equal rights?

[Cancel3]

Well that is just plain out slanderous lying. I don't hate gay people.

In fact, I have told the story of the 'gay marriage' I attended... in 1987! Two of my dear friends (females) were married on a mountainside in Alabama by a Rastafarian minister, and celebrated their 20-year-anniversary last year. They have a wedding album, they went on a honeymoon, we threw rice at them... the only thing they didn't have was a piece of paper from the state, which they did not care about, because it had nothing to do with their love for one another. So, gays CAN get married, even in Alabama!

Now... the part of the story I don't think I have told, is the conversation I had with one of them a few months ago... She indicated to me, they oppose the Gay Marriage Initiatives! I was shocked! I assumed they would be all for Gay Marriage, being they were married! Not so... as she explained it to me... We want to obtain certain legal benefits, and all of these things could be obtained if we had Civil Unions. As long as activist groups and political parties use this as an issue to push an agenda, and refuse to compromise by accepting reasonable civil unions legislation, they can't obtain the legal remedies they desire. The viewpoint I expressed earlier, about government disassociating itself from "marriage" altogether, and replacing it with universal and comprehensive CU legislation, is exactly the position they hold on the issue. Those of you who are unwilling to compromise and accept that, and continue to push for your silly "gay marriage" redefinition idea, are the ones who are "obstructing" this gay couple from receiving the benefits they should be entitled to.


Does it sound like I hate gay people?

Actually, it sounds like you are making up stories to try and back your side of things.

You also did not address any solutions to the issues I brought up in a previous post. You asked if someone would answer your question, and I did.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Denying gays the right to marry is a violation of the right of contract. The supreme court would likely not see it that way, but I cannot see how anyone can logically deny this. Two willing, adult citizens who wish to desire into a marriage contract - what is the difference between this and a business partnership?

The only demographics who should be denied the right of contract are children and those not of sound mind. Also, the contract cannot be used to deny the rights of others. A marriage between gay partners (or anyone else) clearly does not deny anyone else's rights.

While I agree for the most part, I would argue that the right to cival unions applies under the right to contract. I would also argue that marriage is a religious ceremony and under the seperation of church and state, the government should have NO part in the decision of who should be married and who shouldn't. That should be left up to the religious organizations.

If the government wants to provide inheritance rights, visitation rights etc... to couples who join, then they should issue cival unions to do so and as you stated, should not deny such a contract to any consenting non-related adults.

 

[Socrtease]

Nope. It's not. Gay people have the exact same right of contract as anyone else. Marriage is a union between a man and woman, doesn't matter if they are gay or straight. If you want to redefine marriage to make this point, is some nut who wants to marry his mailbox, also having his right of contract violated? I can't obtain a license to practice medicine, am being denied the right of contract?

YOu are such a dumbass with these strawmen about dogs and horses and mailboxes. A contract is between two people where there is an offer, and acceptance and consideration. To enter into the contract you must have capacity to do one or more of those things, so that leaves out children, horses, dogs and the ever elusive mailbox. I think that until you have the CAPACITY to debate about this intellectually, you should stay the fuck away from the topic.

 

[Cancel3]

While I agree for the most part, I would argue that the right to cival unions applies under the right to contract. I would also argue that marriage is a religious ceremony and under the seperation of church and state, the government should have NO part in the decision of who should be married and who shouldn't. That should be left up to the religious organizations.

If the government wants to provide inheritance rights, visitation rights etc... to couples who join, then they should issue cival unions to do so and as you stated, should not deny such a contract to any consenting non-related adults.

Would then, under this new system, people who marry in a religious ceremony have to apply for a separate civil union agreement?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, it sounds like you are making up stories to try and back your side of things.

You also did not address any solutions to the issues I brought up in a previous post. You asked if someone would answer your question, and I did.

LOL... Well, I don't know how to prove it to you, if you will PM me your phone number, I will be happy to invite you to the next get-together we have, and you can meet them for yourself, if that would help. Aside from that, I guess you can believe what you like, I can't control what you think.

I did address all of those issues, you did not address how comprehensive civil unions legislation could not remedy those issues. You merely repeated the same arguments you've made all along, and ignored the fact that my proposal would address those issues. I think it's because you really just don't want to accept anything I have to say, regardless of how much sense it makes. Dude, that's really sad.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

YOu are such a dumbass with these strawmen about dogs and horses and mailboxes. A contract is between two people where there is an offer, and acceptance and consideration. To enter into the contract you must have capacity to do one or more of those things, so that leaves out children, horses, dogs and the ever elusive mailbox. I think that until you have the CAPACITY to debate about this intellectually, you should stay the fuck away from the topic.

