You've nailed it, NaplesX! Gays don't want to be married.
Look at those two women, not eve close to being happy. They probably secretly hate each other.
I didn't imply that they did not want to get married. I said I am not sure why they want to? You see the difference? These posts are about words. Read them, please.
The bible encourages people to pursue happiness. It also remind people that they will be accountable for their action when whatever judgment day you believe in comes. So it is up to each person to make the right choices based on what they see right and wrong. From a biblical standpoint this is very basic.
"Do I have to have a "Gay Day" at my house to prove that I am tolerant?"
No one is interested in your tolerance, or lack thereof, at this point.
Gay people want to marry their partners for the same fvcking reasons that straight people do...so that would be a *million* reasons, some good and others bad.
I'll tell you this: the gay couples who've suffered for this simple right will, through the winnowing process of enduring people's hatred, probaby be better couples than many straight couples who haven't had to endure this.
If this amendment wasn't about bigotry and hatred we'd be talking about no-fault divorce. I don't even see that on the fvcking table.
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.
On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.
On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married."
Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?
Recently, the Mass. Supreme Court ruled that the idea of a civil union is akin to the 'separate but equal' that prevailed the century before 1954. The entire concept of the civil union is a legal convention that is trying to emulate marriage.
Moreover, there are churches that accept homosexuals as members. However, many homosexuals have been driven too far away from the Church for this to even be an option. This is perhaps the greatest travesty of this entire 'debate.'
Additionally, if there is a difference between hetero- and homo-sexual marriages legally, I could imagine that it would feel invalidating... that my relationship is less important than another. So, it is not that they only want the paperwork. I would imagine if the rights were the same, but the legal convention was not legally called a marriage, many homosexuals would be pleased. They could still get legal validation as well as the religious confirmation from portions of the church if they so desired.
As far as how Christians can reconcile homosexuality with the Bible, consider how you reconcile many Old Testament passages. There are countless passages that are now disregarded due to cultural and theological differences. Moreover, the condemnations in the Bible are, ironically enough, often in the context of un-monogamous relationships. By allowing the institution of marriage, you are supporting monogamy in all types of relationships.
Quote:
In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.
And that's just fine for them, but most heterosexuals desire the ritual and conventions of marriage to support thier relationship. Would you want to be limited to the step below marriage because you had always been told you were different?
Where in my post did you see that i say to limit freedoms of anyone?
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Anyway, why is the whole country paying any attention to this tiny minority? I don't think anyone would care what they do, but they just keep making such a big deal about everything. It seems that this small minority will not be happy until they can freely and openly demonstrate the mating habits of the gay man. What ever happened to just living a quiet and happy life?
You're essentially saying that people can be gay as long as you can't tell that they're gay. That's certainly limiting their freedoms and if you can't see that you really need to reevaluate yourself.
I didn't imply that they did not want to get married. I said I am not sure why they want to? You see the difference? These posts are about words. Read them, please.
And please read the posts that came before your posts did. BRussell detailed very clearly some of the reasons why gay people might want to be married. Read them, please.
The problem here, I think, is that the Gay community and it's supporters, cannot accept societal limits on behavior and acceptability of behavior.
Society, (the majority of the people in this country) does not support or accept homosexual behavior. They tolerate it, realizing that freedom means freedom to love and be with who you want. They accept that it exists.
Homosexuals tend to gather where they are accepted (much like everyone else) and, I think, cannot understand why the whole country does not feel the way they do. I have been to key west many times, and saying that it is like nowhere else I have been, is an understatement. I don't think that I would be wrong to say that such behavior is outside the realm of accepted behavior in the real world.
Am I saying that gays can't be good and responsible citizens? Of course I am not saying that. There are many. What I will say is that the gay community is pushing harder and harder for the rest of the world to not only accept but embrace their ever increasing flamboyance and demands. It is reaching a breaking point and it will backlash on the homosexual community, In my opinion.
