And they said it wouldn't last ...

randomJACKASS said:
BTW, what is so wrong with the idea of civil unions for gays? I mean can't gay folks at least concede that it offends some people and have civil unions, which in legal terms are the same as marriages? Is it so all fired important to legally use the word marriage? Hell have a civil union and informally call it a marriage!

I mean I am pro gay rights, but they sometimes want to shove in our faces as if they were better than straights and that is bullshit.

Oh and when I call them "they" I only mean "not straight" to differentiate, I think gays are "us" when we don't use bedroom activities as a definition of what a person is. Are there any gay members here with any insight?
Click to expand...

I think they want to be equal, not better.

If straights can get married, then so should gays, using the term civil union is like saying blacks can ride the bus, but only in the back.
 
Gonz said:
More fun with numbers.

First marriages tend to last. Over 55% success rate. Folks who can't make up their mind tend to boost the overall numbers considerably.



NY Times
Click to expand...
That's still a 45% failure rate. Give me a 80-90% success rate and we'll have something to discuss. *peepwall*
 
randomJACKASS said:
OK I can accept that. It just bugs me when "christians" judge gays as sick perverts who are better off rotting in hell. That is not what Jesus would have wanted. To judge an act or hobby or lifestyle is OK with me even when I disagree, but it's nobody's business to judge people that aren't harming them or anyone else.
Click to expand...

I have my suspicions, and know who I want to hang around, but it's not
my position to 'damn' them. I don't have to be around them though.

Gays don't bother me, if them keep to themselves.
I don't go out pushing sex, and I don't want gay acceptance pushed on me.
 
paul_valaru said:
I think they want to be equal, not better.

If straights can get married, then so should gays, using the term civil union is like saying blacks can ride the bus, but only in the back.
Click to expand...



I'm a big, big fan of the idea that straights should be subject to Civil Union too. In fact, MHO is that that's exactly what a Gov't licensed marriage is. A MARRIAGE is a fusion of two into one. Divorce not a possibility. Civil Union is simply a legal contract, to be nullified at any time subject to agreement by both included parties. You want to get married by the state at a courthouse? No problem, one Civil Union coming right up. You want a divorce? Fine and dandy. Got married and swore vows "til death do us part"? ... Which one of you wants to do the dying?

I really don't see where this confuses people.
 
Professur said:
I'm a big, big fan of the idea that straights should be subject to Civil Union too. In fact, MHO is that that's exactly what a Gov't licensed marriage is. A MARRIAGE is a fusion of two into one. Divorce not a possibility. Civil Union is simply a legal contract, to be nullified at any time subject to agreement by both included parties. You want to get married by the state at a courthouse? No problem, one Civil Union coming right up. You want a divorce? Fine and dandy. Got married and swore vows "til death do us part"? ... Which one of you wants to do the dying?

I really don't see where this confuses people.
Click to expand...

You got god mixed up with it. I would like to take god out of the mix altogether, if you want a ceremony, you can have one.
 
catocom said:
I have my suspicions, and know who I want to hang around, but it's not
my position to 'damn' them. I don't have to be around them though.

Gays don't bother me, if them keep to themselves.
I don't go out pushing sex, and I don't want gay acceptance pushed on me.
Click to expand...

Just like if you don't want to be around asians or don't want to accept asians right? You don't go out pushing your race so it's ok if we give some other race less rights and they should shut up about it.
 
spike said:
Just like if you don't want to be around asians or don't want to accept asians right? You don't go out pushing your race so it's ok if we give some other race less rights and they should shut up about it.
Click to expand...

I don't know What you are referring to now.

I've never said any race should have separate rights then any other.
 
If it's any consolation spike, ...
I don't think the gov. should be involved with conventional marriage either.
 
paul_valaru said:
You got god mixed up with it. I would like to take god out of the mix altogether, if you want a ceremony, you can have one.
Click to expand...

I don't see where I mentioned God or religion anywhere in that, Paul. I mentioned a vow. That vow is to each other .... (in a church, it is in the sight of God, but not to Him) and sometimes to the community.
 
catocom said:
I don't know What you are referring to now.

I've never said any race should have separate rights then any other.
Click to expand...

Treating people different, not wanting to be around them, or not wanting to accept people based on race or sexual orientation is pretty much the same thing cat.
 
ok, first thing..
I didn't even lump race in with gayness, you did.
Two totally different things.

The difference is between public/gov. and private/morals.

I can work, and get along well with most people of Any persuasion,
but it doesn't mean I'm going to invite them home for dinner.

I've Always said...I like Anyone that acts right.
Straight, gay, race...don't get over on me, and I won't bother you.
 
Professur said:
I'm a big, big fan of the idea that straights should be subject to Civil Union too. In fact, MHO is that that's exactly what a Gov't licensed marriage is. A MARRIAGE is a fusion of two into one. Divorce not a possibility. Civil Union is simply a legal contract, to be nullified at any time subject to agreement by both included parties. You want to get married by the state at a courthouse? No problem, one Civil Union coming right up. You want a divorce? Fine and dandy. Got married and swore vows "til death do us part"? ... Which one of you wants to do the dying?

I really don't see where this confuses people.
Click to expand...
Where the confusion lies is why same-sex couples can't be allowed the same legal protections allowed different-sex couples in said civil union. Yes, they are allowed such here in Quebec and most of Canada...but they are not allowed south of our border. It doesn't matter what it's called, whether it includes a vow or not, or whether it's blessed or not..the Union and the legal ramifications and privileges thereof are being disallowed.

The location of said Civil Union taking place is where theology comes into play.

