equal rights?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There should be no compromise with bigots like Dixie.

I'm not a bigot you fuckwit. No, you shouldn't compromise, you should hold stubborn and strong in your baseless beliefs because you think you are right and everyone else is wrong.... how about, go look up the fucking meaning of the word "bigot?"

 

[ib1yysguy]

Obama loves you too, Dixie.

 

[Socrtease]

Because "marriage" is not defined as the union of same sex. It is a traditional religious custom, ordained by the church as a union between man and woman for the purpose of procreation and family. It is consequently sanctioned by the state, but it is a fundamental tradition and religious custom, and a fundamental part of religious faith in this country.

This part of your argument uses faulty logic. You believe that because different religious sects celebrate marriage as a religious ceremony that marriage is therefore ONLY a religious custom. That is not true. In Western Civilization, Civil Marriages predate Religious ones. Justinian lawyers codified marriage in the 6th century AD. In the ninth century AD the church became officially involved in marriage but only to the extent that they blessed the marriage, they did not start to conduct marriage ceremony until the Council of Trent mandated that all catholic marriages be before a priest and two witnesses in a church. That was in the middle 1500's. In England the church blessed weddings between the aristocracy in the 13 century. So for the first 1500 years there was no religious ceremony as you define it. And in american the early colonies all had civil marriage statutes so your argument that marriage is ONLY a religious ceremony is complete faulty.

Let me attempt another absurd analogy here, since you love those so much... and let me first say, it is difficult to come up with any analogy to illustrate the point, because nothing else in our society can relate to this... but... imagine if you will, a movement became widespread to abolish operating motor vehicles on Sundays. Global Warming, Cost of Gas... whatever the reason, Sunday is targeted because it is the least 'productive' day of the week for most Americans. It is estimated we can save billions each week and help the environment to abolish driving on Sundays... well, Sunday is the traditional day for most all religious worship services. No exception is going to be allowed for the churchgoers, they will just have to walk to church or something... tough shit. Is that right? What if churches banned together and bought electric shuttle buses to transport their parishioners to and from services, and the 'ban Sunday driving' advocates included electric vehicles in their initiative, citing it wouldn't be fair to allow any type of vehicle on the road on Sunday... In fact, you can't even come out of your house on Sunday! Is that okay? You see, it is a direct assault on the religious practice of Sunday worship, even though good reasons and excuses can be found for doing it. Or what if there was a movement to make all people work on Sunday, prohibiting them from being able to attend church services? What if we redefined "prayer" to include paying homage to homosexuals, and made this mandatory on Sunday? Could this be a fair thing for government to do, one that is mandated to protect the freedom of religion? I think not!

The issue here is, the religious institution of marriage and what it means to those who are devoutly faithful to their religious beliefs. As a society that protects religious freedoms, we should be sensitive to those beliefs, we shouldn't pass laws which destroy those beliefs or attack the religious traditions. That is what is being done with 'gay marriage' exactly. As you have demonstrated, it's not about your love of gay people, it's about your hate of religious people. That is why I am opposed to Gay Marriage, and always will be! The problem can be solved without encroaching on the religious sanctity of marriage, and that is what SHOULD be done in this case.

Religious freedom does not and NEVER has meant that we have to be sensative to others beliefs. Only that the government does nothing to keep you from celebrating your religious view of marriage in your church. Now, my grandparents were married in a church, they were married for over 60 years. A priest married them and no amount of same sex marriage would make that marriage any less of a relgious institution for them. You seem to say that your faith is so fragile, that by merely allowing two men to be married it would destroy your belief that marriage is ordained by god as a joining of one man and one woman. I also wonder, do you believe in the part of the christian marriage ceramony that says "what god has joined together, let no man put assunder."? If you do then hasn't all the divorce already destroyed the relgious instution of marriage. If so why not. Finally, let me say that I am trying really hard to just talk about marriage and your beliefs in it. I am not going to indulge in name calling and would like to keep this respectful. So your turn, tell me why I am wrong.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Marriage, whether you define it as "civil" or otherwise, is indeed a religious ceremony and institution. I have never stated that atheists could not marry, or anyone else for that matter. You want to construct straw men because you, like your buddy Solitary, are too inept to debate the subject or tell me how my proposal would not accomplish the stated desires of gay couples.