And please read the posts that came before your posts did. BRussell detailed very clearly some of the reasons why gay people might want to be married. Read them, please.
The problem here, I think, is that the Gay community and it's supporters, cannot accept societal limits on behavior and acceptability of behavior.
Society, (the majority of the people in this country) does not support or accept homosexual behavior. They tolerate it, realizing that freedom means freedom to love and be with who you want. They accept that it exists.
Homosexuals tend to gather where they are accepted (much like everyone else) and, I think, cannot understand why the whole country does not feel the way they do. I have been to key west many times, and saying that it is like nowhere else I have been, is an understatement. I don't think that I would be wrong to say that such behavior is outside the realm of accepted behavior in the real world.
Am I saying that gays can't be good and responsible citizens? Of course I am not saying that. There are many. What I will say is that the gay community is pushing harder and harder for the rest of the world to not only accept but embrace their ever increasing flamboyance and demands. It is reaching a breaking point and it will backlash on the homosexual community, In my opinion.
Ever been to Las Vegas? Many heterosexuals gather there and behave in a manner outside the realm of acceptance in the real world. Ever been to a strip club? Hooters?
But guess what. The fact that I can name places where straight people like to dress up and push the limits of propriety says exactly nothing about the "straight community". If you think Key West tells you all you need to know about gays in America, you are tragically ignorant.
You're essentially saying that people can be gay as long as you can't tell that they're gay. That's certainly limiting their freedoms and if you can't see that you really need to reevaluate yourself.
Bunge...?
I did not and would not imply that.
I was sitiing at the bar at the Hooters in Ft. Lauderdale. My then business partner and I would go their when we were in that area. A guy came over to the bar and sat down. We all talked for a long time. he and I seemed to have a lot in common. Out of the blue, he asked me out on a date. Based on your view of me, what do you think i did?
Your probably wrong.
I took a deep breath and tried to put myself in his shoes and I said "I appreciate the offer and am somewhat flattered, but my gate does not swing that way." I offered to buy him another beer with no hard feelings. he accepted and not another word was said about it, and we continued to have a good time talking about life and business for about another hour.
I knew he was gay, and I do not care. I did not impose my beliefs on him nor him on me, we got along fine.
Give me a break, no all of us a break. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Ever been to Las Vegas? Many heterosexuals gather there and behave in a manner outside the realm of acceptance in the real world. Ever been to a strip club? Hooters?
But guess what. The fact that I can name places where straight people like to dress up and push the limits of propriety says exactly nothing about the "straight community". If you think Key West tells you all you need to know about gays in America, you are tragically ignorant.
Hey I agree with you. I do not accept that behavior either.
You did not read my post. I fully understand that such places are not representative of every homosexual.
Recently, the Mass. Supreme Court ruled that the idea of a civil union is akin to the 'separate but equal' that prevailed the century before 1954. The entire concept of the civil union is a legal convention that is trying to emulate marriage.
*snip*
I would imagine if the rights were the same, but the legal convention was not legally called a marriage, many homosexuals would be pleased. They could still get legal validation as well as the religious confirmation from portions of the church if they so desired.
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage. The rights should not at all be different, and the legislation should be written so that they shall always be parallel. Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church. If a church desired to marry gays, that would be their prerogative without that designation being put into legal records. Would this be a fair compromise on this issue?
I think the main sticking point for religous folk like myself is that for centuries the word "marriage" has defined a religious union between a man and a woman. Since the state was often run by the church, legal rights were associated with said union. For that to officially change now is intimidating and against what society has been based on for our entire scope of history. I'd say that we just feel that something needs to be put in place to ensure that that "traditional" designation stays. As I said before, I don't feel a Constitutional Amendment is an appropriate way of doing this. Of the choices, I guess letting the states do this is the best option -- and many have exercised it already.
I just also want to convey that I don't claim to have all the answers. It's foolish for anyone to claim that, in my opinion. I'm just trying to figure out a way where an acceptable compromise can be found for both sides of this. I think that's all any of us can ask for.
