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.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I don't understand the difference? You are hung up over a word?
Apparently there is a difference or marriage would not need to be redefined. "Legally" equalize civil union rights to marriage rights and problem is solved. It is really a simple solution to a problem people wish to make complicated.
EDIT or is there a different problem I'm not seeing at face value?
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 06-02-2015 at 10:38 AM..
Reason: adding EDIT
Then make it exist. Laws can change. Equalize legally civil unions to that of a marriage. That also takes away the idea that it is a second class legal status. No redefinition of marriage required.
So rather than open the already existing legal structure to more citizens, kind of like how the term voter was opened to blacks and women, we should create a whole new legal structure, change all documents that mention marital status,and change all laws that mention marital status? That is tens of thousands of laws on the books that will need to be changed just because of the use of a word that no one has ownership of.
Even IF this were to happen, same sex couples would still call it marriage, and there would be nothing anyone could do about it. So socially it would still be called marriage, and the only difference would be on a piece of parer that no one really sees anyways, PLUS it would cost millions of dollars to change all of those laws.
Apparently there is a difference or marriage would not need to be redefined. "Legally" equalize civil union rights to marriage rights and problem is solved. It is really a simple solution to a problem people wish to make complicated.
Even simpler solution. Allow same sex couple access to the already existing legal structure called marriage. Which will be happening in a couple of weeks anyways.
Wow. Though I didn't share my Grandparents world view, I didn't deliberately try and provoke them. Little thing called "respect". Maybe you've heard of it? My Grandparents loved me and I loved them back. My parents didn't share all the views and opinions of their parents either, but flying colors in their face never entered my folks minds, either. A d yon thought shocking and angering yon Grandparents was "fun "?
Perhaps this fits the mold of fbe breakdown of family that is being talked about? That seems an unfair and quite vi fictive way to treat your Grandparents. Their game on things may have differed , radically, from yours, but that is the world they lived in, all their lives. If yon tell me I should like the smell of shyte, throwing a bucket of it in my face sure isn't going to convince me you're on the right track. , Ahh, but the ..exuberance..of youth, does often lead us to think such .methodology is the best bet to get the point across.
Idk, maybe yon actually despised your Grandparents, maybe your parents , as well. I have a good family, so maybe I'm just lucky. Neither my Sister, or I, share the take on things my parents and Grandparents do/did. But we never let that divide us, as a family. Hate to tell you this, but, you made a point for the opposition. Could be a three pointer. Breakdown of family, in this manner, is a big talking point on one side of the fence here.
Even though I already know where I come down on the issue at hand here, I'm meaning toward thinking breakdown of family IS a valid concern, that bears further looking at as to a possible correlation.
I have a great family and love my grandparents. But that doesn't mean I can't call them on their B.S...that's just not how my family works. We operate on total honesty...if we disagree with a member of our family, we let them know. My grandparents have had to move their positions over the years...I married outside of my race. My cousin is a lesbian in an SSM. My brother had a child out of wedlock. The world didn't end...we all are successful people who contribute to society...
I don't buy into the whole "deference to older generations" or family thing. If you have a belief, put it out there and don't worry about what other people (including your grandparents) think.
Apparently there is a difference or marriage would not need to be redefined. "Legally" equalize civil union rights to marriage rights and problem is solved. It is really a simple solution to a problem people wish to make complicated.
EDIT or is there a different problem I'm not seeing at face value?
I'm missing the entire problem. Seems to me, and please clarify if I'm wrong. You seem to be stuck on a word. No matter the official designation, when two people come together they are going to celebrate being married.
Homosexual marriage is absolutely nothing more than a desire to get money and benefits from states and the federal government. It has nothing to do with love, reproducing, values, etc.
Even simpler solution. Allow same sex couple access to the already existing legal structure called marriage. Which will be happening in a couple of weeks anyways.
Right because this is really about forcing religious people to accept an immoral lifestyle as a natural part of society.
"Some people still think their religious morality should be enshrined in law by a secular government."
That`s rich!
So if you don`t like the morality of the majority, you just call it someone`s religion, proclaim the government secular and effectively invalidate the will of the people?
The morality of the majority (60%) *is* that SSM should be legal.
It is my impression that most (not all) people who oppose SSM do so for religious reasons. Or else, there are an awful lot of people quoting the bible who, if they were honest, wouldn't be.
The US government *is* secular. The founders designed it that way, and I think they were right. But then I'm a big fan of the Enlightenment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
[i]Statists want to enshrine homosexual unions in marital legalese that was never intended for anything but committed sexual unions between one man and one woman and then whine about being excluded.
They were never included when the laws were made, so how can they be excluded now?
If you want to be included, rewrite the laws so that they reflect the will of the people as it specifically relates to same-sex marriage.
That's exactly what's happening. For about the last 20 years, laws have been rewritten to ensure that gay people are not being discriminated against. AFAIK, SSM is the last big issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Does anyone need a religious text to explain that another man`s hairy ******* isn`t a vagina and ought not be used in place of one?
A little common sense would be in order.
It`s a poop chute.
What homosexuals do to each other is not sex and it has nothing to do with nature`s design.
If you don't want to call it sex, you certainly don't have to.
Nature has no design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
FTR, all civil rights have been decided by a vote at some point in time.
What usually happens - society goes along as it always has, until some group of people wipes the sleep from their eyes, says "hey! I'm tired of being a third class citizen, I pay taxes too!", and starts a movement which successfully convinces a growing number of their fellow citizens that they have a point. New laws are voted in some places, but not others. The issue goes to SCOTUS, which, after several tries, acknowledges that yes, they do have a point.
Gay people have navigated this course, as have non-rich men, women, and blacks before them.
Right because this is really about forcing religious people to accept an immoral lifestyle as a natural part of society.
The death penalty is legal in many places but I still do not consider it a legitimate practice.
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.
Perhaps this fits the mold of fbe breakdown of family that is being talked about? That seems an unfair and quite vi fictive way to treat your Grandparents. Their game on things may have differed , radically, from yours, but that is the world they lived in, all their lives. If yon tell me I should like the smell of shyte, throwing a bucket of it in my face sure isn't going to convince me you're on the right track. 
, Ahh, but the ..exuberance..of youth, does often lead us to think such .methodology is the best bet to get the point across. 