CIVIL marriage is not a religious ceremony you dumbass! A wedding ceremony CAN be a religious ceremony but the government doesn't regulate that (yet).

 

[Socrtease]

Now since I figure you are probably asleep since it is an hour later in Alabama than it is here, lets also throw into the mix, common law marriage. There are 13 states, including your own that say two people can merely agree that they desire to be married.

The law in Alabama is:

No ceremony and no particular words are necessary to constitute a valid common-law marriage. Specifically, the elements required for a common law marriage are
(a) capacity (both spouses must be at least 14 and mentally competent);
(b) present agreement or mutual consent to enter into the marriage relationship;
(c) public recognition of the existence of the marriage (calling each other "my husband" and "my wife"); and
(d) cohabitation or mutual assumption openly of marital duties and obligations."

The underlined portion means consumation.

Other states have similar requirements and in the case of New Hampshire, the common law marriage is only recognized upon the death of one of the spouses and is for inheritence purposes only.

My point here is this, this institution that you claim is so holy and religious can be entered into without a preacher or priest, no judge, no JOP, no nothing. All that is required is that two people want to be married and enter into that agreement, there is nothing sacred about it except maybe to the two people that did it, but mostly they just have to say "I want to be married to you" to eachother and hold eachother out as husband and wife and screw or at least cohabitate and they are man and wife. Cuts against your claim that this is wholly a religious institution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This part of your argument uses faulty logic. You believe that because different religious sects celebrate marriage as a religious ceremony that marriage is therefore ONLY a religious custom. That is not true. In Western Civilization, Civil Marriages predate Religious ones. Justinian lawyers codified marriage in the 6th century AD. In the ninth century AD the church became officially involved in marriage but only to the extent that they blessed the marriage, they did not start to conduct marriage ceremony until the Council of Trent mandated that all catholic marriages be before a priest and two witnesses in a church. That was in the middle 1500's. In England the church blessed weddings between the aristocracy in the 13 century. So for the first 1500 years there was no religious ceremony as you define it. And in american the early colonies all had civil marriage statutes so your argument that marriage is ONLY a religious ceremony is complete faulty.

No, my logic is not faulty, your comprehension skills are faulty. I never stated that marriage was "solely" a religious custom. I said it IS a religious custom, a widely held religious custom, one that has been a religious custom since this nation was conceived, and a fundamental pert of religious faith and exercise of religious faith in America.

Religious freedom does not and NEVER has meant that we have to be sensative to others beliefs. Only that the government does nothing to keep you from celebrating your religious view of marriage in your church. Now, my grandparents were married in a church, they were married for over 60 years. A priest married them and no amount of same sex marriage would make that marriage any less of a relgious institution for them. You seem to say that your faith is so fragile, that by merely allowing two men to be married it would destroy your belief that marriage is ordained by god as a joining of one man and one woman. I also wonder, do you believe in the part of the christian marriage ceramony that says "what god has joined together, let no man put assunder."? If you do then hasn't all the divorce already destroyed the relgious instution of marriage. If so why not. Finally, let me say that I am trying really hard to just talk about marriage and your beliefs in it. I am not going to indulge in name calling and would like to keep this respectful. So your turn, tell me why I am wrong.

You have a different interpretation of the 1st Amendment than I do, or than our Founding Fathers did, is all I can say. My personal faith (for the third time now) has nothing to do with this, I am a Spiritualist, not a Christian. You continue to insist I am a Christian, or speaking on behalf of Christians. Apparently, you have some hang up about Christians, and I wonder what Christians ever did to you, to cause you to hate them so vehemently?

MARRIAGE, as it is defined by the dictionary, is a union between a man and woman, and the Church (all Judeo-Christian faiths) recognize the institution as "holy matrimony" and it is a fundamental part of their religious faith and customs. It is like the Eucharist or Communion, it is like Easter and Christmas, it holds a place of sanctity in the Church and in religious traditions and beliefs, it is SACRED. Regardless of what your "purpose" is for abridging it's meaning, you are NOT allowed to do this under the 1st Amendment, because it interferes with the "free exercise thereof" and practicing of sacred religious rituals by making a mockery of them, for no other reason than to simply trash the Church and make a mockery of it's traditions. I'm sorry you don't want to respect people's freedom of religion or allow them to practice their faith without the government making a total sham of it, but my understanding of the Constitution says you don't have this right.

