Massachusetts Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Turin39789

But the reason we have troubles with jobs and wars is the lax morals in america. If it werent for 'tolerance' of homosexuals and their ilk then we would have dealt with saddam a lot sooner when it wouldnt have been as much of a problem. If it werent for their civil unions and special rights we would be able to focus our budget better and increase jobs and production and a host of other problems. Instead we have to spend our time trying to keep their evil out of our schools, workplaces and now even our churches. The whole thing makes me sick and how any of you can defend what they have done to our great nation is beyond me.

Whoa...dude...stop the hate!

wow!

Damnit, i was hoping to get more flames for that post, but it looks like this thread has died.
I was being sarcastic.

I have walked door to door for the fairness campaign locallly if you know what that is

I got Skoorbed.

I should have known better.

As for the Fairness campaign...can we somehow find a way to deport Rev. Coleman? That's only fair, after all!

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Turin39789

But the reason we have troubles with jobs and wars is the lax morals in america. If it werent for 'tolerance' of homosexuals and their ilk then we would have dealt with saddam a lot sooner when it wouldnt have been as much of a problem. If it werent for their civil unions and special rights we would be able to focus our budget better and increase jobs and production and a host of other problems. Instead we have to spend our time trying to keep their evil out of our schools, workplaces and now even our churches. The whole thing makes me sick and how any of you can defend what they have done to our great nation is beyond me.

Whoa...dude...stop the hate!

wow!

Damnit, i was hoping to get more flames for that post, but it looks like this thread has died.
I was being sarcastic.

I have walked door to door for the fairness campaign locallly if you know what that is

I got Skoorbed.

I should have known better.

As for the Fairness campaign...can we somehow find a way to deport Rev. Coleman? That's only fair, after all!

ah coleman, im a fairly active activist in louisville and to be honest I havent worked with the guy, but i dont see how he really helps anymore. He may have done something back in the day but 99 percent of louisville just turns off their ears when they hear his name.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: conjur
And, TerryMatthews, what is the big deal? It's a freaking WORD! You're looking to make a politically correct term. Like getting rid of "evolution" in place of "biological changes over time".

Originally posted by: Jzero

Kind of like common law marriages. Those people were never 'married' in a church, so they only take advantage of the legal connotation of the word. Something along the lines of civil union or enjoinment would work much better.

They may not take advantage of the spiritual union YOU approve of, but they have a spiritual union nonetheless.

I can't believe people are willing go to such lengths over a matter of semantics. Call it a "union" Call it a "doogawacka" or some other made-up word. Call it a "marriage."

Who cares? My upcoming heterosexual Christian marriage will be no less sacred just because non-christian homosexuals use the same word to describe their doogawackas.

Both of you jumped to the same (wrong) conclusion. I could really care less if two guys want to enter into a monagamous buttsex relationship and pay for the privlidge to do it. I really don't care if they even call it a marriage.

That being said, the government should maintain as much distance as it can from religion. When religion and government come together, nothing good ever comes of it. No matter how far back in time you look. Borrowing a religious term to describe something under the law is a bad idea, and this is why.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: conjur
And, TerryMatthews, what is the big deal? It's a freaking WORD! You're looking to make a politically correct term. Like getting rid of "evolution" in place of "biological changes over time".

Originally posted by: Jzero

Kind of like common law marriages. Those people were never 'married' in a church, so they only take advantage of the legal connotation of the word. Something along the lines of civil union or enjoinment would work much better.

They may not take advantage of the spiritual union YOU approve of, but they have a spiritual union nonetheless.

I can't believe people are willing go to such lengths over a matter of semantics. Call it a "union" Call it a "doogawacka" or some other made-up word. Call it a "marriage."

Who cares? My upcoming heterosexual Christian marriage will be no less sacred just because non-christian homosexuals use the same word to describe their doogawackas.

Both of you jumped to the same (wrong) conclusion. I could really care less if two guys want to enter into a monagamous buttsex relationship and pay for the privlidge to do it. I really don't care if they even call it a marriage.

That being said, the government should maintain as much distance as it can from religion. When religion and government come together, nothing good ever comes of it. No matter how far back in time you look. Borrowing a religious term to describe something under the law is a bad idea, and this is why.

there was a time in europe when churches took on some judiciary duties, marriage being one of them (inheritance / sucession being another). the government is not borrowing a religious term, they're simply the current authority in that matter.