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.
Marriage (the legal institution) != Marriage (the religious institution)
Your church can define marriage however it chooses. The government can not discriminate without showing how it would further the state interest. The government can not make laws based on your, or any, religion.
Keep your religion in your church, home, heart, and out of the government.
The bottom line: the only argument people can make to deny gay folks from enjoying liberty, equality and civil rights is based on their religious beliefs.
There is no sane, rational, reasonable or scientific argument to deny gay people their right to be treated as first class citizens.
It all boils down to prejudice founded on religious superstition.
The bottom line: the only argument people can make to deny gay folks from enjoying liberty, equality and civil rights is based on their religious beliefs.
There is no sane, rational, reasonable or scientific argument to deny gay people their right to be treated as first class citizens.
It all boils down to prejudice founded on religious superstition.
If people are honest with themselves, they would recognize that in this country, there isn't even a religious reason.
A shining example of rational thought:
"Abyssinian Baptist Church Pastor Calvin Butts does not personally believe in same-sex marriage, but he also doesn’t believe that his faith should deprive others of their rights."
He stated "Well, it’s something that we don’t believe in, in terms of what we have learned from the Bible. But in terms of men and women having their rights as citizens and human beings, we certainly affirm that. You should have every right as a citizen of this nation and every right as a human being to enjoy the freedom that God has given you. The choice is yours. And I should not stand in the way of you making that choice."
It's simple. Redefinintion of words in the context of politics is a very bad idea. "Marriage" is an English word that has had a pretty clear definition for a long time. Now we've got a political interest group that wants to alter the definition.
The scary thing to me about the newspeak strategem is how effective it is. Consider the term "assault weapon," which was never used by firearms makers, but was coined by gun control advocates. Since it entered the lexicon, Americans have mostly supported banning them in polling, although doubtless few could define what it meant. Likewise with "partial birth abortion" on the right side of the aisle. It was a term never used by abortion providers, but coined by pro-life advocates. And likewise, poll data shows more often than not that Americans support a ban, even though most could not define it.
I am old enough to recall how the Nixon admin was famous for the use of newspeak. When caught in BS, they backtracked by terming said BS as "inoperative." The Obama admin is equally skilled at this game. Blowing billions of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of cronies is termed "economic stimulus" and the MSM buys it hook, line, & sinker.
If lefties and gay activists wanted to call it "civil unions," I would be on board in a heartbeat, as I think would 99 percent of Americans, even evangelicals. But that's not enough; the left insists that they must have the power to redefine a word. That makes me nervous.
Yes, and you as well have become skilled at this idea of creating an "effective term." In your case your use of the word "redefinition." How is traditional marriage being redefined? Allowing same sex couples to marry will not change opposite sex marriage whatsoever.
What people of your ilk try to do, is create inflammatory words that are effective in scaring the masses with less knowledge into believing that somehow heterosexual marriage will not be as sacred. Why is it, that fewer and fewer straight people are even getting married? That so many children are born out of wed lock, and are unplanned, and the fact that divorce is so rampant, and acceptable. Some are so irrational, they want to blame homosexuals; that somehow gays are responsible for the breakdown of heterosexual marriage. How ridiculous can you get? Virtually every argument concocted by the anti-same sex marriage brigade becomes more and more irrational, if not hysterical.
Why the two different terms? How about civil unions for everyone? No marriages at all.
What is so special about the "m" word that drives so many of you to want it just for yourselves? You sound like kids fighting over a toy.
Once again it's about 'newspeak' and the redefinition of words in the context of politics. Why does that seem to be so tough for people to grasp? It's not a matter of "fighting over a toy," it's just that there's a principle at stake.
And by the same token, why is the "m" word so important to so many 'gay marriage' proponents. When offered the option of putting everybody under "civil unions" for government purposes, they seem to recoil. Not good enough. They want that stamp of 'M.' It doesn't really make sense unless there is an underlying impulse to have the power to redefine a word.
Once again it's about 'newspeak' and the redefinition of words in the context of politics. Why does that seem to be so tough for people to grasp? It's not a matter of "fighting over a toy," it's just that there's a principle at stake.
And by the same token, why is the "m" word so important to so many 'gay marriage' proponents. When offered the option of putting everybody under "civil unions" for government purposes, they seem to recoil. Not good enough. They want that stamp of 'M.' It doesn't really make sense unless there is an underlying impulse to have the power to redefine a word.
Because all of the laws pertaining to marriage have the "M" word. All of the protections associated with marriage are written with the "M" word.
It is far easier to allow us to get a legal civil marriage, than to change every law at the state and federal level that mentions marriage, and change every form that has marriage or marital status on them.
The Senate of the country of Uruguay has just passed legalized same-sex in that country; the legislative lower house passed it in late 2012. Uruguay will be the second South American country to recognize marriage equality (after Argentina).
Let the states decide the issue. And as far as 'gay rights' are concerned, the Bill Of Rights works just fine.
Letting the states decide ignores the denial of 1,138 benefits related directly to federal marriage recognition. And because letting the states decide always works so well when it comes to the rights of citizens in the UNITED states of America. Uh-huh.
As for referring to all of it as a "civil union" for every couple regardless of gender, are we also going to re-issue every single marriage certificate already out there with a new one to reflect the new name? That'd be a wise use of funds.
A few years ago my state (and others) went through all laws to get rid of the now-deemed-offensive term of 'oriental.' There was no outcry about "use of funds." It was done, and was considered no big deal. Why couldn't we do it again? Law Bans Use of 'Oriental' in State Documents - NYTimes.com
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.
