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.
Pretty much.
Why should you be allowed to force your religious beliefs on the rest of society? Last I checked this country isn't a theocracy.
You're the enemy because you want to deny equal rights and vote for people who will attempt to force their (and your) religious views on everyone else.
Discrimination isn't magically okay just because you claim it's based on religious beliefs.
Well, why do pro-homosexualist 'mirage equality'-types demand usurpation of a dead concept steeped in religious connotations for centuries?
Discriminating against monotheists is magically okay since secularism is such a mighty belief system full of regulatory vengeance sanctified by 'educated' votes? Promoting secularism over monotheism is the same as propagating it as religious faith and threads such as this proves it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Yes, because you have decided that your beliefs justify denying other human beings the chance at happiness and equality under a secular legal system. And it's ALWAYS based on illogical, uneducated, and flat out baseless reasons. Appeals to inaccurate history, or pulling Biblical verses out of context in the wrong language are the only reason people oppose gays having freedom and equality.
Segregation, slavery, and treating women as property were all justified by the Bible too you know. How quickly you all forget.
.......
The irony is Allen is black, and the slavery/segregation arguments were all based on God's separation of the races. How hypocritical that he condemns gays when the very same Bible he uses to condemn them, condemned people like him for centuries or millenia.
So grabbing the title "married" will make all that mean-ness evaporate? If all that bible-thumping, quoting & citing are so wrong, why not accept civil unions then continue to offer the minds of those that are swindled by traditional 'marriage' a better world? You know, pay social evolution forward rather than take the enormous step backwards to promote the emotional serfdom of christened relationships? Face it, you want to shove your relations in the noses of those you feel who can't/won't comprehend the irregular beliefs instilled in them and seek to smooth it all out to your benefit. Like say hello to like. See the common threads?
"Marriage equality" is a silly notion lusted after by those seeking the appearance of normalcy & the re-organization of theistic belief systems. That's it! Demanding titles from an old 'right' to dissolve past 'injustices' is rather childish, smells of rank dishonesty within one's own logic. Those with opposing thumbs eat those without and are sanctioned by an irrational deity- is that the thing you want justified?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
I live in reality. Reality: we have laws that allow couples to form joint legal entities and in doing so confers to them a collection of legal rights and responsibilities. Reality: in most places gay couples are banned from accessing that law - in spite of the Constitutional requirement that all laws be applied equally.
That's the reality. All I want is for equal access to that law. It's pretty damn simple.
I think it would be nice if the gay spouses of military members were allowed to live in family base housing or be allowed to shop at the base commissary. I also think that it's unfair married straight military members get increased family pay, but married gay military members do not. I think it would be nice that if my husband were brutally murdered I would be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the murderer. I'd like for my friend Ben to be able to bring his husband to live in the US with him under a spousal immigration visa.
I can keep going if you want.
Perhaps if you moved to a big-time sanctuary city you could have most of these wishes?
Yet, if you could have a civil union without the connotations of traditional 'marriage' but with all the inherent 'rights' you would not accept it, would call it a 'different equality'. So you seek to spite others merely since you cannot accept social evolution & embrace what has given you the power to be who you want to be? No, that's not enough, you must demand to be considered on par with those you feel oppress you. If a region has a different POV, they must be forced to accept your dogma entirely based on your supposition that you are exactly like them but wiser yet punished. I don't understand this rub, this catechism that all must embrace unilateral labels while celebrating a diversity that is expressed thru total subjugation of anything not deemed correct acceptance. That is very un-demoocratic in its totalitarian demand. That can be a defintive label concerning religion-oriented minds. People across America can get any ole ritual they want done these days and civil unions would cement the rights quite rightly deserved; it works in the UK and a few other places and will be available in many others soon. There is your 'marriage equality'. Call it a marriage and be done with it and who really cares so much what others see it as? OH! Religious zealots do!
That is reality and living in reality is not the same as living under an enforced sense of proper social customs dictated by those who don't comprehend what it is they desire. Isn't that what this battlefield of the cultural war is supposed to be about? Or is it just the power to do unto others what was done unto you?
Why do you keep believing this lie? Marriage predates Christianity by 10,000 years at least. Christianity did not even associate itself with marriage ceremonies until the 16th Century - over 1500 years after Christianity began. It was quite content with the civil marriage found in Rome. Most Protestants opposed it during the Reformation. Martin Luther called it a "worldly thing" and demanded the State control marriage, not the Church.
Have you people ever been educated? One doesn't have to be Einstein to research whether what you believe is completely fabricated nonsense.
True -- but the institution of monogamy, rather than marriage itself, was the primary stabilizing factor. The practice of arranged marriages cut across all class lines -- and it didn't mean as much in societies composed primarily of agrarian peasantry. But as a more-diverse society developed with the rise of the bourgeoisie and the crafts and guilds, the rule of one-to-a-customer allowed the maximum number of citizens to marry and develop families.
