What exactly is the argument against Gay Marriage?

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I will accept that it is the will of the majority, just as I have always stated. If the majority of americans feel that homosexual marriages are ok, then the government has an obligation to recognize that as a "civil union," "marriage," whatever. It would be wrong of me to ask homosexual to accept the majority decision to not accept homosexual marriage and then for me to not accept a majority decision to accpet homosexual marriage.

Not sure if "need" was the best word, but I couldn't think of anything else. Though I hope you understood what I meant, which I think you did. However, food, water, and shelter are all a human "needs" to survive, but not to exist, or more correctly, to continue to exist/survive. That requires a heterosexual relationship. Doesn't mean homosexual relationship can't happen, and I've never told them that they shouldn't, because that's just my opinion and nothing more.

Marriage has nothing to do with the survival of our species. It can play a part, but even without it, we would still survive.

The majority of people often know what's best for themselves, not for others.

The majority of people don't care if homosexuals marry, because it doesn't affect them one way or another.

The majority of people voted against homosexual marriage because the majority of people were going to vote against homosexual marriage.

I've always believed that if you ask someone if they are for or against it, 1 on 1, they would tell you one thing.
But if you ask them in front of friends or family, that answer would change completely.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

M: Very true. I don't give a rats ass what some gays will settle for. I want them to have the whole ball of wax as is their Constitutional right in my opinion. I believe in JUSTICE and will accept nothing less. Many gays object to gay marriage. Bully for them. A lot are doubtless peeved that the marriage issue casts shadows on their own promiscuous life styles and they look at marriage with contempt.

The one things that seems to be becoming increasingly obvious is the fact that your argument is not about homosexual marriage. Your whole argument is religious influence in governmental law. You just see the ban on homosexual marriage as a result of this "problem." As you stated, you don't give a "rats ass" about how homosexuals feel about this problem. You obviously feel you know better than they do about what they want and what is right, and you're going to give it to them whether they want it or not. So why don't you leave them out of it and start talking about what your real problem is?

Hey, if all else fails, you can keep beating the dead horse you call "bigot." Actually, that doesn't seem to be a very good argument for you either, so you might not want to go there either.

Try to understand. You are evil because you want to deny a class of homosexual that would like to express the same God given right to legalize and proclaim to the world their feelings of sacred love for each other. Homosexuals that want to deny that right to their fellow homosexuals are evil too. That is why I do not care about their position. I do indeed know better than they do because they are willing to accept what is good for them and not what is best for their sister and brother. I am not like that. I got mine long ago and have no dog in this fight except that JUSTICE matters to me. I believe in ideals of the highest order and strive to make truth something real. Calling you a bigot, which you fit exactly by definition, serves to point out the smallness of your position. Sadly your emotional worth to yourself is vested in your position and so you cling to it to protect your ego. Because I went through hell killing myself I know what it is you fear. But I defeated the nothingness and discovered LOVE. There is only LOVE and homosexuals discover that too. And we are all the same, even you, created in HIS IMAGE. It is through the heart you will know. The truth can never be stilled. It's not in the Bible but in the Soul.

 

[crimson117]

My two cents is that the government should stop recognizing marriages at all. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, woman/woman/woman, whatever. If they want to grant eachother marriage-type rights, then speak to a lawyer and grant them to eachother. Marriage itself is a religious/spiritual union. Even if you're not religious, marriage is a public promise for two people to mutually commit themselves to eachother. Why does the government need to get involved at all?

Restricting the types of marriages that are available to people is a way of choosing sides in religious debates. One church's marriages are recognized, while another church's marriages aren't recognized? Sounds like the government is establishing prefeernces for some religions over others.

Does the government recognize Bar Mitzfa's (sp)? How about First Communion? Or Confirmation? No, it doesn't bother. Why does it bother with marriage?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: crimson117
My two cents is that the government should stop recognizing marriages at all. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, woman/woman/woman, whatever. If they want to grant eachother marriage-type rights, then speak to a lawyer and grant them to eachother. Marriage itself is a religious/spiritual union. Even if you're not religious, marriage is a public promise for two people to mutually commit themselves to eachother. Why does the government need to get involved at all?

Restricting the types of marriages that are available to people is a way of choosing sides in religious debates. One church's marriages are recognized, while another church's marriages aren't recognized? Sounds like the government is establishing prefeernces for some religions over others.