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage. The rights should not at all be different, and the legislation should be written so that they shall always be parallel. Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church. If a church desired to marry gays, that would be their prerogative without that designation being put into legal records. Would this be a fair compromise on this issue?
I think the main sticking point for religous folk like myself is that for centuries the word "marriage" has defined a religious union between a man and a woman. Since the state was often run by the church, legal rights were associated with said union. For that to officially change now is intimidating and against what society has been based on for our entire scope of history. I'd say that we just feel that something needs to be put in place to ensure that that "traditional" designation stays. As I said before, I don't feel a Constitutional Amendment is an appropriate way of doing this. Of the choices, I guess letting the states do this is the best option -- and many have exercised it already.
I just also want to convey that I don't claim to have all the answers. It's foolish for anyone to claim that, in my opinion. I'm just trying to figure out a way where an acceptable compromise can be found for both sides of this. I think that's all any of us can ask for.
That's just plain stupid . . . it's diplomatic idiocy . . . If my church marries gays then it "marries" gays . . . it names it as such and they, and my church, have a right to retain that name.
If there are churches that exist that marry gay couples then whether or not your church likes it is irrelevant
They don't need to beleve in that kind of love . . . they can keep it out of their church
but the state would impinge on Gay-positive church's rights and freedom of religion (denying a sacred rite) if it did not allow that name
besides the individual's right to pursue their freedom of religious expression.
the state would impinge on Gay-positive church's rights and freedom of religion (denying a sacred rite) if it did not allow that name
besides the individual's right to pursue their freedom of religious expression.
No. The state would not deny the "Gay-positive" church from calling the couple "married." The state would disallow that designation to be in the official legal record of the state.
Your church may designate you as a chicken, but the state sure as hell isn't going to call you a chicken. That's not an impingement of rights.
I just thought of something: If the state allows gay marriage, and then a minister denies that couple the right to be married in his/her church (because it is against that church's beliefs), is that minister breaking the law? What are the legal implications of this?
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage.
But you're bigotted enough that a word, eight stupid letters, is worth more to you than the decency of equality for all human beings? You're a sad specimen.
Separate can never, ever be equal. The Fundie Trash know this, which is why they want us to rot in civil unions, so that they can cling to the word "marriage" and pretend like their relationship is somehow "better" than mine. It's not.
Quote:
Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church.
And if my Church wants to marry me? Why should your church be able to use this term and mine not?
Moreover, there are churches that accept homosexuals as members. However, many homosexuals have been driven too far away from the Church for this to even be an option. This is perhaps the greatest travesty of this entire 'debate.'
Ironically, I had just in recent weeks been able to move beyond flying into a seething rage at the Christian religion, to the point that I was attending services at a gay-friendly church again.
It's a struggle not to let the bigoted filth poison the entire concept of God, the way they cling to their idolatrous obsession with the words of the Bible. Like Bush's conservatism, there is no compassion in these peoples' Christianity.
Let them bar the way to Jesus. God will throw them in a special Hell.
No. The state would not deny the "Gay-positive" church from calling the couple "married." The state would disallow that designation to be in the official legal record of the state.
Your church may designate you as a chicken, but the state sure as hell isn't going to call you a chicken. That's not an impingement of rights.
I just thought of something: If the state allows gay marriage, and then a minister denies that couple the right to be married in his/her church (because it is against that church's beliefs), is that minister breaking the law? What are the legal implications of this?
I think everyone should step back and examine the long term effects of this whole thing, if that is possible in this "me first" country.
The "alternative lifestyle" crowd is asking society to uproot millennium of tried and tested tradition to appease them, a small segment of society. It would seem to me far more noble to fight for the greater good of society. I suppose that is too much to ask these days.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
You've nailed it, NaplesX! Gays don't want to be married.
Look at those two women, not eve close to being happy. They probably secretly hate each other.
I didn't imply that they did not want to get married. I said I am not sure why they want to? You see the difference? These posts are about words. Read them, please.
The bible encourages people to pursue happiness. It also remind people that they will be accountable for their action when whatever judgment day you believe in comes. So it is up to each person to make the right choices based on what they see right and wrong. From a biblical standpoint this is very basic.
No one is interested in your tolerance, or lack thereof, at this point.
Gay people want to marry their partners for the same fvcking reasons that straight people do...so that would be a *million* reasons, some good and others bad.
I'll tell you this: the gay couples who've suffered for this simple right will, through the winnowing process of enduring people's hatred, probaby be better couples than many straight couples who haven't had to endure this.
If this amendment wasn't about bigotry and hatred we'd be talking about no-fault divorce. I don't even see that on the fvcking table.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.
On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.
On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married."
Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?
Recently, the Mass. Supreme Court ruled that the idea of a civil union is akin to the 'separate but equal' that prevailed the century before 1954. The entire concept of the civil union is a legal convention that is trying to emulate marriage.
Moreover, there are churches that accept homosexuals as members. However, many homosexuals have been driven too far away from the Church for this to even be an option. This is perhaps the greatest travesty of this entire 'debate.'
Additionally, if there is a difference between hetero- and homo-sexual marriages legally, I could imagine that it would feel invalidating... that my relationship is less important than another. So, it is not that they only want the paperwork. I would imagine if the rights were the same, but the legal convention was not legally called a marriage, many homosexuals would be pleased. They could still get legal validation as well as the religious confirmation from portions of the church if they so desired.
As far as how Christians can reconcile homosexuality with the Bible, consider how you reconcile many Old Testament passages. There are countless passages that are now disregarded due to cultural and theological differences. Moreover, the condemnations in the Bible are, ironically enough, often in the context of un-monogamous relationships. By allowing the institution of marriage, you are supporting monogamy in all types of relationships.
In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.
And that's just fine for them, but most heterosexuals desire the ritual and conventions of marriage to support thier relationship. Would you want to be limited to the step below marriage because you had always been told you were different?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where in my post did you see that i say to limit freedoms of anyone?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Anyway, why is the whole country paying any attention to this tiny minority? I don't think anyone would care what they do, but they just keep making such a big deal about everything. It seems that this small minority will not be happy until they can freely and openly demonstrate the mating habits of the gay man. What ever happened to just living a quiet and happy life?
You're essentially saying that people can be gay as long as you can't tell that they're gay. That's certainly limiting their freedoms and if you can't see that you really need to reevaluate yourself.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I didn't imply that they did not want to get married. I said I am not sure why they want to? You see the difference? These posts are about words. Read them, please.
And please read the posts that came before your posts did. BRussell detailed very clearly some of the reasons why gay people might want to be married. Read them, please.
Society, (the majority of the people in this country) does not support or accept homosexual behavior. They tolerate it, realizing that freedom means freedom to love and be with who you want. They accept that it exists.
Homosexuals tend to gather where they are accepted (much like everyone else) and, I think, cannot understand why the whole country does not feel the way they do. I have been to key west many times, and saying that it is like nowhere else I have been, is an understatement. I don't think that I would be wrong to say that such behavior is outside the realm of accepted behavior in the real world.
Am I saying that gays can't be good and responsible citizens? Of course I am not saying that. There are many. What I will say is that the gay community is pushing harder and harder for the rest of the world to not only accept but embrace their ever increasing flamboyance and demands. It is reaching a breaking point and it will backlash on the homosexual community, In my opinion.
Originally posted by bunge
And please read the posts that came before your posts did. BRussell detailed very clearly some of the reasons why gay people might want to be married. Read them, please.
I did. Thanks.
Is BR the resident authority on everything?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I did. Thanks.
Is BR the resident authority on everything?
BR is, not BRussel though
Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem here, I think, is that the Gay community and it's supporters, cannot accept societal limits on behavior and acceptability of behavior.