The male elite at the top still had their affairs, but kept them out of view and retained their original life partners; as an article in National Review from quite a while ago put it, "Monogamy was good for upper-class men and lower-class women".
All of which has little to do with another strain on an increasingly-stressed public treasury.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-18-2012 at 02:23 PM..
^^^^This. Woudn't this be the best compromise? Isn't that what gays want anyway, legal rights that married people enjoy? No problem. ^^^^^
I could care less what the legal construct is called be it civil marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, lasdkjflsakdjfsalkjvoasi, etc. I just want equal access to whatever that law is, regardless of the title.
Give me equal access to civil marriage law today (since that's what the current law is), and tomorrow I'll gladly join you in your fight to rename it whatever you want.
I think they just need to not call it marriage. Marriage is an institution of the church, which is against it, they created it, they perform a marriage. I can understand why they don't want to, its there traditional belief.
Now a gay partnership or whatever they want to call it, to give them all the benefits of a marriage in the eyes of the government.
As for the original question, I once was told I need to deal with homosexuals in the modern world when I said "I don't know how adults, especially a guy could watch Glee, and that it has waaaay to many sexual inuendos for middleschoolers"
Its more of about adults watching a show that busts out into bad singing every 10 minutes, Like Fresh Beat Band, that my 2 year old watches.
Then 5 min later talk about hooking up and getting a piece of something from such and such guy/girl.
I remember watching shows like Saved by the bell and they didn;t have any innuendos where the center of the conversations were about sex.
Either way I guess I just am a Nazi homosexual hater...
Civil marriage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with religion. This is a discussion about civil marriage - a legal construct of our civil, secular laws. If you want to discuss religious marriages, I suggest you go to the religion forum.
it means that you think that two people who were born gay have to have their rights dictated to by you. it means that you think that what you believe about MY LIFE gets to IMPACT MY LIFE and not yours.
It's like saying i don't believe Joan Johnson should be able to own a car, and also think that i should get the right to enforce that view legally.
what you people fail to realize is YOU don' t have a constitutional right to get to make a law that doesn't apply the same to everybody. sexual orientations aren't chosen. if you're straight you didn't 'earn' some special right. marriage is NOT a priviledge, especially if the only way to earn that priviledge is to be born with a different trait than somebody else. by definition that's called bigotry.
you can make a law that nobody can own a car, but you can't say that just Joan Johnson can't constitutionally. If you're not gay, your opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant if YOU GET TO GET MARRIED. if you get the right the so do gay people by default, and no public vote on this issue is constitutionally valid. It's nice that people have voted yes on this issue recently. but it's still not constitutional for the public to vote on this at all. I am a law abiding citizen. I don't have to ask you for a right like you're my parent and i'm you're child. It's demeaning and unconstitutional.
basically the gay couple that want's to get married are the only people who's views should matter on this issue, just like Joan Johnson's views on herself buying a car are the only person's views that really matter.
same with you, if you want to get married do you have to ask ME FIRST?
also, societies and science and knowledge advance. Just because sexual orientation wasn't mentioned in the past in socieities doesn't mean that gay people didn't exist. In the past people who were left handed were treated like they were CHOOSING to do something wrong but they weren't.
well, if this is the case, our lesbian foster daughter must hate herself and her partner because she says marriage is between one man and one woman, well she says, she sees how many feel that way.
Nothing to worry about - if the state ever legalizes same-sex marriage, they can either get married, or choose not to. It won't become mandatory to get married. And that's what many here on the forum seem to overlook. Legalizing same-sex marriage will do nothing to degrade, belittle, redefine, take away from, or otherwise harm ANYONE's heterosexual marriage. And no one will be forced to marry someone if the same gender if they don't want to.
well, if this is the case, our lesbian foster daughter must hate herself and her partner because she says marriage is between one man and one woman, well she says, she sees how many feel that way. I do think if think if the state they live in approved gay marriage, which BTW did not pass,this last time, they would change their mind and decide to get married. So, to put it bluntly, I do not feel being oppossed to gay marriage makes any of us, automatically anti gay. In some cases, of course it has a baring.
Or perhaps she's just saying what she thinks you want to hear for fear of disappointing you?
Sexual revolutions have proven that marriage is as sane a practice as slavery, as a devotion to some ethereal creator indicates weak-mindedness, that vowing emotional dependence to someone is a dramatic necessity akin to the way children at recess do when exploring themselves & society.
De facto legal rights has nothing to do with 'marriage equality'. That subject has more to do with replacing secularism with traditional religious theism in a plausible, marketable fashion. Both are grotesque but necessary since faith in a 'higher power' meting out protection & vengeances is all most people will ever need wether they know it or not. Everyone must be right in the eyes of authority no matter what iconicity is used to substantiate it.
Why become what it is that keeps you down?
Last edited by TheEternalSanctuaryMan; 11-18-2012 at 02:57 PM..
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.