Does the government recognize Bar Mitzfa's (sp)? How about First Communion? Or Confirmation? No, it doesn't bother. Why does it bother with marriage?

Because the people feel that the government can make better decisions than they can themselves. After all, they do govern. People don't want to bother with it.
But in doing so, they are giving the government even more power and push over their own lives. But people are content as long as they have their nice houses, nice cars and a wal-mart around each block.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I will accept that it is the will of the majority, just as I have always stated. If the majority of americans feel that homosexual marriages are ok, then the government has an obligation to recognize that as a "civil union," "marriage," whatever. It would be wrong of me to ask homosexual to accept the majority decision to not accept homosexual marriage and then for me to not accept a majority decision to accpet homosexual marriage.

Not sure if "need" was the best word, but I couldn't think of anything else. Though I hope you understood what I meant, which I think you did. However, food, water, and shelter are all a human "needs" to survive, but not to exist, or more correctly, to continue to exist/survive. That requires a heterosexual relationship. Doesn't mean homosexual relationship can't happen, and I've never told them that they shouldn't, because that's just my opinion and nothing more.

Marriage has nothing to do with the survival of our species. It can play a part, but even without it, we would still survive.

That's 100% true. That's why I used the word "relationship," though maybe that wasn't the right word. I never meant to imply that marriage was required, only a heterosexual "act." Would that be a better word?

The majority of people often know what's best for themselves, not for others.

The majority of people don't care if homosexuals marry, because it doesn't affect them one way or another.

The majority of people voted against homosexual marriage because the majority of people were going to vote against homosexual marriage.

I've always believed that if you ask someone if they are for or against it, 1 on 1, they would tell you one thing.
But if you ask them in front of friends or family, that answer would change completely.

That is very true and very sad at the same time. People need to learn to stand up for themselves and their beliefs and quit worrying about how others will look at them. That's a big reason it's taken this long for subjects like this to even come up.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

So an assassination attempt of a murderous tyrant isn't justified?

True. But I would turn a blind eye...

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Try to understand. You are evil because you want to deny a class of homosexual that would like to express the same God given right to legalize and proclaim to the world their feelings of sacred love for each other. Homosexuals that want to deny that right to their fellow homosexuals are evil too. That is why I do not care about their position. I do indeed know better than they do because they are willing to accept what is good for them and not what is best for their sister and brother. I am not like that. I got mine long ago and have no dog in this fight except that JUSTICE matters to me. I believe in ideals of the highest order and strive to make truth something real. Calling you a bigot, which you fit exactly by definition, serves to point out the smallness of your position. Sadly your emotional worth to yourself is vested in your position and so you cling to it to protect your ego. Because I went through hell killing myself I know what it is you fear. But I defeated the nothingness and discovered LOVE. There is only LOVE and homosexuals discover that too. And we are all the same, even you, created in HIS IMAGE. It is through the heart you will know. The truth can never be stilled. It's not in the Bible but in the Soul.

You do have quite an interesting outlook. I do not doubt in any way that you have gone through hell in your life, and I'm very happy for you that you have been able to come out of it retaining the ability to love. That says a lot about you.

However, you persist in this "idea" that I somehow "fear" something. I fear one thing, and that's God. I don't fear for my life as I know that I will live on after this life on earth. I don't fear for my family as I know that I will be with them forever. I do not fear for my country as I know that if we hold to the laws of God, we will have his protection. The ONLY thing I fear is displeasing the God that has shown me such great love and compassion.

You may feel that I don't know what these things are, and that's your opinion. Being as love is something that you can't hold, handle, are visually see, I would think most people opinions as to what love is would differ. Seems only logical.

I would say, as I have before, let religions handle marriage and keep that government out of it. Fix all laws that say people must be married in order to receive this benefit. That way, everyone is happy.

You would say, the government must recognize gay marriage, and if they don't, then don't give them anything. Why? Because you're not willing to separate benefits from marriage.

So who's the real bigot and who is the one who really doesn't understand love?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: crimson117
My two cents is that the government should stop recognizing marriages at all. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, woman/woman/woman, whatever. If they want to grant eachother marriage-type rights, then speak to a lawyer and grant them to eachother. Marriage itself is a religious/spiritual union. Even if you're not religious, marriage is a public promise for two people to mutually commit themselves to eachother. Why does the government need to get involved at all?