 

[Socrtease]

No, my logic is not faulty, your comprehension skills are faulty. I never stated that marriage was "solely" a religious custom. I said it IS a religious custom, a widely held religious custom, one that has been a religious custom since this nation was conceived, and a fundamental pert of religious faith and exercise of religious faith in America.



You have a different interpretation of the 1st Amendment than I do, or than our Founding Fathers did, is all I can say. My personal faith (for the third time now) has nothing to do with this, I am a Spiritualist, not a Christian. You continue to insist I am a Christian, or speaking on behalf of Christians. Apparently, you have some hang up about Christians, and I wonder what Christians ever did to you, to cause you to hate them so vehemently?

MARRIAGE, as it is defined by the dictionary, is a union between a man and woman, and the Church (all Judeo-Christian faiths) recognize the institution as "holy matrimony" and it is a fundamental part of their religious faith and customs. It is like the Eucharist or Communion, it is like Easter and Christmas, it holds a place of sanctity in the Church and in religious traditions and beliefs, it is SACRED. Regardless of what your "purpose" is for abridging it's meaning, you are NOT allowed to do this under the 1st Amendment, because it interferes with the "free exercise thereof" and practicing of sacred religious rituals by making a mockery of them, for no other reason than to simply trash the Church and make a mockery of it's traditions. I'm sorry you don't want to respect people's freedom of religion or allow them to practice their faith without the government making a total sham of it, but my understanding of the Constitution says you don't have this right.

So then faith is soo fragile that expanding marriage, like we have with common law marriage make it impossible for others to celebrate their marriage relgiously? Free excersize means that you get to practice your religion without interference from CONGRESS. Says that in the words of the Amendment. Doesn't say that EVERYONE has to allow you to practice or impose your religious beliefs on them. Where your rights end mine begin. NO ONE is saying that a church that doesn't believe in same sex marriage would ever have to marry two men. Hell my first wife's family was catholic and they would not marry us because I was an athiest. So using your logic our marriage was a personal assault on the catholic church because they didn't believe that she should marry an non believer. I absolutely respect other peoples religious beliefs but that does not mean I have to live my life so as not to disturb their beliefs. That is what you are saying. Because so many christians would be offended by gay marriage we shouldn't allow it. What other christians believe should have NO BEARING on my marriage. If I choose to marry naked in the moonlight, so long as I don't violate any public decency laws I can and every offend christian be damned. When the catholic church refused to marry my first wife and I, we just found a JOP in Charleston. I didn't throw a fit and try to force anything.

Finally the part of your post that I underlined and bolded. I challenge you to find a single judge anywhere in the US that would tell you that your interpretation of the first amendment is correct. That part of your analysis would fail a first amendment question on a constitutional law exam. So long as the state law does not hamper a churches practices that law does not interfere with their free excersize rights. You are wrong here. And I would bet you a years salary and you could chose the jurist that made the decision. I would make this bet if you chose Scalia. What proves your statement wrong is that we already have a law that impinges free exercise in the US. Bigamy laws were held to be valid inspite of the challenge by mormons.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not saying any of that. I am saying, Gay Marriage redefines what marriage means, and marriage is a holy religious institution. It has nothing to do with forcing someone's religious beliefs on you, it is about respecting the sanctity of their beliefs and allowing them to keep their beliefs holy in the society we all have to live in.

I proposed a solution to the problem, and no one here has come up with one damn good reason for why my solution is unacceptable, except that it doesn't take a great big shit on the Church and religious people! That is what you people are pushing for, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "rights" of gay people! You just want to bow up, grunt really hard and take a great big steamy shit on the Church! THAT is what your mission and objective is, and THAT is why it's being rejected by Americans EVERYWHERE!

 

[Socrtease]

I'm not saying any of that. I am saying, Gay Marriage redefines what marriage means, and marriage is a holy religious institution. It has nothing to do with forcing someone's religious beliefs on you, it is about respecting the sanctity of their beliefs and allowing them to keep their beliefs holy in the society we all have to live in.

