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.
Adam and Steve should have used their influence to fight for legal equality between civil union status and marriage status, thus completely avoiding any protest from the religious right against redefining what has long historically been and should only be a religious categorization ("marriage"). Ignoring civil unions and fighting for marriage is a blatant attack on religion, thus I have no sympathy for the hypothetical Adam assuming that he and his partner were after "marriage" instead of legal parity for civil unions. Of course, I would have no protest against a gay friendly Church "marrying" them as long as it wasn't in a manner that redefined marriage for other religions. Of course, gay unfriendly religions would not recognize their union as a "marriage", as would be their right. In essence, the larger argument is removing government involvement in a religious sacrament. Doing so would clear up all conflict, but that is not what the LGBT movement was after either.
Adam and Steve should have used their influence to fight for legal equality between civil union status and marriage status, thus completely avoiding any protest from the religious right against redefining what has long historically been and should only be a religious categorization ("marriage"). Ignoring civil unions and fighting for marriage is a blatant attack on religion, thus I have no sympathy for the hypothetical Adam assuming that he and his partner were after "marriage" instead of legal parity for civil unions. Of course, I would have no protest against a gay friendly Church "marrying" them as long as it wasn't in a manner that redefined marriage for other religions. Of course, gay unfriendly religions would not recognize their union as a "marriage", as would be their right. In essence, the larger argument is removing government involvement in a religious sacrament. Doing so would clear up all conflict, but that is not what the LGBT movement was after either.
What rock did you crawl out from under? Every state that ban same-sex marriage also banned civil unions! Get a clue.
What rock did you crawl out from under? Every state that ban same-sex marriage also banned civil unions! Get a clue.
Because gays did not want a compromise with civil unions. So if the legislature is going to acknowledge there is no same-sex marriage they might as well ban civil unions too until the time that gays built support for civil unions to pass. Gays never wanted just civil unions which was a more accepted compromise.
Because gays did not want a compromise with civil unions. So if the legislature is going to acknowledge there is no same-sex marriage they might as well ban civil unions too until the time that gays built support for civil unions to pass. Gays never wanted just civil unions which was a more accepted compromise.
How do you know? If something is banned then it wasn't even offered as a compromise.
Adam and Steve should have used their influence to fight for legal equality between civil union status and marriage status, thus completely avoiding any protest from the religious right against redefining what has long historically been and should only be a religious categorization ("marriage"). Ignoring civil unions and fighting for marriage is a blatant attack on religion, thus I have no sympathy for the hypothetical Adam assuming that he and his partner were after "marriage" instead of legal parity for civil unions. Of course, I would have no protest against a gay friendly Church "marrying" them as long as it wasn't in a manner that redefined marriage for other religions. Of course, gay unfriendly religions would not recognize their union as a "marriage", as would be their right. In essence, the larger argument is removing government involvement in a religious sacrament. Doing so would clear up all conflict, but that is not what the LGBT movement was after either.
My parents have been married for 35 years with absolutely zero religious influence. In fact, when they couldn't find a rabbi to marry them because my dad is not Jewish, they got married by a Justice of the Peace. Marriage is only a religious categorization if you are, in fact, religious. Go back under your rock, kthx.
Okay, suppose we have two guys, Adam and Steve, who are in a long-term relationship. Adam's family is supportive. Steve's family, on the other hand, upon finding out that he was gay, threatened him with violence, completely disowned him and cut him out of their lives completely, and removed him from receiving an inheritance.
Sadly, Steve falls off of the roof and is mortally injured. While Steve is on life support, his family comes to the hospital and signs papers to take him off life support and for him to pass away. They bar Adam from entering the hospital to say goodbye at the threat of arrest from the police. After Steve passes away, his family quickly takes all of Steve's belongings, has a quiet funeral, and gets a restraining order against Adam so he can never visit Steve's grave nor have any access to any possessions that were in Steve's name originally but that they jointly used as a couple. Any attempts for Adam to honor Steve's memory will be met with the threat of violence.
So my question to you is twofold:
1. Do you think what Steve's family did was acceptable and proper?
2. If you do not, what do you think should be done to help the situation?
You got your way on homosexual marriage. What? Do you need to convince yourself of it's rightness by throwing out weird scenario's?
Sounds like you are okay with using violence to make others accept adam and steves relationship ( clergy, business, employers etc,) but not okay with it when steves parents use it against adam.
I think all levels of government should be out of the marriage biz and consenting partners can get married in a church and draw up contracts to ensure the above scenario doesnt take place.
I believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman...PERIOD! If any other kind of relationship wishes to have some of the same benefits as a married couple they can come together in a CIVIL UNION.
Technically the visitation rights in medical institions being restricted to immediate family, if I understand correctly, is up to the rules imposed by each institution. At least I certainly hope so...I don't believe this is something in which the government of any level should be involved.
The Supreme Court was wrong...I have faith in America and our Constitution that this bad decision will be repealed.
I believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman...PERIOD! If any other kind of relationship wishes to have some of the same benefits as a married couple they can come together in a CIVIL UNION.
Technically the visitation rights in medical institions being restricted to immediate family, if I understand correctly, is up to the rules imposed by each institution. At least I certainly hope so...I don't believe this is something in which the government of any level should be involved.
The Supreme Court was wrong...I have faith in America and our Constitution that this bad decision will be repealed.
Nope, we can have a marriage, just like you.
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.