Restricting the types of marriages that are available to people is a way of choosing sides in religious debates. One church's marriages are recognized, while another church's marriages aren't recognized? Sounds like the government is establishing prefeernces for some religions over others.

Does the government recognize Bar Mitzfa's (sp)? How about First Communion? Or Confirmation? No, it doesn't bother. Why does it bother with marriage?

Because the people feel that the government can make better decisions than they can themselves. After all, they do govern. People don't want to bother with it.
But in doing so, they are giving the government even more power and push over their own lives. But people are content as long as they have their nice houses, nice cars and a wal-mart around each block.

LOL. That's great!! Question though, would that make Sam Walton the anti-Christ? (It's just a joke, let's please not get into that)

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: crimson117
My two cents is that the government should stop recognizing marriages at all. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, woman/woman/woman, whatever. If they want to grant eachother marriage-type rights, then speak to a lawyer and grant them to eachother. Marriage itself is a religious/spiritual union. Even if you're not religious, marriage is a public promise for two people to mutually commit themselves to eachother. Why does the government need to get involved at all?

Restricting the types of marriages that are available to people is a way of choosing sides in religious debates. One church's marriages are recognized, while another church's marriages aren't recognized? Sounds like the government is establishing prefeernces for some religions over others.

Does the government recognize Bar Mitzfa's (sp)? How about First Communion? Or Confirmation? No, it doesn't bother. Why does it bother with marriage?

Because the people feel that the government can make better decisions than they can themselves. After all, they do govern. People don't want to bother with it.
But in doing so, they are giving the government even more power and push over their own lives. But people are content as long as they have their nice houses, nice cars and a wal-mart around each block.

LOL. That's great!! Question though, would that make Sam Walton the anti-Christ? (It's just a joke, let's please not get into that)

Maybe. Who knows. He might be the devil.
All I know is I am one of those people content with a nice house, nice car, and a walmart around each block. Until personal tragedy strikes me, I won't rise up and speak. I am happy and content just to sit back and let those with more drive and determination do the job for me.
In otherwords, I am lazy and not out to change the world. And I don't deserve to benefit from what others have done and are doing. Just like a good portion of America.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

HA! Soliders murder people everyday, is that not justifiable? What about women who kill there abusive husbands? Shouldn't they have gone to the police?

Just because you've got a morality that is subjective, doesn't mean humans will ever justify murder.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

M: Very true. I don't give a rats ass what some gays will settle for. I want them to have the whole ball of wax as is their Constitutional right in my opinion. I believe in JUSTICE and will accept nothing less. Many gays object to gay marriage. Bully for them. A lot are doubtless peeved that the marriage issue casts shadows on their own promiscuous life styles and they look at marriage with contempt.

The one things that seems to be becoming increasingly obvious is the fact that your agrument is not about homosexual marriage. Your whole argument is religious influence in governmental law. You just see the ban on homosexual marriage as a result of this "problem." As you stated, you don't give a "rats ass" about how homosexuals feel about this problem. You obviously feel you know better than they do about what they want and what is right, and you're going to give it to them whether they want it or not. So why don't you leave them out of it and start talking about what your real problem is?

Hey, if all else fails, you can keep beating the dead horse you call "bigot." Actually, that doesn't seem to be a very good argument for you either, so you might not want to go there either.

Apparently, you lack the skills required to read Moonbeams post, he didn't say alll gays. There are plenty of homosexsual who simply don't give a damn about the current situation but there are plenty that want to go all the way. Why should anyone not get their full rights and privildges? Why should we stop halfway in the race?

You've also failed to address many of the points I've raisied and Moonbeams last post. I don't care if you address my eariler posts but I would like you to define "Bigotry", "Intolerance" and "Discrimination" in your own words, and provide examples.

No, apparently YOU lack the skill required to read. I never stated that he didn't care about "all gays." As I stated before, the MAJORITY (here's a link if you need help majority) of gay don't care about the marriage crap. They only want the benefits that they are entitled to. The fact that Moonbeam called this majority "some" is his problem, not mine.

I have already defined bigotry and you yourself have defined it several times, each of which, as I recalled, incriminated you just as much as me. Forgive me if I tire of your relentless pursuit to try to make yourself out to be so much nicer and wonderful than me. If you want my definition, go back and read it.

So what if the majority of gays don't care! Thats completely irrevalent, not all blacks wanted to protest for there whites or start mixing with the white folk either.