How about polygamists and bigamists? Are we going to allow their "right" to be violated while granting it to homosexuals? I think YOU should stay the fuck away from the topic, you are obviously too emotional to make rational judgments regarding this.

 

[Cancel3]

LOL... Well, I don't know how to prove it to you, if you will PM me your phone number, I will be happy to invite you to the next get-together we have, and you can meet them for yourself, if that would help. Aside from that, I guess you can believe what you like, I can't control what you think.

I did address all of those issues, you did not address how comprehensive civil unions legislation could not remedy those issues. You merely repeated the same arguments you've made all along, and ignored the fact that my proposal would address those issues. I think it's because you really just don't want to accept anything I have to say, regardless of how much sense it makes. Dude, that's really sad.

My arguments are said? Aren't you the one uses feces in ice cream and people marrying mailboxes as arguments?

 

[Socrtease]

How about polygamists and bigamists? Are we going to allow their "right" to be violated while granting it to homosexuals? I think YOU should stay the fuck away from the topic, you are obviously too emotional to make rational judgments regarding this.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, there is no valid reason to prohibit people from being married to more than one person. It used to be very valid and hell as I am sure you know there is some biblical backing in polygamy. I am also happy to see that you understand that your dog and horse and mailbox arguments really were stupid. At least with the polygamy arguments you are back into the realm of reality. Welcome back Dix.

 

[Cancel7]

YOu are such a dumbass with these strawmen about dogs and horses and mailboxes. A contract is between two people where there is an offer, and acceptance and consideration. To enter into the contract you must have capacity to do one or more of those things, so that leaves out children, horses, dogs and the ever elusive mailbox. I think that until you have the CAPACITY to debate about this intellectually, you should stay the fuck away from the topic.

i've been waiting to marry my mailbox. hope is on the way.

 

[Cancel7]

My arguments are said? Aren't you the one uses feces in ice cream and people marrying mailboxes as arguments?

what are you saying, that there's something wrong with his argument? you obviously haven't seen my mailbox. Your mailbox might be diddly squat, but my mailbox, is hot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

...they should issue cival unions to do so and as you stated, should not deny such a contract to any consenting non-related adults.

My idea is actually more "liberal" than yours, I would extend Civil Unions to ANY two adults of legal age, regardless of "relation" to one another... why not? Why couldn't a daughter and her aging mother, enter into such an agreement and benefit from the tax breaks, adopt children, buy property, etc.?

Under my idea, the government would take the "intimacy" factor out of the union completely. It's not the government's business anyway, so why insist it be a part of the license or contract? People could still have a traditional marriage, and they could obtain a CU license to obtain benefits currently given to "married couples" or they could elect to not bother with that, if they didn't care to. Gay couples could have their ceremonies, as they are perfectly able to do now, and obtain a CU license to obtain benefits, and any other two consenting adults could use this as well, for whatever their personal circumstance may be. Perhaps two straight men or women who are just great friends, want to combine resources and live together in a CU arrangement? Does it have to be about sex? Do they have to be homosexuals?

 

[Cancel3]

what are you saying, that there's something wrong with his argument? you obviously haven't seen my mailbox. Your mailbox might be diddly squat, but my mailbox, is hot.

I had to get rid of my hot mailbox. My wife didn't like the way we looked at each other when I checked the mail.

I guess it didn't help that I always lit a cigarette after closing the box.

 

[Cancel3]

My idea is actually more "liberal" than yours, I would extend Civil Unions to ANY two adults of legal age, regardless of "relation" to one another... why not? Why couldn't a daughter and her aging mother, enter into such an agreement and benefit from the tax breaks, adopt children, buy property, etc.?

Under my idea, the government would take the "intimacy" factor out of the union completely. It's not the government's business anyway, so why insist it be a part of the license or contract? People could still have a traditional marriage, and they could obtain a CU license to obtain benefits currently given to "married couples" or they could elect to not bother with that, if they didn't care to. Gay couples could have their ceremonies, as they are perfectly able to do now, and obtain a CU license to obtain benefits, and any other two consenting adults could use this as well, for whatever their personal circumstance may be. Perhaps two straight men or women who are just great friends, want to combine resources and live together in a CU arrangement? Does it have to be about sex? Do they have to be homosexuals?

