our prius was keyed

Epicurus said:
A particular definition of marriage and the government's role in deciding what views on the issue are and aren't legitimate.

I don't particularly care as far as the issue itself goes. I know gay people and I don't consider myself prejudiced against homosexuals. I'm not a social conservative or a homophobe.

But I do think that the social conservatives is right when they say that civil unions force them to accept the validity of a lifestyle that they may not support.

It is an example of using the institutions of government to rectify supposed ills in society. Sometimes it works out well as in the school systems and SCOTUS using them as a vehicle for desegregation. Sometimes it doesn't work out.
Click to expand...

Exactly, government should have no role in marriage. Although I would like to say that my comment was not about civil unions, it was about a Gay Pride sticker and Mottley putting it on someone else's property.
 
Epicurus said:
A particular definition of marriage and the government's role in deciding what views on the issue are and aren't legitimate.

I don't particularly care as far as the issue itself goes. I know gay people and I don't consider myself prejudiced against homosexuals. I'm not a social conservative or a homophobe.

But I do think that the social conservatives is right when they say that civil unions force them to accept the validity of a lifestyle that they may not support.

It is an example of using the institutions of government to rectify supposed ills in society. Sometimes it works out well as in the school systems and SCOTUS using them as a vehicle for desegregation. Sometimes it doesn't work out.
Click to expand...

Um.... a cival union does not define "marriage". That is the whole point of having a cival union. It does not encroach upon the religious institution of 'marriage'. While at the same time it does not discriminate between two consenting adults who wish to have the government provided protections of inheritance rights, visitation rights, tax benefits, etc...

The government should not be involved in marriage at all. Yet it is. That is what needs to change.
 
I'm sorry, Super.

I did not mean to imply that your civil union to Damo was harmful to the institution of marriage.
 
Epicurus said:
I'm sorry, Super.

I did not mean to imply that your civil union to Damo was harmful to the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the age old response of the defeated.... a vain attempt to 'insult' the opponent. Yet, even in your attempt to 'insult' you fail. The only thing you have succeeded in is displaying your ignorance yet again.

But do keep trying young one. Perhaps one day you shall comprehend the difference.
 
Epicurus said:
I'm sorry, Super.

I did not mean to imply that your civil union to Damo was harmful to the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of whatever is going on between sf and damo, sf’s take on this is correct, and I’m really surprised to read yours, which is kinda out there.
 
Dungheap said:
What do civil unions force you to accept?
Click to expand...
The normalization of homosexuality.

Society already is normalizing it, this would simply be a government recognition of it.

(BTW - I fully support it. There is no reason the government should be used to enforce some religion's view of 'marriage'.)
 
Damocles said:
The normalization of homosexuality.

Society already is normalizing it, this would simply be a government recognition of it.

(BTW - I fully support it. There is no reason the government should be used to enforce some religion's view of 'marriage'.)
Click to expand...


So the fundies are forced to accept that and are no longer permitted to run around with their "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" signs? Interesting.
 
God never had a wife ?

Ohh wait was that Mary ?

But they were not married ?

If God is all powerful it is clear that he never had a wife though.
 
Darla said:
Well, regardless of whatever is going on between sf and damo, sf’s take on this is correct, and I’m really surprised to read yours, which is kinda out there.
Click to expand...

I just like playing devil's advocate.

I don't think we should tell churches what they must and must not recognize as it pertains to marriage, but I support any legal agreement that would allow gay people to visit their partners in the hospital or share the same benefits as straight couples on things like taxes and insurance.
 
People do not have to get married by a religious person.

Heck there was a justice of the peace in jellico TN that had a grocery store and would marry you in the fruit and vegatable aisle if you wanted.
 
Epicurus said:
I just like playing devil's advocate.

I don't think we should tell churches what they must and must not recognize as it pertains to marriage, but I support any legal agreement that would allow gay people to visit their partners in the hospital or share the same benefits as straight couples on things like taxes and insurance.
Click to expand...

You seem confused as to what a cival union actually IS.

It does not force any religious organization to recognize the cival union, nor does it force them to do anything with regards to marriage.
 
Epicurus said:
I just like playing devil's advocate.

I don't think we should tell churches what they must and must not recognize as it pertains to marriage, but I support any legal agreement that would allow gay people to visit their partners in the hospital or share the same benefits as straight couples on things like taxes and insurance.
Click to expand...

The problem with that stance, and a lot of people have that stance, is that you're not on sound moral ground. If it's ok for people to have those other rights they why should they not have the right marry?

It's the same moral flaw in the old "Seperate but Equal" policy defended by SCOTUS in Plessey vs Ferguson later over turned in Brown vs Board of education.

The inherent moral insonsistency is that gay people are being denied what they believe to be a basic human right. The right to choose whom you share your life with and they are being descriminated against in the same manner as African Americans were under Plessy vs. Ferguson.

If gay couples should have all the rights associated with marriage then your on morally shaky ground in saying that should not have marriage.
 
Well to be technical I'm saying that churches shouldn't have to CALL it marriage.

But honestly I could care less about this issue. I'm not gay, homophobic, or religious so it doesn't really matter to me personally what you force the fundies to put up with, I'm just saying that YOU are on morally shaky ground dictating the terms of their faith to them.
 
Epicurus said:
Well to be technical I'm saying that churches shouldn't have to CALL it marriage.

But honestly I could care less about this issue. I'm not gay, homophobic, or religious so it doesn't really matter to me personally what you force the fundies to put up with, I'm just saying that YOU are on morally shaky ground dictating the terms of their faith to them.
Click to expand...

With cival unions, they DON'T have to call it marriage. Hence the term CIVAL UNION.

In NO WAY are you dictating their faith to them. The ENTIRE purpose of a cival union is that it is NOT marriage. That is why BOTH sides of the gay marriage issue are not happy with cival unions.

The RR thinks cival unions encroach upon marriage (which is false) and the gay marriage advocates don't think cival unions go far enough (because they want to be able to call the unions marriage).
 
Epicurus said:
Well to be technical I'm saying that churches shouldn't have to CALL it marriage.

But honestly I could care less about this issue. I'm not gay, homophobic, or religious so it doesn't really matter to me personally what you force the fundies to put up with, I'm just saying that YOU are on morally shaky ground dictating the terms of their faith to them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top