You've never defined bigotry in your own words.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

So what if the majority of gays don't care! Thats completely irrevalent, not all blacks wanted to protest for there whites or start mixing with the white folk either.

You've never defined bigotry in your own words.

Since I never defined bigotry in my own words, here's one of my previous post, around number 206, I believe.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

As for all blacks wanting civil rights, no, not all did. I never said all homosexual couples did or didn't want marriage. I said the majority seem to want the benefits most of all. There are obviously thought who want it all, but most are willing to forgo the marriage aspect, for the time being, in order to achieve the benefits portion. Which seems like a pretty good idea, seeing as blacks didn't receive everything all at once either. It took about 100 years for them to receive everything. But they took what they could get when they could get it. Sure, there were those who wanted it all immediately. But they eventually realized that it might not happen. So they took what they could get knowing that it would make it easier for future generations to get the rest.

Look at America today. Most people don't want homosexual marriage, or at least they're going along with that idea. If gay couples instead focused on receiving the benefits, which most people are not so hell-bent against, how much easier would it be to say later on, "Hey, we have all the benefits. Why can't we just get married?"

I'm basically telling you how to get gay marriage legalized, and I don't even agree with it! Unfortunately, you're not willing to listen. Will gay marriage eventually pass? Yeah, most likely. I don't really have much of a doubt about that. I don't agree with it, but that's life. However, your constant fight that it has to be all or nothing is going to make it take a whole lot longer.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

So what if the majority of gays don't care! Thats completely irrevalent, not all blacks wanted to protest for there whites or start mixing with the white folk either.

You've never defined bigotry in your own words.

Since I never defined bigotry in my own words, here's one of my previous post, around number 206, I believe.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

As for all blacks wanting civil rights, no, not all did. I never said all homosexual couples did or didn't want marriage. I said the majority seem to want the benefits most of all. There are obviously thought who want it all, but most are willing to forgo the marriage aspect, for the time being, in order to achieve the benefits portion. Which seems like a pretty good idea, seeing as blacks didn't receive everything all at once either. It took about 100 years for them to receive everything. But they took what they could get when they could get it. Sure, there were those who wanted it all immediately. But they eventually realized that it might not happen. So they took what they could get knowing that it would make it easier for future generations to get the rest.

Look at America today. Most people don't want homosexual marriage, or at least they're going along with that idea. If gay couples instead focused on receiving the benefits, which most people are not so hell-bent against, how much easier would it be to say later on, "Hey, we have all the benefits. Why can't we just get married?"

I'm basically telling you how to get gay marriage legalized, and I don't even agree with it! Unfortunately, you're not willing to listen. Will gay marriage eventually pass? Yeah, most likely. I don't really have much of a doubt about that. I don't agree with it, but that's life. However, your constant fight that it has to be all or nothing is going to make it take a whole lot longer.

Justice doesn't need to wait for bigotry to pass.

 

[Moonbeam]

ee; I would say, as I have before, let religions handle marriage and keep that government out of it. Fix all laws that say people must be married in order to receive this benefit. That way, everyone is happy.

You would say, the government must recognize gay marriage, and if they don't, then don't give them anything. Why? Because you're not willing to separate benefits from marriage.

So who's the real bigot and who is the one who really doesn't understand love?

M: I am happy we live in a country that doesn't kill gays. I would be happy in a country that was evolved enough to grant marriage benefits to gays without the word marriage. I am not against any of this as you try to pretend. I am for, however, the highest standards of justice as granted by our Constitution and that to my mind means that gay ought to be able to marry just like anybody else. I think that because I think that what marriage stands for is a wonderful thing, and because you would deny that to some I think you have the lesser love. And what you fear, of course, is the loss of your faith as per what it would imply to you if the Bible were not the word of God and of course as you understand that word.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

So what if the majority of gays don't care! Thats completely irrevalent, not all blacks wanted to protest for there whites or start mixing with the white folk either.

You've never defined bigotry in your own words.

Since I never defined bigotry in my own words, here's one of my previous post, around number 206, I believe.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

As for all blacks wanting civil rights, no, not all did. I never said all homosexual couples did or didn't want marriage. I said the majority seem to want the benefits most of all. There are obviously thought who want it all, but most are willing to forgo the marriage aspect, for the time being, in order to achieve the benefits portion. Which seems like a pretty good idea, seeing as blacks didn't receive everything all at once either. It took about 100 years for them to receive everything. But they took what they could get when they could get it. Sure, there were those who wanted it all immediately. But they eventually realized that it might not happen. So they took what they could get knowing that it would make it easier for future generations to get the rest.

