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.
Sex and sexual orientation are not behavior. Is your being heterosexual a behavior, or is it just the sexual orientation of homosexuals that is a behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Sex is not behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
Sexual attraction, sexual preference, sexual fantasy, and most certainly and assuredly sexual orientation is not behavior.
How, TexasReb, does it redefine marriage? All marriage equality does is allow same sex couples the right to marry, it does not change marriage one bit, all 1049 federal rights are still intact, it does not force straight people to marry gays, it does not force churches to marry gays. And since us gays are tax payers too, do we not deserve the same rights, the same priveleges? My being married to my spouse of 36 years does not change any of my neighbors marriages one bit, whether they know we are married or not.
SSM obviously redefines marriage.
Before ssm, the very definition of marriage meant that a spouse of a married woman was a man. You could ask a married woman what her husband's name was or if He was coming to the office party or how old He is, etc.. You could do that because every law defined marriage as woman/man.
Though I support ssm, I won't pretend it's not a redefinition of marriage.
I'm not Gay and I'm not a Christian, but I support both groups' right to the pursuit of happiness. When the movement began, I was 100% against the resistance of the Christian right. I thought and still think, that Gays should have equal rights under the law. Same tax breaks, same rights to see their loved one in the hospital if there's been an accident, etc. That's when I thought the issue was equal rights under the law, as it was originally packaged. When the Christian right began asking to not refer to it as "marriage" because that was a sacred rite from the Bible, like confirmation, baptism, etc. I thought "That seems like a reasonable compromise. Christians can stop resisting Gay rights and agree to Civil Unions, everyone wins. Christians get to keep their word, Gays get the equal rights under the law they set out to acquire. Then it became clear that the Gay activist leaders liked the power they had acquired and had no intention of stopping now. When Christians were concerned they'd be forced to participate in Gay unions, that their churches would be forced to wed them, etc. People mocked them as kooks. It didn't take long for the Gay activists to start targeting Christian owned small businesses, like bakery's, precisely as predicted. Then they began searching out and targeting CEO's and large corporations who didn't approve of their lifestyle. Then they began talking about legal ways at attack churches by revoking their tax exempt status. What's become clear is the Gay activist leadership isn't looking for equality at all, but rather some form of vengeance. It feels like since they felt persecuted by Christians they now see an opportunity to persecute them back and are gleefully engaging in the practice. In the end, the Gays have sunk to the level of the religious kooks that wanted to stop them from having equal rights in the first place. They now come off as petty, hateful and extremist, with no interest in diversity or coexisting.
Before ssm, the very definition of marriage meant that a spouse of a married woman was a man. You could ask a married woman what her husband's name was or if He was coming to the office party or how old He is, etc.. You could do that because every law defined marriage as woman/man.
Though I support ssm, I won't pretend it's not a redefinition of marriage.
Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone would even deny this?
=bobtn;38845896]Legal issues, TexasReb, are not decided by votes. This is SCOTUS turf.
There is something called "checks and balanaces", If what you say was true, then there is no reason that the SCOTUS should just be the ultimate ruler of the nation, and the other branches be abolished.
=TheDragonslayer;38845672]How, TexasReb, does it redefine marriage? All marriage equality does is allow same sex couples the right to marry, it does not change marriage one bit, all 1049 federal rights are still intact, it does not force straight people to marry gays, it does not force churches to marry gays. And since us gays are tax payers too, do we not deserve the same rights, the same priveleges? My being married to my spouse of 36 years does not change any of my neighbors marriages one bit, whether they know we are married or not.
That is a silly question, as it obviously re-defines marriage. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman...at least in this country. I have nothing against civil relationships nor live-in relationships between same same-sex couples. But that is the extent of it.
Redefining marriage to be same sex opens the door to the proverbial slippery slope to multiple partners, etc.
I'm not Gay and I'm not a Christian, but I support both groups' right to the pursuit of happiness. When the movement began, I was 100% against the resistance of the Christian right. I thought and still think, that Gays should have equal rights under the law. Same tax breaks, same rights to see their loved one in the hospital if there's been an accident, etc. That's when I thought the issue was equal rights under the law, as it was originally packaged. When the Christian right began asking to not refer to it as "marriage" because that was a sacred rite from the Bible, like confirmation, baptism, etc. I thought "That seems like a reasonable compromise. Christians can stop resisting Gay rights and agree to Civil Unions, everyone wins. Christians get to keep their word, Gays get the equal rights under the law they set out to acquire. Then it became clear that the Gay activist leaders liked the power they had acquired and had no intention of stopping now. When Christians were concerned they'd be forced to participate in Gay unions, that their churches would be forced to wed them, etc. People mocked them as kooks. It didn't take long for the Gay activists to start targeting Christian owned small businesses, like bakery's, precisely as predicted. Then they began searching out and targeting CEO's and large corporations who didn't approve of their lifestyle. Then they began talking about legal ways at attack churches by revoking their tax exempt status. What's become clear is the Gay activist leadership isn't looking for equality at all, but rather some form of vengeance. It feels like since they felt persecuted by Christians they now see an opportunity to persecute them back and are gleefully engaging in the practice. In the end, the Gays have sunk to the level of the religious kooks that wanted to stop them from having equal rights in the first place. They now come off as petty, hateful and extremist, with no interest in diversity or coexisting.
The whole civil union instead of marriage thing might have worked, except most states that banned marriage also banned civil unions, domestic partnerships, and some states even banned personal contracts that were too much like marriage. Not once has there been any serious proposal to make civil unions equal to marriage federally.
The only reason the call for civil unions is being heard now is because they are losing on the marriage front.
There is no bill or anything except random internet chatter about removing tax exempt status from churches.
There has been no "targeting" of bakeries. Unless you consider people going to a business that they had been long time customers at for a service to be targeting. Those companies were breaking the law of the state and were prosecuted by the state for it.
As for the CEO thing, boycotts happen all the time for many reasons, including the boycotts against pro gay companies by the anti equality side.
That is a silly question, as it obviously re-defines marriage. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman...at least in this country. I have nothing against civil relationships nor live-in relationships between same same-sex couples. But that is the extent of it.
Redefining marriage to be same sex opens the door to the proverbial slippery slope to multiple partners, etc.
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.
Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting
