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.
"special privileges"? What special privileges are they asking for?
Recognition from the government, and the entitlements that accompany. They are asking for "government interference".
They claim that they are arguing for the principle that government should not dictate what goes on in personal spheres, yet they are asking for just that.
That is the special treatment. Not to mention the government interference they have managed to place on hiring. (No discrimination based on sexual orientation).
Recognition from the government, and the entitlements that accompany. They are asking for "government interference".
They claim that they are arguing for the principle that government should not dictate what goes on in personal spheres, yet they are asking for just that.
That is the special treatment. Not to mention the government interference they have managed to place on hiring. (No discrimination based on sexual orientation).
And isn't that the same rights women,blacks,muslims, and every other group of minorities are asking for? Should we repeal all their rights too???
Let us eliminate all rights and freedoms and create a homogenous society with absolute rule. The Man is awaiting applications for Arbiters of this rule.
To the OP - I do not think the arguement has ever been about direct negative effects of gay marriages...
Exactly. It's always been a matter of prejudice based primarily in religious dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossomo
You should move to California mississauga. Gay couples here are afforded every right, freedom, and liberty that of opposite sex couples. You can't call it marriage because it's not. And that's what the arguement has been about, the morphing and redefining of the word into something it's not. It's never been about some direct negative effect.
To be perfectly honest, I was never a big proponent of fighting for the word marriage. I would have been comfortable with calling the civil contract a "civil Union", as opposed to marriage. In fact, I am still perfectly fine with the concept, so long as all straight couples who marry outside of the church in city hall or somewhere else by a civil servant are also entering into a "civil union" and not a "marriage".
However, there are some churches who would and already have married same-sex couples. So, in theory it may appear to be a good idea, but, in practice "separate but equal" always translates into "separate but seperate".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossomo
Traditional marriage vows go something along the lines of this:
Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sign of God – and in the face of this company – to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is commended to be honorable
Notice how the vow says, join together this man and women. Let's go back a millenium. Here is a traditional Byzantinian wedding vow. Again, pay attention to the gender of the nouns and pronouns used.
O Holy God, You formed man out of the dust of the earth, You fashioned a woman from his rib and joined her to him as a helpmate, for it pleased your great generosity that man should not be alone upon the earth. Now, O Master, stretch forth your hand from your holy dwelling place and join these your servants (name) and (name), for You alone join the wife to her husband.
You are right. These are examples of "traditional" marriage vows. But, as times change, so does tradition. Need an example? The oft-referenced inter-racial marriage should suffice. Tradititionally, black men could not marry white women or vice versa. Eventually, society came to accept that practice as unconstitutional and a violation of basic human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossomo
It is not facist mantra to point out marriage is between a man and woman. It's just a simply truth. A rather inconvenient truth for some. The fact is, gays never had ownership of the word marriage. Being denied a word is not having your rights, freedoms, and liberties trampled.
Again, you are partially correct. It is not facist to point out that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. It is, however, facist to try to control the actions of the masses based on perceived "Moral superiority" which is what we have lived under for the the last 8 years. (Actually, 15 years since it all really started again in 1994 under Newt Gingrich.)
Fascism: a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fascist regime was indeed peacefully removed, quite soundly, in the last 2 national elections. That is also a simple truth that may be inconvient for some people.
Last edited by equality4all; 06-01-2009 at 08:12 PM..
There are endless stories of how not being able to be legally married DIRECTLY impacts the lives of LGBT Americans. We all know and hear those stories regularly.
I have yet to hear a tale of how the legalization has caused direct harm or caused a loss of freedom. I am interested in SPECIFIC and CONCRETE examples of how the Legalization of Gay Marriage in 4 states (temporarily 3) has negatively impacted your life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness.
I am not looking for the usual "It makes God angry" or "It insults my religious beliefs" answers.
Anybody care to share?
Dumbing down the culture.
i.e. black is white or because I feel something makes it true
Recognition from the government, and the entitlements that accompany. They are asking for "government interference".
They claim that they are arguing for the principle that government should not dictate what goes on in personal spheres, yet they are asking for just that.
That is the special treatment. Not to mention the government interference they have managed to place on hiring. (No discrimination based on sexual orientation).
I have asked for no such thing, nor is the LGBT Community. We are merely seeking to ensure that we enjoy the very same rights and equality, under the law, that all other members of our society are entitled to. No more, no less than that is acceptable. Period.
To assume that this civil rights struggle is an attempt to seek "special treatment" is uneducated, at best.
Last edited by equality4all; 06-01-2009 at 07:24 PM..
Why can't people deal with the topic at hand instead on searching the horizon for far-fetched things like people falling in love with objects?
I know, isn't that hilarious? It's the same old boring argument, so predictable. Those people are the really disturbed & sick ones since they think of those scenarios, not us.
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.