I proposed a solution to the problem, and no one here has come up with one damn good reason for why my solution is unacceptable, except that it doesn't take a great big shit on the Church and religious people! That is what you people are pushing for, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "rights" of gay people! You just want to bow up, grunt really hard and take a great big steamy shit on the Church! THAT is what your mission and objective is, and THAT is why it's being rejected by Americans EVERYWHERE!

For mormons polygamy was a holy religious institution and we had no problem taking a big old shit on their relgion because no one in America liked them. People murdered them which is why they moved to Deseret. YOu keep saying marriage is a holy religious institution but I have already proved to you that it is sometimes NOT a holy religious institution. Just because some say it is so does not make it true.

 

[Socrtease]

I'm not saying any of that. I am saying, Gay Marriage redefines what marriage means, and marriage is a holy religious institution. It has nothing to do with forcing someone's religious beliefs on you, it is about respecting the sanctity of their beliefs and allowing them to keep their beliefs holy in the society we all have to live in.

YOu keep saying this, but if this were true then we would not celebrate Christmas with Santa because there are lots of Christians that don't like Santa and find it insulting to the "true religious meaning of Christmas"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are intentionally taking my comments out of context to make an invalid argument. I won't stand for that, it's intellectually dishonest. Marriage is a sacred and holy institution between a man and a woman, it does not require 'redefinition' to allow gay people the benefits they desire. I have given you a solution that would work, could be adopted almost immediately, with little resistance or complaint, and would remedy the problem entirely... you don't want to accept that. Instead, you want to continue to attack religion and those who hold marriage sacred and don't want to change its definition. THAT is your target here, THAT is what you are against. You don't "favor" Gay Marriage, you OPPOSE religion!

 

[Socrtease]

You are intentionally taking my comments out of context to make an invalid argument. I won't stand for that, it's intellectually dishonest. Marriage is a sacred and holy institution between a man and a woman, it does not require 'redefinition' to allow gay people the benefits they desire. I have given you a solution that would work, could be adopted almost immediately, with little resistance or complaint, and would remedy the problem entirely... you don't want to accept that. Instead, you want to continue to attack religion and those who hold marriage sacred and don't want to change its definition. THAT is your target here, THAT is what you are against. You don't "favor" Gay Marriage, you OPPOSE religion!

No I oppose separate but equal. Your bolded and underlined above is an absolute and I have already proven you wrong. Marriage is OLDER than religious marriage in western civilization. Two men getting married does not shatter a marriage between a man and a woman. My arguments are based in logic and the law. The law I know and logic I am pretty good at. You solution is only a half solution. I am all for taking marriage completely out of the realm of the state if that is what you want. No Marriage licences period, Civil Unions for everyone and churches can marry whoever they wish.

 

[Damocles]

I oppose the government's attempt to constantly sanction what was previously a religious ceremony and use religious definitions to "define" such a thing. It smacks of government making a law respecting religion, and establishing it as what they use to "define" sections of law.

It is, IMO, a violation of the spirit, if not directly a violation of, the First Amendment.

And no, there weren't licenses to get married back in the Founder's day.

 

[Don Quixote]

I oppose the government's attempt to constantly sanction what was previously a religious ceremony and use religious definitions to "define" such a thing. It smacks of government making a law respecting religion, and establishing it as what they use to "define" sections of law.

It is, IMO, a violation of the spirit, if not directly a violation of, the First Amendment.

And no, there weren't licenses to get married back in the Founder's day.

it is a violation of the first amendment and needs to be taken to scotus as such

why should a religious definition of marriage be the only legally accepted form of marriage

 

[Cancel3]

This part of your argument uses faulty logic. You believe that because different religious sects celebrate marriage as a religious ceremony that marriage is therefore ONLY a religious custom. That is not true. In Western Civilization, Civil Marriages predate Religious ones. Justinian lawyers codified marriage in the 6th century AD. In the ninth century AD the church became officially involved in marriage but only to the extent that they blessed the marriage, they did not start to conduct marriage ceremony until the Council of Trent mandated that all catholic marriages be before a priest and two witnesses in a church. That was in the middle 1500's. In England the church blessed weddings between the aristocracy in the 13 century. So for the first 1500 years there was no religious ceremony as you define it. And in american the early colonies all had civil marriage statutes so your argument that marriage is ONLY a religious ceremony is complete faulty.

