Protecting Marriage...

[curiosityandthecat]

Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

Wasn't it Quentin Crisp who advanced the view that those who show the kind of level of hatred they do about something (in this case gays) probably are actually closeted whatever they most hate themselves?

I wonder what it is the DeathSh**Head most fears?

Kyu

Could be exactly what you are insinuating. Although, it could just be a 16-year-old taking counter-culture to a rather unfortunate extreme. Either way, it's rather douchey.

[jcm]

Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

this will push him over the edge:

[Wraitchel]

Dear death dude, I hope you get over your disgusting case of hate.

Sending you a big fat faggoty kiss-kiss!

[Asmodean]

Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

You do realize that you are the ignorant fuck here, right?

Oh, and if I want someone to tell me how good my genes are, I'll ask a specialist, not some wannabe-cool wannabe-fascist kid who loves to hear himself speak... Or read himself post. I guess this is my politically correct way of saying that if you have nothing constructive to say and no way nor intentions of backing up your claims and ideas with science, logic and reason, then maybe you should say nothing at all.

[Titan]

How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

Before you answer the question consider the extension of forcing an alteration of language. What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

[curiosityandthecat]

How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

Before you answer the question consider the extension of forcing an alteration of language. What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

Separate but equal, eh? We tried that before. Didn't go over well.

Words are important. We think in words, therefore our thoughts can only be as good as our language. It's insulting to think that where and how two consenting adults want to use their genitals is any business of the government, much less that of fussy Christians who think it's icky. I can't remember who said it, but if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, then they should have every right.  

As for changing the word, South Park made a very good point...

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043

Incidentally, some call marriage a "sacred" union between a man and a woman, but once you have to go to the courthouse and fill out paperwork, nothing "sacred" remains.

[Titan]

I'm sorry, how is separate but equal applicable here? Since the whole idea is that the same rights are given to both. Churches are welcomed to perform civil unions as they like.

Words are important. We think in words, therefore our thoughts can only be as good as our language. It's insulting to think that where and how two consenting adults want to use their genitals is any business of the government, much less that of fussy Christians who think it's icky. I can't remember who said it, but if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, then they should have every right.

I know Kinky Friedman said it... I'm not sure if he was the first. But again, they aren't trying to eliminate homosexuality via the state, merely giving gays all the rights they have but simply with a different name.

As for changing the word, South Park made a very good point...

I love South Park but I could have sworn you were going to reference the curse word episode.

Incidentally, some call marriage a "sacred" union between a man and a woman, but once you have to go to the courthouse and fill out paperwork, nothing "sacred" remains.

Um....why?

[rlrose328]

How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

Before you answer the question consider the extension of forcing an alteration of language. What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

From what I've read, the civil unions that exist now do not apply the same rights to the participants that marriage does (significantly, medical decisions and recognition of the civil union in other states).

MANY cultures prior to christianity practiced the legal joining of partners.  Why do we have to roll over to the Christian belief that the word "marriage" is sacred and somehow reserved only for them?  It's discriminatory at best.  This website has a great list of pros and cons... and the cons are all personal belief type things rather than real-life circumstances and thus, shouldn't apply to lawmaking.

[jcm]

Incidentally, some call marriage a "sacred" union between a man and a woman, but once you have to go to the courthouse and fill out paperwork, nothing "sacred" remains.

yeah like a "sacred" marriage ceremony in las vegas performed by an elvis impersonator.

[Titan]

yeah like a "sacred" marriage ceremony in las vegas performed by an elvis impersonator.

That right there is an excellent point. That is one of the reasons I'm not holding on to the word "marriage" that much.

From what I've read, the civil unions that exist now do not apply the same rights to the participants that marriage does (significantly, medical decisions and recognition of the civil union in other states).

That's just wrong, I agree with you. Denying someone rights secretly by using a different word is akin to separate but equal.

MANY cultures prior to christianity practiced the legal joining of partners. Why do we have to roll over to the Christian belief that the word "marriage" is sacred and somehow reserved only for them? It's discriminatory at best. This website has a great list of pros and cons... and the cons are all personal belief type things rather than real-life circumstances and thus, shouldn't apply to lawmaking.

Another excellent point. I think I'm going to be swayed by you guys on this subject.

[Kyuuketsuki]

How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

I think ALL marriages should be civil (state) unions, I think the right to marry anyone should be taken away from anyone but state  representatives.

Kyu

[Titan]

Why? It has ALWAYS been a religiously tied affair. Isn't that the government getting their hands into religions.

[rlrose328]

Why? It has ALWAYS been a religiously tied affair. Isn't that the government getting their hands into religions.

How do you figure?  My husband and I are married and we did so without any religion whatsoever.  WE got our license, we hired a retired judge, we were married outdoors by a lake.  Not one prayer was said, not one bell was rung, no bibles were harmed in the proceedings.

Marriage and government are secularly joined via the marriage license... I can get one of those at a State or County or City office without the church's involvement at all.  The church has their own rituals regarding marriage, but that doesn't mean that the government is involved with those rituals.

Originally, there was no ceremony at all involved, just an agreement to be together... an informal contract.  Churches got involved so that God would be a party to the arrangement.  Governments got involved probably because when the "happy couple" were no longer happy, legalities became involved, so the informal contract became formal and could then be officially and legally dissolved when the time came.

Remember, the bible is not an historical document.  Just because it says that God sanctions marriage doesn't make it a legal precedent.

[Titan]

How do you figure? My husband and I are married and we did so without any religion whatsoever. WE got our license, we hired a retired judge, we were married outdoors by a lake. Not one prayer was said, not one bell was rung, no bibles were harmed in the proceedings.

Not the act as it is known now. But the whole concept of people being united throughout life is a strictly religious concept. One that, until modern times, has been held as sacred.

Originally, there was no ceremony at all involved, just an agreement to be together... an informal contract. Churches got involved so that God would be a party to the arrangement. Governments got involved probably because when the "happy couple" were no longer happy, legalities became involved, so the informal contract became formal and could then be officially and legally dissolved when the time came.

Is this coming from a source?

[rlrose328]

Titan, I will continue to disagree with you over the "marriage has always been divinely sacred" issue.  I got some of my knowledge from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage and many other websites that discuss marriage, wedding, religion, etc.

Marriage was mostly a business proposition between families, set up by families to the advantage of one or both... hence, dowries.  Love and the church or god or religion had very little to do with it.  AND the church condoned and encouraged male homosexuality for centuries, though preferring that men marry a woman at some point in order to procreate.  Maybe to protect the virtue of unmarried females?  I don't know.

Organized religion and the concept of GOD hasn't been around since the beginning of time (and I'm talking evolutionary time, not creationist time), so how on earth can it have ALWAYS been a religious concept?