And you want to preserve those compassionate "conservative religious values" that have done so much for the world.

Let the civil unions be whatever they want them to be. And let gays marry.

Same result.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My arguments are said? Aren't you the one uses feces in ice cream and people marrying mailboxes as arguments?

I draw absurd analogies to illustrate the absurdity in your argument, those are not examples of "arguments" they are analogies to illustrate a point. I didn't say your arguments were sad, I said it was sad that you apparently are blind to my solution and point, simply because you are too stubborn to find agreement with me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And you want to preserve those compassionate "conservative religious values" that have done so much for the world.

Let the civil unions be whatever they want them to be. And let gays marry.

Same result.

In a sense, yes it is the "same result" without the consequence of altering deeply rooted religious values and the institution of traditional marriage. How is this an "extremist" position? You'd think I am the most extreme of the extreme, but I think this is a most 'moderate' approach and solution to the problem. Gay people get what they want, conservative Christians get what they want, everybody is happy in the end... why are you opposed to that?

 

[leaningright]

In a sense, yes it is the "same result" without the consequence of altering deeply rooted religious values and the institution of traditional marriage. How is this an "extremist" position? You'd think I am the most extreme of the extreme, but I think this is a most 'moderate' approach and solution to the problem. Gay people get what they want, conservative Christians get what they want, everybody is happy in the end... why are you opposed to that?

I can't answer for Sol but most people in favor of Sodomite Marraige are opposed to your solution because of this statement in your post: "conservative Christians get what they want." We can't have that, can we?

 

[Cancel3]

In a sense, yes it is the "same result" without the consequence of altering deeply rooted religious values and the institution of traditional marriage. How is this an "extremist" position? You'd think I am the most extreme of the extreme, but I think this is a most 'moderate' approach and solution to the problem. Gay people get what they want, conservative Christians get what they want, everybody is happy in the end... why are you opposed to that?

I am opposed to having the christians get their way when it comes to laws, because that is blatantly unconstitutional.

I still cannot believe that you talk about how bad it would be to alter the institution of marriage, when that has been done many times before.

Women used to be property, then they became equals. That altered the institution.

And when half of marriages end in divorce, infidelity is the norm, and the most common cause of hospitalization for women is being beaten by their spouse or significant other, I think its TIME to change the institution of marriage.

But the sad part is that you are willing to go to such lengths to stop something that will not effect straight marriages.

 

[Cancel5]

I can't answer for Sol but most people in favor of Sodomite Marraige are opposed to your solution because of this statement in your post: "conservative Christians get what they want." We can't have that, can we?

Another Christian ignorant of what Sodom was all about!!!! You guys don't even know your own religion! It cracks me up!!!!!!!!!
That is what happens when you take an ancient text and take it out of the times it was written in and try to make it applicable to today without even knowing what was taking place in the time period and the significance of the
meaning to the Bronze Aged people. Sodom was about hospitality, no homosexuality! I wish all Christians could take a college course on their religion! We might have a whole lot less hate! And a whole lot more tolerance!

Cheers!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I can't answer for Sol but most people in favor of Sodomite Marraige are opposed to your solution because of this statement in your post: "conservative Christians get what they want." We can't have that, can we?

Exactly, and that has been my point all along, this isn't about gay people gaining rights or benefits, it's about slapping religion in the face and making a mockery of a fundamental religious institution. If they wanted to "solve the problem" it could be easily done, through comprehensive civil unions legislation, and most Americans would go along with that, Christians included. It's not about "solving the problem" at all, they want the problem, they want the issue, because they see it as a way to attack fundamental religious beliefs in this country.

 

[Cancel3]

Another Christian ignorant of what Sodom was all about!!!! You guys don't even know your own religion! It cracks me up!!!!!!!!!
That is what happens when you take an ancient text and take it out of the times it was written in and try to make it applicable to today without even knowing what was taking place in the time period and the significance of the
meaning to the Bronze Aged people. Sodom was about hospitality, no homosexuality! I wish all Christians could take a college course on their religion! We might have a whole lot less hate! And a whole lot more tolerance!

Cheers!

TY Froggie. I have found that too many christians have no clue abouttheir own faith.

When I was a practicing pagan, I used to laugh that I had to educate many christians about their own faith while they were bashing mine.

I am glad someone else here knows that Sodom was about the hospitality shown, rather than sexual acts.