Religious freedom does not and NEVER has meant that we have to be sensative to others beliefs. Only that the government does nothing to keep you from celebrating your religious view of marriage in your church. Now, my grandparents were married in a church, they were married for over 60 years. A priest married them and no amount of same sex marriage would make that marriage any less of a relgious institution for them. You seem to say that your faith is so fragile, that by merely allowing two men to be married it would destroy your belief that marriage is ordained by god as a joining of one man and one woman. I also wonder, do you believe in the part of the christian marriage ceramony that says "what god has joined together, let no man put assunder."? If you do then hasn't all the divorce already destroyed the relgious instution of marriage. If so why not. Finally, let me say that I am trying really hard to just talk about marriage and your beliefs in it. I am not going to indulge in name calling and would like to keep this respectful. So your turn, tell me why I am wrong.

Excellent post, Soc.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No I oppose separate but equal. Your bolded and underlined above is an absolute and I have already proven you wrong. Marriage is OLDER than religious marriage in western civilization. Two men getting married does not shatter a marriage between a man and a woman. My arguments are based in logic and the law. The law I know and logic I am pretty good at. You solution is only a half solution. I am all for taking marriage completely out of the realm of the state if that is what you want. No Marriage licences period, Civil Unions for everyone and churches can marry whoever they wish.

There is no "separate but equal" in my proposal. For the fourth time now, I was not making the argument that marriage is a religious institution, as an 'absolute' or trying to argue that it is 'only' a religious ceremony. You have missed the context, and despite my repeated attempts to get you to understand that, you simply refuse to do so. I have also never made the claim that gay people marrying, would "shatter" a traditional marriage, that is another failure to understand context on your part.

Your arguments are based on your hatred of religious customs and traditions. It probably stems from your general hatred of religion and religious people. You continue to insist I am arguing from a Christian perspective, that I am indeed a Christian, when I have corrected this error several times throughout this thread. I am arguing from a 'moderate' side which respects both points of view and offers a viable alternative and solution to the fundamental problem. The only thing your side doesn't get that it wants, is to trash religious tradition, make a mockery of religious customs, and slap religious institutions. You've not made a compelling argument for why the law should allow that.

I have presented 3 valid arguments for why "Gay Marriage" is not feasible. 1.) It would alter the definition of marriage to include sexual behavior and preference, which would establish legal precedent for a variety of personal preferences, (and subject to 'equal protection') most of which are undesirable to a civilized moral society. 2.) It would infringe on religious exercise, and mock traditional religious customs, contrary to the protections given in the 1st Amendment. 3.) The People clearly do not want or desire such an alteration of traditional marriage in this country.

I have offered an alternative compromise, one that it ironically in line with your position: "I am all for taking marriage completely out of the realm of the state ...No Marriage licences period, Civil Unions for everyone and churches can marry whoever they wish." Yet, instead of shaking hands and agreeing on my proposal, you vehemently refuse to accept it, continuing to throw insults in my face and denounce me as an extremist religious fanatic. I have offered a solution that would address the fundamental problems of gay couples, to have every single benefit of any traditional marriage, as well as removing the inferences of religion, sexuality, and personal intimacy from the law. Yet, you refuse to accept that proposal, although you are unable to articulate a rational reason to reject it, other than denying a religious group any satisfaction at all.

My question is, who's position is more tolerant and accepting, and who's is more intolerant and bigoted? Who is being the 'extremist' and who is being 'moderate' in their views? I don't need for someone to quote this post and tell me what a good job I did, I know I did a good job. If you want to remain blind and ignorant, that is entirely up to you, I can't persuade a bigot.

 

[Cancel3]

There is no "separate but equal" in my proposal. For the fourth time now, I was not making the argument that marriage is a religious institution, as an 'absolute' or trying to argue that it is 'only' a religious ceremony. You have missed the context, and despite my repeated attempts to get you to understand that, you simply refuse to do so. I have also never made the claim that gay people marrying, would "shatter" a traditional marriage, that is another failure to understand context on your part.

