be a gross violation of the Separation of Church and State. If you want a religious marriage, go to a church or temple or mosque. If you want a civil marriage, then submit papers to the court (I'm pretty sure that how this marriage thing works in America).
Quote:
Or only civil unions are automatically recognized and those who get married have to bring their signed marriage certificates from their religious leader to have their marriage recognized under federal law. I realize that this probably won't ever happen (or at least not in my lifetime) and I recognize that my religious views/opinions shouldn't outweigh the rights of others. So, while I believe that gays have not placed enough significance in fighting to have civil unions receive full and equal rights, if the only way for gays to receive full rights equal marriage, then let them marry. It does not change my viewpoint and it does not mean that I agree with gay marriage and/or homosexuality.
Now let's see how you will continue to spin this to make it seem like I want to oppress gays.
I've said this before to you and I'll say it again. I don't care at all what the law is called: a marriage, a civil union, a domestic partnership, or a pojlakjdf. As long as it's one law with one name for everybody, them I'm happy (as will be the Judiciary). However, why should us gays have to fight to completely dismantle our system of civil marriage laws and then rebuild it exactly the same but under new terminology? That would take decades (if ever). Why should your "disagreement" over associating the word marriage with homosexuals mean I'm denied equal rights for even 1 more day? The remedy, not to mention a requirement of our Constitution, is to simply apply the law equally to all.
I haven't spun anything here. You keep conflating religious and civil marriages. You keep insisting that if the word "marriage" is used within our civil law, then it should be defined by your particular religious beliefs (although you seem to be backing off that in the sentence I underlined). It just so happens that your particular religious definition of marriage is bigoted against gay people. When you say "I'm against gay marriage" the EFFECT of what you're saying is "I'm against equal rights for gay people". The EFFECT is the oppression of gay people by the denial of civil rights.
How hard did you work to come up with wording that allowed full rights, but still oppressed gays? What rubbage.
I don't know why you think making a distinction between civil union and gay marriage will make the slightest bit of difference. People are not going to say, "We're civilly unionized". Society will quickly alter any notion of that term to marriage, which means it will still be gay marriage.
Marriage is not a religious institution. Your division of Christianity opposed it so much, they created civil marriage and spread it across Europe and the United States. Until you learn that basic concept, this argument is never going to go anywhere.
Not even sure why I'm bothering again with you. You seem to have some weird obsession with putting your own spin on what a person is telling you outright. So, here goes (again):
-I believe that "marriage" should be a religious ceremony where a man and a woman form a union under God's eyes.
-I believe that those who wish to form a non-religious union should be granted civil unions and this union can cover all types of of-age consensual adults (gays, plural marriages, etc).
Can you explain to me why, you deserve to own the word marriage and apply it only to Christians? Never in US history has marriage been a Christian institution. Why do you get to define it for the rest of humanity?
I'm for equal rights. I'm not for gay marriage. I don't believe enough has been done to seek full rights under civil unions. IMO, that would be the easiest route for gays having full rights. But it seems to be some sort of weird way for gays to make this a religious fight.
I oppose gay marriage, so I wouldn't vote to support it. I would abstain from any vote against it.
By abstaining you are essentially for it. Every vote will be needed come November. There is no shame in expressing your constitutional rights. Don't let these radical gays bully you. I will proudly vote against this come November and I hope you and many others will do the same.
By abstaining you are essentially for it. Every vote will be needed come November. There is no shame in expressing your constitutional rights. Don't let these radical gays bully you. I will proudly vote against this come November and I hope you and many others will do the same.
Where in the Constitution does it say you have the constitutional right to deny homosexuals their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law?
Can you explain to me why, you deserve to own the word marriage and apply it only to Christians? Never in US history has marriage been a Christian institution. Why do you get to define it for the rest of humanity?
Sorry, but your self hating, religiously conflicted gay uncle Toms don't speak for the desires or beliefs of the mainstream gay community. Not by a looooong shot.
I don't think I ever said they did. But they do have the same opinion of most log cabin Republicans.
I don't really get how such a liberal state as NJ is run by so many social conservative Republicans.
And Christie has absolutely zero comprehension on how rights are granted in the US. Hint: Not by popular vote.
Good point.... Do you agree with how they ARE granted???... That is the million dollar question....
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
