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.
Well, then let's get the govt out of the "marriage business" as someone else suggested.
Those who want to form a union outside of religion can form civil unions (straight or gay).
Those who want a religious bond can marry.
How about let those who want a religious marriage get a religious marriage with the religious institution choosing whether or not they want to grant the religious marriage and those who want to go city/town hall to get a civil marriage get a civil marriage
Well, then let's get the govt out of the "marriage business" as someone else suggested.
Those who want to form a union outside of religion can form civil unions (straight or gay).
Those who want a religious bond can marry.
How will they form civil unions if government is no longer involved? So not only would gays not be able to marry or form civil unions, but neither could heterosexual couples. This is one of the two options I mention. Either all or nothing.
And I stand by my statement (although you wrote it wrong). The Civil Rights movement is not comparable to the gays current issue re: marriage. It just isn't. There are many civil rights issues that have happened throughout US history (the woman's right to vote for one), yet only the Civil Rights Movement is used to draw a comparison. It's wrong and it's insulting. Perhaps I'll lighten up when you show me proof that gays:
-were enslaved for hundreds of years in the US
-were ripped from their families, sold off, raped by their masters, etc
-were subjected to govt-sanctioned Jim Crow laws
Can you do any of that?
For one thing, marriage is not the only right gays are fighting for. How about the right to visit their spouse/partner in the hospital? Or didn't you know how easy it currently is for the partner's parents or other family member to take over and not let them in? How about the right to keep a good paying (or any) job when your boss learns you're gay or lesbian or transgendered? How about the right not to be kicked out of your rented home if the landlord discovers you're gay, lesbian or transgendered. And the whole point is that all of those are civil rights enjoyed by the rest of us. For most of us, the only reason any hospital could keep us away from our loved ones is to prevent transference of infections; unless our personal conduct in some way damages our employer's reputation, the only reason for firing is not being able to do the job; and the only legal reason for eviction is either not paying the rent or not taking proper care of the property. And those are only a few of the ways in which the GLBT community is discriminated against every day! Perhaps you can come to realize that not all civil rights are based on release from slavery.
Then the fight should be to change civil union laws so that those who form such unions have the same rights that are afforded to married couples.
Why? What real difference would it make in your life, or in your marriage if the gay couple next door had a civil marriage license rather than a 'civil union certificate'?
Nah. I've argued this whole thread that gays should be allowed the same rights as married couples in their civil unions. If civil unions don't allow this now, then those laws should be changed/redefined. Folks have breathed down my neck saying that it wasn't good enough.
But that (the bolded) is where you're arguing for "separate but equal" by saying gays shouldn't be allowed to call their unions marriage. My question to you is - what is your reasons for not wanting them to be able to say "we're married"?
Why? What real difference would it make in your life, or in your marriage if the gay couple next door had a civil marriage license rather than a 'civil union certificate'?
For that matter, what difference would it make in anyone's life or marriage if the gay couple next door were operating a callboy service for Barney Frank?
The point is not that every behavior, to be considered offensive, need be personally harmful to everyone at all times -- only that it violate social norms which have been established to create a civil society with collective interests which include monogamy, progeny, and moral and biological rectitude.
Your perspective would seem not to exclude any behavior not taking place in anyone's physical presence. Surely that is not your intention....
Not at all. First, I have no problem with a man and a woman marrying. Second, I just recognize that this type of marriage hasn't always been the only one, so to say that only the heterosexual union is traditional ignores history and speaks to a personal bias.
Yes, but where’s your proof? It’s not enough to just say it. Don’t you realize this?
Sure, you're allowed dissention, but typically a person who disagrees has an actual reason. If you can't answer a basic question as to what will happen if they are both called marriages (since you obviously believe there will be a negative to it), then what is the point in holding that dissent in the first place?
I do have a reason…you just don’t deem it good enough. That’s not my problem. How would I know what would happen if gay marriage was allowed? I don’t possess a crystal ball into the future. You’re asking me to answer something that has yet to occur and that’s just not possible.
Evidence has already been provided. You just don't like what that evidence is, so you attempt to change the question.
I must have missed it. Since you claim it exists, what’s the harm in providing it? The only evidence I saw about how gay marriages were traditional occurrences was a page from some Google book that provided no evidence to support their argument. When did I attempt to change the question? Can you provide exact evidence of this?
No, I said denying that there are similarities is dishonest and ridiculous, which it is, no matter how many times you insist it. I'm not even sure why you are trying to argue that who had it worse has anything to do with the argument of equality. It doesn't. Further, you ARE suggesting that gays not be treated equal because you yourself clearly don't believe that they are equal in the first place.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong. I’ve never stated that gays aren’t equal. And I can’t debate someone who just makes stuff up to buttress their argument.
And again, marriage equality can only happen in one of two ways: call them all marriages or eliminate the federal and state governments from being involved at all. That means no more federally-protected rights or benefits provided by marriage. BTW, how can it be logically reasoned that if the government gave gays all the same benefits as straight couples, the ceremonies, the documents, etc... but claim they are two separate things?
Again, I’m all for civil unions and gays having the same rights as married couples. You can believe otherwise. You won’t change my belief and I’m definitely not going to change yours. So, why are we going around in circles?
I just think you're someone who has never actually examined their own positions, because otherwise you would see how completely ridiculous they actually are. This is not about a subjective opinion saying you are wrong. This is about examining history, law, and rights and saying, yeah, none of that support your position on this. It's time to grow up.
I'm not sure what good it does to debate with you. You provide little evidence and want to resort to name calling. Are you capable of having a debate without calling the opposing view ridiculous?
You say examine history, law, rights, etc....yet no where in this thread do I see what so many are claiming...that marriage is not an institution that is between a man and a woman. Who can refute this argument? Who can show that gay marriage has always been a part of society and was a common tradition? I'm not talking about a Wikipedia article or someone's blog, but actual scholarly articles that include research, artifacts, etc.
It's time to grow up? Again with the down talking. It really does nothing for your argument.
You said earlier in the thread that your opposition was mostly religious based you then chose to use bible quotes. You want your personal religious beliefs to dictate the laws in this country. That IS a Theocracy,
If I magically said "OK, I'm alright with gay marriage" what exactly would change? How am I an impediment to what you want? I don't want my religious beliefs to dictate anything...I just gave a reason why I don't agree with it. If the US Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is allowed I won't commit suicide, commit hate crimes, leave the country, etc. I'm sorry you want to think otherwise, but thinking it doesn't make it true.
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.