Your arguments are based on your hatred of religious customs and traditions. It probably stems from your general hatred of religion and religious people. You continue to insist I am arguing from a Christian perspective, that I am indeed a Christian, when I have corrected this error several times throughout this thread. I am arguing from a 'moderate' side which respects both points of view and offers a viable alternative and solution to the fundamental problem. The only thing your side doesn't get that it wants, is to trash religious tradition, make a mockery of religious customs, and slap religious institutions. You've not made a compelling argument for why the law should allow that.

I have presented 3 valid arguments for why "Gay Marriage" is not feasible. 1.) It would alter the definition of marriage to include sexual behavior and preference, which would establish legal precedent for a variety of personal preferences, (and subject to 'equal protection') most of which are undesirable to a civilized moral society. 2.) It would infringe on religious exercise, and mock traditional religious customs, contrary to the protections given in the 1st Amendment. 3.) The People clearly do not want or desire such an alteration of traditional marriage in this country.

I have offered an alternative compromise, one that it ironically in line with your position: "I am all for taking marriage completely out of the realm of the state ...No Marriage licences period, Civil Unions for everyone and churches can marry whoever they wish." Yet, instead of shaking hands and agreeing on my proposal, you vehemently refuse to accept it, continuing to throw insults in my face and denounce me as an extremist religious fanatic. I have offered a solution that would address the fundamental problems of gay couples, to have every single benefit of any traditional marriage, as well as removing the inferences of religion, sexuality, and personal intimacy from the law. Yet, you refuse to accept that proposal, although you are unable to articulate a rational reason to reject it, other than denying a religious group any satisfaction at all.

My question is, who's position is more tolerant and accepting, and who's is more intolerant and bigoted? Who is being the 'extremist' and who is being 'moderate' in their views? I don't need for someone to quote this post and tell me what a good job I did, I know I did a good job. If you want to remain blind and ignorant, that is entirely up to you, I can't persuade a bigot.

Its funny, you claim that allowing gay marriages would alter the definition of marriage to include sexual behavior and preference. But right now marriage is based on sexual behavior. It just happens to be heterosexual behavior. Gays wanting to marry do so for sexual reasons far less than straights.

And no one is infringing on any religious ceremony. Those religions would be free to continue their traditions as they always have. But right now THEY are infringing on the rights of gays to marry. Funny that you want to protect their rights (which are not in danger), and yet care nothing for the rights of gay couples. And as for mocking traditional religious customs, those same religious customs have been used to exclude every gay and lesbian couple from having the priviledges the government gives to married couples. Those same religious groups have tried to force their beliefs into the political scene, the education system, the legal system, the free enterprise system, and into people's bedrooms. And now you have the audacity to talk about their religious ceremonies being mocked? lmao I am not mocking them by refusing to abide by the rules of THEIR faith.

You want to do away with marriage completely, and ONLY do civil unions? Why would that be an improvement? You would be REMOVING the very institution you wish to protect.

Besides, its just semantics. Renaming the ceremony doesn't DO anything.

 

[Cancel3]

Being moderate is all well and good, Dixie. But when you face something that is blatanly wrong, unfair, and a blatant example of bigotry, moderation is not the answer.

Sometimes doing what is right matters more than being perceived as moderate.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Its funny, you claim that allowing gay marriages would alter the definition of marriage to include sexual behavior and preference. But right now marriage is based on sexual behavior. It just happens to be heterosexual behavior. Gays wanting to marry do so for sexual reasons far less than straights.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong. Marriage is not confined by law to people who are heterosexual. Please show me ANY state law that says it is, and I will join you in condemning it.

And no one is infringing on any religious ceremony. Those religions would be free to continue their traditions as they always have. But right now THEY are infringing on the rights of gays to marry.

Yes it does infringe on the religious ceremony by infringing on its sanctity and making a mockery of it. Again, there is not a law prohibiting gay people from marrying a partner of the opposite sex. They have every right a straight person has, to marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish, as long as the other party consents, is not married already, and is of legal age. IF that right were being denied to gay people, I would join you in protest, but no right is being violated.