Look at America today. Most people don't want homosexual marriage, or at least they're going along with that idea. If gay couples instead focused on receiving the benefits, which most people are not so hell-bent against, how much easier would it be to say later on, "Hey, we have all the benefits. Why can't we just get married?"

I'm basically telling you how to get gay marriage legalized, and I don't even agree with it! Unfortunately, you're not willing to listen. Will gay marriage eventually pass? Yeah, most likely. I don't really have much of a doubt about that. I don't agree with it, but that's life. However, your constant fight that it has to be all or nothing is going to make it take a whole lot longer.

Justice doesn't need to wait for bigotry to pass.

100%!

The bigots are happy as they get their way, the majority rules by terrorizing the minority and the idiots have the balls to claim that that is what the founding fathers intended.

As society evolves, so do most people, however, there are still some idiots left in the dark ages.

I'd pity them if they'd deserve it, they don't.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

M: I am happy we live in a country that doesn't kill gays. I would be happy in a country that was evolved enough to grant marriage benefits to gays without the word marriage. I am not against any of this as you try to pretend. I am for, however, the highest standards of justice as granted by our Constitution and that to my mind means that gay ought to be able to marry just like anybody else. I think that because I think that what marriage stands for is a wonderful thing, and because you would deny that to some I think you have the lesser love. And what you fear, of course, is the loss of your faith as per what it would imply to you if the Bible were not the word of God and of course as you understand that word.

And if we left marriage in the hands of religion, do you therefore believe that homosexual marriage won't happen? No, they'll have their marriage. The only difference is that it will only be recognized by their religion. They'll have marriage, they'll have their benefits, so what is your argument? Who cares if my religion, your religion, or anyone elses religion recognizes it? There is absolutely no reason we need a constitutional anything saying it can or can't be done. The only reason I would think we need one saying it can't is because you insist that there MUST be one saying they can. Leave it out of the government and everyone is happy.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: The Scientist

Originally posted by: Tab

Justice doesn't need to wait for bigotry to pass.

100%!

The bigots are happy as they get their way, the majority rules by terrorizing the minority and the idiots have the balls to claim that that is what the founding fathers intended.

As society evolves, so do most people, however, there are still some idiots left in the dark ages.

I'd pity them if they'd deserve it, they don't.

That's ok, we don't want or need or ask for you pity.

No, "justice" may not wait for bigotry to pass. To bad what you seek isn't justice and what I seek isn't bigotry. What you seek is your own self interest. What I seek a happy medium for both sides. Unfortunately, we'll never have a happy medium because people like you will never allow that to happen.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: The Scientist

Originally posted by: Tab

Justice doesn't need to wait for bigotry to pass.

100%!

The bigots are happy as they get their way, the majority rules by terrorizing the minority and the idiots have the balls to claim that that is what the founding fathers intended.

As society evolves, so do most people, however, there are still some idiots left in the dark ages.

I'd pity them if they'd deserve it, they don't.

That's ok, we don't want or need or ask for you pity.

No, "justice" may not wait for bigotry to pass. To bad what you seek isn't justice and what I seek isn't bigotry. What you seek is your own self interest. What I seek a happy medium for both sides. Unfortunately, you'll never have a happy medium because people like you will never allow that to happen.

Equality, non-discriminatory based on gender, sexual orientation, religion or race, what is so hard to get?

What you have is a dislike towards certain people that makes you want them to be discriminated against, as you are in the majority you feel it is OK to terrorize the minority, this is NOT what the US founding fathers intended and you are a disgrace to your nation.

A happy meduim, what does that mean? Either you are for equality and justice or you are not, it's not like there is a middle road in this.

 

[stateofbeasley]

There is no logical argument against Gay Marriage. Those who are against it make up stuff (e.g. the arguments that people will then marry animals and other bullsh!t like that) to use as cover for their religious agenda. Belive me, I've lived among conservative Christians for a long time and they believe that homosexuality is a sin that should never be tolerated or endorsed. They've told me so.

This is another case where right wing religious groups want to increase Government control of free people.