Society, (the majority of the people in this country) does not support or accept homosexual behavior. They tolerate it, realizing that freedom means freedom to love and be with who you want. They accept that it exists.
Homosexuals tend to gather where they are accepted (much like everyone else) and, I think, cannot understand why the whole country does not feel the way they do. I have been to key west many times, and saying that it is like nowhere else I have been, is an understatement. I don't think that I would be wrong to say that such behavior is outside the realm of accepted behavior in the real world.
Am I saying that gays can't be good and responsible citizens? Of course I am not saying that. There are many. What I will say is that the gay community is pushing harder and harder for the rest of the world to not only accept but embrace their ever increasing flamboyance and demands. It is reaching a breaking point and it will backlash on the homosexual community, In my opinion.
Ever been to Las Vegas? Many heterosexuals gather there and behave in a manner outside the realm of acceptance in the real world. Ever been to a strip club? Hooters?
But guess what. The fact that I can name places where straight people like to dress up and push the limits of propriety says exactly nothing about the "straight community". If you think Key West tells you all you need to know about gays in America, you are tragically ignorant.
Originally posted by bunge
You're essentially saying that people can be gay as long as you can't tell that they're gay. That's certainly limiting their freedoms and if you can't see that you really need to reevaluate yourself.
Bunge...?
I did not and would not imply that.
I was sitiing at the bar at the Hooters in Ft. Lauderdale. My then business partner and I would go their when we were in that area. A guy came over to the bar and sat down. We all talked for a long time. he and I seemed to have a lot in common. Out of the blue, he asked me out on a date. Based on your view of me, what do you think i did?
Your probably wrong.
I took a deep breath and tried to put myself in his shoes and I said "I appreciate the offer and am somewhat flattered, but my gate does not swing that way." I offered to buy him another beer with no hard feelings. he accepted and not another word was said about it, and we continued to have a good time talking about life and business for about another hour.
I knew he was gay, and I do not care. I did not impose my beliefs on him nor him on me, we got along fine.
Give me a break, no all of us a break. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Thanks
Originally posted by addabox
Ever been to Las Vegas? Many heterosexuals gather there and behave in a manner outside the realm of acceptance in the real world. Ever been to a strip club? Hooters?
But guess what. The fact that I can name places where straight people like to dress up and push the limits of propriety says exactly nothing about the "straight community". If you think Key West tells you all you need to know about gays in America, you are tragically ignorant.
Hey I agree with you. I do not accept that behavior either.
You did not read my post. I fully understand that such places are not representative of every homosexual.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
BR is, not BRussel though
I mean BRussel. Just made it short.
Did you get any on you?
Originally posted by bauman
Recently, the Mass. Supreme Court ruled that the idea of a civil union is akin to the 'separate but equal' that prevailed the century before 1954. The entire concept of the civil union is a legal convention that is trying to emulate marriage.
*snip*
I would imagine if the rights were the same, but the legal convention was not legally called a marriage, many homosexuals would be pleased. They could still get legal validation as well as the religious confirmation from portions of the church if they so desired.
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage. The rights should not at all be different, and the legislation should be written so that they shall always be parallel. Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church. If a church desired to marry gays, that would be their prerogative without that designation being put into legal records. Would this be a fair compromise on this issue?
I think the main sticking point for religous folk like myself is that for centuries the word "marriage" has defined a religious union between a man and a woman. Since the state was often run by the church, legal rights were associated with said union. For that to officially change now is intimidating and against what society has been based on for our entire scope of history. I'd say that we just feel that something needs to be put in place to ensure that that "traditional" designation stays. As I said before, I don't feel a Constitutional Amendment is an appropriate way of doing this. Of the choices, I guess letting the states do this is the best option -- and many have exercised it already.