Funny that you want to protect their rights (which are not in danger), and yet care nothing for the rights of gay couples. And as for mocking traditional religious customs, those same religious customs have been used to exclude every gay and lesbian couple from having the priviledges the government gives to married couples.

As this thread demonstrates, I am more than willing to establish a law that will give gay couples every single benefit of traditional married couples, and it is not me who is refusing to accept it. It is you, and the anti-religious extremists, who are preventing gays from accomplishing this.

Those same religious groups have tried to force their beliefs into the political scene, the education system, the legal system, the free enterprise system, and into people's bedrooms. And now you have the audacity to talk about their religious ceremonies being mocked? lmao I am not mocking them by refusing to abide by the rules of THEIR faith.

No one has asked you to 'abide by the rules of their faith', I have only suggested you respect their constitutional right to exercise their faith and not make a mockery of it. It is the liberals who seek to force their views on people against their will, by appointing liberal judges who mandate laws from the bench in defiance of the will of the people.

You want to do away with marriage completely, and ONLY do civil unions? Why would that be an improvement? You would be REMOVING the very institution you wish to protect.

Besides, its just semantics. Renaming the ceremony doesn't DO anything.

Because the government really doesn't have any business licensing a sanctified religious ceremony in the first place. They certainly don't have the right to change the definition of it and base it on sexual preference. If it's just a matter of semantics, why are you so opposed to my idea? This would remove the 'religious' aspects completely from government licensing, and it would also allow religion to maintain religious sanctity of what they consider to be a holy religious tradition. It gives both sides what they claim to desire, without 'redefining' what words mean! To me, that is just common good sense, so why are you so opposed to it? Because it doesn't take a great big steaming shit on religion! That's the ONLY reason you have come up with.

Debate Over!

 

[Cancel3]

Sorry but you are just plain wrong. Marriage is not confined by law to people who are heterosexual. Please show me ANY state law that says it is, and I will join you in condemning it.



Yes it does infringe on the religious ceremony by infringing on its sanctity and making a mockery of it. Again, there is not a law prohibiting gay people from marrying a partner of the opposite sex. They have every right a straight person has, to marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish, as long as the other party consents, is not married already, and is of legal age. IF that right were being denied to gay people, I would join you in protest, but no right is being violated.



As this thread demonstrates, I am more than willing to establish a law that will give gay couples every single benefit of traditional married couples, and it is not me who is refusing to accept it. It is you, and the anti-religious extremists, who are preventing gays from accomplishing this.



No one has asked you to 'abide by the rules of their faith', I have only suggested you respect their constitutional right to exercise their faith and not make a mockery of it. It is the liberals who seek to force their views on people against their will, by appointing liberal judges who mandate laws from the bench in defiance of the will of the people.



Because the government really doesn't have any business licensing a sanctified religious ceremony in the first place. They certainly don't have the right to change the definition of it and base it on sexual preference. If it's just a matter of semantics, why are you so opposed to my idea? This would remove the 'religious' aspects completely from government licensing, and it would also allow religion to maintain religious sanctity of what they consider to be a holy religious tradition. It gives both sides what they claim to desire, without 'redefining' what words mean! To me, that is just common good sense, so why are you so opposed to it? Because it doesn't take a great big steaming shit on religion! That's the ONLY reason you have come up with.

Debate Over!

No one has asked me to abide by the rules of their faith? No, they didn't ASK, they tried to force it. And have succeeded in many cases.

Blue Laws force me to abide by their rules about what days to work. If I own a business in some places (or a business that serves alcohol in most places in Alabama), I am not free to operate my business according to what I want or even what my customers want. I am forced to close on Sundays because the christians demand that THEIR rules apply to all.

The battles to prevent evolution from being taught in public schools have been too numerous to count. And the overwhelming majority is by christians trying to force their rules on others.

The laws against sodomy come straight from puritanical christians and were a blatant use of the laws to force their rules on others. These have been fought over and over. And only struck down recently.



So you will forgive us if we are a little less than worried about insulting the religious nutcases.


Ok, so no one gets married and everyone gets a civil union. And thats your answer?