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.
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.
Again.....California votes to ban SSM largely because blacks and Latinos overwhelming voted to ban it. They as a group are rarely considered conservative or republican.
Why did blacks & Latinos voted against SSM in Cali? Religion! You are screaming Baptist black Preachers and your Catholic priests preaching you are all going to Hell! Oh I forgot the Mormons from Utah as well!
Religion is so " 12th. Century"!
That is right. They are not equal and never have been. We already have a legal structure for those protections and benefits called marriage. Civil unions do not have those legal protections and benefits and have been banned in many states.
It seems that some people are all about civil unions now that the tide has turned and full marriage rights are on the horizon.
I will not have the state decide on my behalf what is officially normal anymore than I will have them decide what is officially true.
That's all well and good. No one cares what you will or will not accept in your private life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
This is all about one word and that word is marriage.
Oh. A few posts back, it was about sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Civil unions with full and equal benefits have been refused by the same-sex crowd because this is not and never has been about benefits or legal rights.
Actually, the anti-SSM referenda also banned civil unions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Same-sex marriage is an effort on the part of homosexuals and their supporters to remove the stigma of homosexuality by using the power of the state to change the meaning of the word marriage to also mean homosexual unions.
News flash - many homosexuals don't feel that their sexuality is a stigma. They don't need SSM to not feel stigmatized, they want to be married for all the reasons you want to be married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
This forces an association on heterosexuals with homosexuals whether they want it or not.
Well it also forces homosexuals to be associated with heterosexuals like you, whether they want to be or not. They don't care, because your marriage has no affect on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
This has always been the intended purpose of same-sex marriage.
The offer still stands...drop the word marriage and I`ll enthusiastically support same-sex civil unions with the same benefits and legal rights as marriage.
You'll be happy to note that this is already the case. All legal marriages in the US are civil unions. That doesn't change because gays are getting married. The church part is strictly optional. (Don't ask me why the authors of the above-mentioned referenda didn't realize this.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The only difference is that these same-sex unions will not be called marriages.
Unfortunately, neither you nor anyone else can control what people call things.
Why did blacks & Latinos voted against SSM in Cali? Religion! You are screaming Baptist black Preachers and your Catholic priests preaching you are all going to Hell! Oh I forgot the Mormons from Utah as well!
Religion is so " 12th. Century"!
No. Blacks were offended at what they saw as the corrupting of their civil rights gains. Many gays compared their experiences to what blacks went through in the 60's.
I kinda agree that it is the same but it ticked many blacks off.
Well, MOST marriages are legal across state lines. Just not same sex marriages in some states.
That is what we are discussing. If marriages can be legal across state lines so can civil unions. So I guess I'm confused now why both sides are hung up over a word.
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.
Making sure your loved one is taken care of seems a pretty decent value to me. Your mileage obviously varies.
Then define the SSM as civil unions, leave it at that and go on. That will address the legal issues the gay rights activist, seem to want. They can come together and have a family, legally adopt, legally divorce, legally do all.
It's where people wish to redefine marriage; take away that obstacle, by not doing that and live life.
I'm thinking Belgium (I get that from the op) has legally defined SSM as civil union and no drama followed. Wow, what a novel thought.
You should probably have offered compromise back when you weren't losing. Missed opportunity.
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.