I just also want to convey that I don't claim to have all the answers. It's foolish for anyone to claim that, in my opinion. I'm just trying to figure out a way where an acceptable compromise can be found for both sides of this. I think that's all any of us can ask for.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage. The rights should not at all be different, and the legislation should be written so that they shall always be parallel. Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church. If a church desired to marry gays, that would be their prerogative without that designation being put into legal records. Would this be a fair compromise on this issue?
I think the main sticking point for religous folk like myself is that for centuries the word "marriage" has defined a religious union between a man and a woman. Since the state was often run by the church, legal rights were associated with said union. For that to officially change now is intimidating and against what society has been based on for our entire scope of history. I'd say that we just feel that something needs to be put in place to ensure that that "traditional" designation stays. As I said before, I don't feel a Constitutional Amendment is an appropriate way of doing this. Of the choices, I guess letting the states do this is the best option -- and many have exercised it already.
I just also want to convey that I don't claim to have all the answers. It's foolish for anyone to claim that, in my opinion. I'm just trying to figure out a way where an acceptable compromise can be found for both sides of this. I think that's all any of us can ask for.
A well put post. Very diplomatic.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
[ . . . . ].
That's just plain stupid . . . it's diplomatic idiocy . . . If my church marries gays then it "marries" gays . . . it names it as such and they, and my church, have a right to retain that name.
If there are churches that exist that marry gay couples then whether or not your church likes it is irrelevant
They don't need to beleve in that kind of love . . . they can keep it out of their church
but the state would impinge on Gay-positive church's rights and freedom of religion (denying a sacred rite) if it did not allow that name
besides the individual's right to pursue their freedom of religious expression.
Originally posted by pfflam
the state would impinge on Gay-positive church's rights and freedom of religion (denying a sacred rite) if it did not allow that name
besides the individual's right to pursue their freedom of religious expression.
No. The state would not deny the "Gay-positive" church from calling the couple "married." The state would disallow that designation to be in the official legal record of the state.
Your church may designate you as a chicken, but the state sure as hell isn't going to call you a chicken. That's not an impingement of rights.
I just thought of something: If the state allows gay marriage, and then a minister denies that couple the right to be married in his/her church (because it is against that church's beliefs), is that minister breaking the law? What are the legal implications of this?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage.
But you're bigotted enough that a word, eight stupid letters, is worth more to you than the decency of equality for all human beings? You're a sad specimen.
Separate can never, ever be equal. The Fundie Trash know this, which is why they want us to rot in civil unions, so that they can cling to the word "marriage" and pretend like their relationship is somehow "better" than mine. It's not.
Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church.
And if my Church wants to marry me? Why should your church be able to use this term and mine not?
Kirk
Originally posted by bauman
Moreover, there are churches that accept homosexuals as members. However, many homosexuals have been driven too far away from the Church for this to even be an option. This is perhaps the greatest travesty of this entire 'debate.'
Ironically, I had just in recent weeks been able to move beyond flying into a seething rage at the Christian religion, to the point that I was attending services at a gay-friendly church again.
It's a struggle not to let the bigoted filth poison the entire concept of God, the way they cling to their idolatrous obsession with the words of the Bible. Like Bush's conservatism, there is no compassion in these peoples' Christianity.
Let them bar the way to Jesus. God will throw them in a special Hell.
Kirk
Originally posted by CosmoNut
No. The state would not deny the "Gay-positive" church from calling the couple "married." The state would disallow that designation to be in the official legal record of the state.
Your church may designate you as a chicken, but the state sure as hell isn't going to call you a chicken. That's not an impingement of rights.
I just thought of something: If the state allows gay marriage, and then a minister denies that couple the right to be married in his/her church (because it is against that church's beliefs), is that minister breaking the law? What are the legal implications of this?
I think everyone should step back and examine the long term effects of this whole thing, if that is possible in this "me first" country.
The "alternative lifestyle" crowd is asking society to uproot millennium of tried and tested tradition to appease them, a small segment of society. It would seem to me far more noble to fight for the greater good of society. I suppose that is too much to ask these days.