A church wedding is effectively the same as a court wedding or a garden wedding or a beach in Jamaica wedding. The same forms are filled out, witnessed, signed and filed. As such, all these are equal. *please note the lower-case 'w' in wedding*

Now...some churches/religious groups don't want to have certain couples making this "Vow" or receive this "Blessing" on their property. That's fine and fair. The couples are free to go to another church and try again or opt out of the church thing and for for a straight Civil Union.

* I've known a few different-gender couples refused access for any number of reasons. (previous marriage & divorce, wrong religion, no previous membership in said church etc...)

In addition...Churches and religious groups/individuals don't want the terms Wedding and Marriage used for Civil Unions which do not include a Vow and/or Blessing...as if they're trademarked terms. The same applies to 'Husband™' and 'Wife™'.

As said before...they're free to refuse the blessing and vow in their own churches and places of worship.

BUT

That wasn't enough. They also want the vow/blessing refused in other people's churches/places of worship as well (regardless of how those churches and their members feel about it)....and have gone so far as to enact a LAW to do just that. Also a law protecting the terms Wedding™, Marriage™, Husband™ and Wife™

Therein lies the rub.

  • If a same-sex couple wants to have a Civil Union, there should be no discrimination against them (unconstitutional).
  • If they want it to be a Marriage™, they need a vow/blessing to go with said Union.
If they can find a church/place of worship that is willing to perform the ceremony, fill in the paperwork, hear the vow and bless the union - then it shouldn't be against the law to do so AND they should be considered Married™...and be able to use the terms Husband™ and Wife™.

So again...what's wrong with same-sex Marriage™ so long as they meet the requirements for the use of this term (Civil union+vow+blessing)?
 
catocom said:
ok, first thing..
I didn't even lump race in with gayness, you did.
Two totally different things.
Click to expand...

That's right they are different. But the bigotry is the same.

I've Always said...I like Anyone that acts right.
Straight, gay, race...don't get over on me, and I won't bother you.
Click to expand...

Sure you don't accept them, don't want to be around them, and have different standards for their children but yet you don't think you're bothering them. :)
 
MrBishop said:
Where the confusion lies is why same-sex couples can't be allowed the same legal protections allowed different-sex couples in said civil union. Yes, they are allowed such here in Quebec and most of Canada...but they are not allowed south of our border. It doesn't matter what it's called, whether it includes a vow or not Um, yeah dude ... it does matter a lot, or whether it's blessed or not..the Union and the legal ramifications and privileges thereof are being disallowed.

The location of said Civil Union taking place is where theology comes into play.

A church wedding is effectively the same as a court wedding or a garden wedding or a beach in Jamaica wedding. The same forms are filled out, witnessed, signed and filed. As such, all these are equal. *please note the lower-case 'w' in wedding*

Now...some churches/religious groups don't want to have certain couples making this "Vow" or receive this "Blessing" on their property. That's fine and fair. The couples are free to go to another church and try again or opt out of the church thing and for for a straight Civil Union.

* I've known a few different-gender couples refused access for any number of reasons. (previous marriage & divorce, wrong religion, no previous membership in said church etc...)

In addition...Churches and religious groups/individuals don't want the terms Wedding and Marriage used for Civil Unions which do not include a Vow and/or Blessing...as if they're trademarked terms. The same applies to 'Husband™' and 'Wife™'.

As said before...they're free to refuse the blessing and vow in their own churches and places of worship.

BUT

That wasn't enough. They also want the vow/blessing refused in other people's churches/places of worship as well (regardless of how those churches and their members feel about it)....and have gone so far as to enact a LAW to do just that. Also a law protecting the terms Wedding™, Marriage™, Husband™ and Wife™

Therein lies the rub.

  • If a same-sex couple wants to have a Civil Union, there should be no discrimination against them (unconstitutional).
  • If they want it to be a Marriage™, they need a vow/blessing to go with said Union.
If they can find a church/place of worship that is willing to perform the ceremony, fill in the paperwork, hear the vow and bless the union - then it shouldn't be against the law to do so AND they should be considered Married™...and be able to use the terms Husband™ and Wife™.

So again...what's wrong with same-sex Marriage™ so long as they meet the requirements for the use of this term (Civil union+vow+blessing)?
Click to expand...

Sadly, bish ... what I posted is obviously beyound your understanding. Being a divorcee, that's not wholely surprising ... as if you did understand it ... you'd not be a divorcee in the first place. I'm afraid you're caught in a circular trap of your own making, since to understand it would be to have to accept your own failings ... something you're not too good at. So pop me onto your ignore list, please.
 
spike said:
That's right they are different. But the bigotry is the same.
Click to expand...

bigotry involves Hate....If you'd been paying attention, you'd remember I don't
do Hate, if I can catch myself.


spike said:
Sure you don't accept them, don't want to be around them, and have different standards for their children but yet you don't think you're bothering them. :)
Click to expand...

If my views bother them, that's Their problem, not mine, or the greater society's.

I can't control your emotions, only mine.
 
catocom said:
bigotry involves Hate....If you'd been paying attention, you'd remember I don't
do Hate, if I can catch myself.




If my views bother them, that's Their problem, not mine, or the greater society's.

I can't control your emotions, only mine.
Click to expand...

I think Spike's point is over a difference of opinion as to the definition of Bigotry. He feels that any difference in the way you behave towards people, based on their differences, qualifies.

By that logic ... my not expecting to see bikinis on men is bigoted. But then, by your definition, my disgust at seeing a 300lbs man in a bikini is too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top