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.
So, let's change the terminology (you know how the present administration loves to change terminology): if "civil union" was substituted for the term "marriage" as a legal definition for everyone across the board, would you be happy and allow the rest of us, church-going and otherwise, continue to call our unions "marriage" if we prefer to do so?
You'd have the equality you want, but not the terminology. Would you be happy then? If not, why not?
It has been explained many times before. Separate is never equal and is not treated as equal. If the unions for gay people are the same as that for straight people, why call it something else? The church, nor its practioners own the word marriage. Marriage means the joining of two, what difference does it matter if a gay couple call their union marriage? How and why would it affect your straight marriage? In many states, a civil union is banned, so are domestic partnerships. Many christians do not want us to have any union that may resemble their marriage or receive the same rights and benefits. Making marriage, which is a secular union first, equal for all solves all the problems related to the discrimination that results with a union called something other than marriage. Universal marriage equality will work, if people give it a chance.
It has been explained many times before. Separate is never equal and is not treated as equal. If the unions for gay people are the same as that for straight people, why call it something else? The church, nor its practioners own the word marriage. Marriage means the joining of two, what difference does it matter if a gay couple call their union marriage? How and why would it affect your straight marriage? In many states, a civil union is banned, so are domestic partnerships. Many christians do not want us to have any union that may resemble their marriage or receive the same rights and benefits. Making marriage, which is a secular union first, equal for all solves all the problems related to the discrimination that results with a union called something other than marriage. Universal marriage equality will work, if people give it a chance.
Just as I thought...
It's terminology then, even if "union" also means "joining"?
As you say, "If the unions for gay people are the same as that for straight people, why call it something else?"
OK, then. Let's let the law call all of them unions, and the "marriage" argument goes away.
So, let's change the terminology (you know how the present administration loves to change terminology): if "civil union" was substituted for the term "marriage" as a legal definition for everyone across the board, would you be happy and allow the rest of us, church-going and otherwise, continue to call our unions "marriage" if we prefer to do so?
You'd have the equality you want, but not the terminology. Would you be happy then? If not, why not?
You could certainly do that, but what would it accomplish? No couple is going to say, "We're civilly unionized". They will say, "We're married", which means the concept will still exist, and will over time become synonymous with both arrangements, so it's a pretty meaningless argument.
Language evolves. You can't stop it from doing so just because you hold some ridiculous value on an English word. Why are you so hung up on marriage? You do realize G-d never called it marriage right? The word didn't exist yet.
A lot of churches in my state are performing weddings for same sex couples; is it safe to assume that you have no problem calling them marriages?
Sorry, but I don't consider the churches performing weddings for same sex couples real churches. They're an evolution, a secular, liberal organization. As such, they can call them whatever they want. That's my point, call all of them "unions" and each can call it what she/he/it wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
You could certainly do that, but what would it accomplish? No couple is going to say, "We're civilly unionized". They will say, "We're married", which means the concept will still exist, and will over time become synonymous with both arrangements, so it's a pretty meaningless argument.
Language evolves. You can't stop it from doing so just because you hold some ridiculous value on an English word. Why are you so hung up on marriage? You do realize G-d never called it marriage right? The word didn't exist yet.
So, why are you so hung up on the word? Over time, with language evolving, you would get used to the term "unionized". After all, we use it now in other contexts and it would become common place.
And, don't start quoting the Bible. You'll go around in circles with that, and be way off topic. It's never worked before when liberals try it.
Sorry, but I don't consider the churches performing weddings for same sex couples real churches. They're an evolution, a secular, liberal organization. As such, they can call them whatever they want. That's my point, call all of them "unions" and each can call it what she/he/it wants.
Geez, and for a while there I thought maybe we were on the same page.
Who are you to say what a church that performs same sex weddings is or isn't? That they aren't 'real" churches if they perform weddings for same sex couples! How incredibly arrogant of you!
Just because not all churches are as close-minded and restrictive and bigoted as you think they should be doesn't mean squat.
Separate is not equal, and in nine states and the District of Columbia, same sex couples are getting married and are getting to call what they have a real "marriage."
You may not like it, you may not approve of it.......but you have to accept it.
No one is asking you to embrace it and no one is telling you that you have to approve of it.
Yes they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar
But, guess what? You do have to accept…
No we do not. We are under no obligation or requirement whatsoever to accept the notion of homosexualized “marriage”. Redefining marriage to accommodate the homosexual in a handful of states doesn’t equate by any means to a society’s desire for, let alone acceptance of, the notion of homosexualized "marriage". The homosexual gets a piece of paper akin to a so-called “college degree” from a mail order “university”.
Sure they can prance around and say “look we’re married” but don’t expect everybody to say “what a lovely couple”, smile upon, agree, approve, accept or embrace the situation.
The homosexual fails to acknowledge that many folks simply do not care or, more importantly, even want to know that somebody is homosexual. Some consider it disgusting and revolting and this doesn’t mean they “hate” the homosexual either. Folks do not have to like it and folks do not have to want it and the angry militant name calling / bullying isn’t going to change one iota of that one bit.
Many are not going to, nor will they ever, view a homosexual couple as married no matter what documentation they may have or socially engineered legal particulars that managed to get manipulated for the sake of judicial activism. People, everyone, has to want it. You can’t force, make or bully compliance with that which is not desired or wanted universally or otherwise.
Sorry, but if the government recognizes same-sex marriages, you haters can hate all you want. If you're doing business with a same-sex married couple, you will have to recognize the marriages as legitimate. And if you don't, you can expect a well-deserved lawsuit.
Some of you may find homosexuality to be disgusting. I don't care. I may find you disgusting too. But I still have to recognize your legitimacy as a citizen and recognize all of the rights that you have been afforded in this country.
No we do not. We are under no obligation or requirement whatsoever to accept the notion of homosexualized “marriage”. Redefining marriage to accommodate the homosexual in a handful of states doesn’t equate by any means to a society’s desire for, let alone acceptance of, the notion of homosexualized "marriage". The homosexual gets a piece of paper akin to a so-called “college degree” from a mail order “university”.
That "handful of states" could very well be much more in 2014.
I predict Oregon and California will do the right thing and vote for marriage equality.
And how many more will join them I can only guess.
Quote:
People, everyone, has to want it.
If the trend continues, then most certainly the majority does want it. Just because you (the minority) doesn't want it means nothing if the majority supports it and votes for it.
Quote:
You can’t force, make or bully compliance with that which is not desired or wanted universally or otherwise.
When the majority of voters say they approve of it, then your argument that it is not wanted "universally" doesn't hold water.
And if it passes in your state, the law will force compliance. That doesn't mean you have to run out and marry someone of the same sex but it also means that you don't get to go against the law and say, "Nah, nah, nah.....I don't want it so that means it isn't so."
The law is the law.
Besides, the "bullies" are people like YOU - who want to deny two people who want to commit to each the right to do so legally.
Quote:
Folks do not have to like it and folks do not have to want it and the angry militant name calling / bullying isn’t going to change one iota of that one bit.
No.....you don't have to like it but you do have to accept it as law in the states where it is legal. That's a fact that you can't change.......no matter how "revolting" you think it is.
Of course there can never be a discussion about homosexual “marriage” around here without the inevitable and obligatory name calling directed at those who disagree with the notion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
If you're doing business with a same-sex married couple, you will have to recognize the marriages as legitimate. And if you don't, you can expect a well-deserved lawsuit.
As for businesses, which are not the everyday man on the street, the lawsuits haven’t worked out too well now have they? Sure they’ve succeeded in cultivating more enemies and reflecting poorly on the homosexual but they have failed to ever make, force or bully any business into complying with the disgruntled homosexual and their demands. The inn in Vermont never hosted the lesbian “wedding” reception, the bakery never baked the homosexual “wedding” cake, etc.
Getting even and bullying fails to accomplish the homosexual militant’s agenda for complete and unconditional compliance although they sure enjoy finding outlets for their rage. It would better serve the homosexual trying to cultivate friends but instead they prefer to bully and “stick it” to people they hate, “teach them a lesson” and otherwise perpetrate their ongoing vengefulness and perpetual unhappiness. It obviously frustrates the homosexual that they are unable to bully through lawsuits, name calling and otherwise the everyday non-business person who just happens to disagree.
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.