I'm all for Liberty in this great FREE country. To those Relgioius fundamentalists like Santorum who want to tell ME how to live, I say FVCK OFF, p!ss off, and leave me the FVCK alone.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: The Scientist

Equality, non-discriminatory based on gender, sexual orientation, religion or race, what is so hard to get?

What you have is a dislike towards certain people that makes you want them to be discriminated against, as you are in the majority you feel it is OK to terrorize the minority, this is NOT what the US founding fathers intended and you are a disgrace to your nation.

A happy meduim, what does that mean? Either you are for equality and justice or you are not, it's not like there is a middle road in this.

No middle ground? Sure there is. If we took marriage out of government control, gave it to religion, and granted gay couples all benefits which were previously allowed only for married couples, what's left to be unconstitutional? Whether I'm in a majority or minority is irrelevant. Not every church in America is going to go with the majority.

You are so blinded by your hatred of everyone else that you can't see the writing on the wall. If you do this, there is nothing left that is unconstitutional. Hence, middle ground.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: The Scientist

Equality, non-discriminatory based on gender, sexual orientation, religion or race, what is so hard to get?

What you have is a dislike towards certain people that makes you want them to be discriminated against, as you are in the majority you feel it is OK to terrorize the minority, this is NOT what the US founding fathers intended and you are a disgrace to your nation.

A happy meduim, what does that mean? Either you are for equality and justice or you are not, it's not like there is a middle road in this.

No middle ground? Sure there is. If we took marriage out of government control, gave it to religion, and granted gay couples all benefits which were previously allowed only for married couples, what's left to be unconstitutional? Whether I'm in a majority or minority is irrelevant. Not every church in America is going to go with the majority.

You are so blinded by your hatred of everyone else that you can't see the writing on the wall. If you do this, there is nothing left that is unconstitutional. Hence, middle ground.

So then when people want to get a divorcee, the church decides if they can...or how to split the property, etc. No thanks. Perhaps you are blinded by your beliefs?

Gay people should be able to join in a legal, binding, civil union, just like you, me, or anybody else.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So then when people want to get a divorcee, the church decides if they can...or how to split the property, etc. No thanks. Perhaps you are blinded by your beliefs?

Just as no one would be deprived the opportunity to get married, no one could be prevented from ending such a "union." End of story.

Even today, whether married through a church or government official, divorce settlement are always handled by the courts. Same here. End of story.

Blinded by my beliefs, possible, but the same is true for you.

Gay people should be able to join in a legal, binding, civil union, just like you, me, or anybody else.[/quote]

And this would allow such an opportunity. The fact that you have trouble trusting religion with anything in your life is your problem. This solution would offer that ability to everyone.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So then when people want to get a divorcee, the church decides if they can...or how to split the property, etc. No thanks. Perhaps you are blinded by your beliefs?

Just as no one would be deprived the opportunity to get married, no one could be prevented from ending such a "union." End of story.

Even today, whether married through a church or government official, divorce settlement are always handled by the courts. Settlements happen after the marriage no longer exist. Therfore, no problem. End of story.

Blinded by my beliefs, possible, but the same is true for you.

Gay people should be able to join in a legal, binding, civil union, just like you, me, or anybody else.

And this would allow such an opportunity. The fact that you have trouble trusting religion with anything in your life is your problem. This solution would offer that ability to everyone.[/quote]

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So then when people want to get a divorcee, the church decides if they can...or how to split the property, etc. No thanks. Perhaps you are blinded by your beliefs?

Just as no one would be deprived the opportunity to get married, no one could be prevented from ending such a "union." End of story.

Even today, whether married through a church or government official, divorce settlement are always handled by the courts. Same here. End of story.

Blinded by my beliefs, possible, but the same is true for you.

Gay people should be able to join in a legal, binding, civil union, just like you, me, or anybody else.

And this would allow such an opportunity. The fact that you have trouble trusting religion with anything in your life is your problem. This solution would offer that ability to everyone.[/quote]

Your problem is you believe too much of what your told. My Grandmother was a Catholic, but she fell in love and married my Grandfather who was a Protestant. She was kicked out of the Catholic church and shunned by her friends and family. Do I trust organized religion?? HELL NO!!

Even today, whether married through a church or government official, divorce settlement are always handled by the courts. Same here. End of story.

You need a better answer then that, sorry.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
The fact that you have trouble trusting religion with anything in your life is your problem.

Why should I trust something that's a social construct? Let alone, how do I know which religion to trust?