Civil Rights & Democratic Cowards

Superfreak said:
What is ignorant is pretending the government's 'marriage' is necessary and that the RR should just suck it because you say so.

I am not conflating the two you idiot... I am stating that we DONT need the GOVERNMENT involved in 'MARRIAGE'... meaning there would be no secular.

Leave 'marriage' as a religious ceremony and this 'issue' is resolved.

But the RR doesn't want that... and neither do people like you. Both of you want it YOUR way all the way and fuck the other side.
Click to expand...

Eh, your way would force people to engage in a religious ceremony just so they can be husband and wife. what are you going to tell heteros who are married - you are now pronounced civil partners?

Yeah, I don't see this idea sweeping the nation SF. I hate to tell you.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They are a chosen people, a nation of priests to force god's laws onto humanity.

Why else?
Click to expand...
You should point her to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion so she can really "know the truth" about those evil Joooos. You know you have a copy at home you could lend her.
 
Darla said:
Eh, your way would force people to engage in a religious ceremony just so they can be husband and wife. what are you going to tell heteros who are married - you are now pronounced civil partners?

Yeah, I don't see this idea sweeping the nation SF. I hate to tell you.
Click to expand...

just as elvis can marry you now in vegas....so can it be when the government gets out of marriage

you can have your civil union and get married in a non religious manner, just as they do now

me...i'm ok with the government staying in marriage, so long as all people can marry and such relationship is legal
 
obama's stance on this doesn't make sense...as SF pointed out, the majority support a change in this policy, so there would be little, if any, political fallout for obama...

in the early stages of his presidency his DOJ continued to argue many legal principles that bush's admin had argued, that made some sense, in that, some of the cases were about maintaining executive power...and obama never ran on a campaign to divest the executive branch of any power

for me: i support the removal of the policy, so long as those in charge of our military support its removal as well. i don't think armchair warriors should be deciding such issues....
 
Darla said:
I am not trying to define anything. People who advocate for your position are attempting to redefine heterosexual marriage as civil unions.

That's both unrealistic and unnecessary. In my most humble of opinions.
Click to expand...

Only on the secular level. You are free to disagree and continue to insist that the government be involved in marriage. You have every right to that opinion, though I do question the 'humble' part. :)

yes, it is silly that so many people are hung up on a fucking word.... silly that so many people want it defined their way.... and yes, you do want it defined to include any consenting couple. The RR wants it just consenting hetero couples. you don't want anything to change that might affect your definition. They don't want anything changed either.

That is why this continues to be an issue.
 
Darla said:
Eh, your way would force people to engage in a religious ceremony just so they can be husband and wife. what are you going to tell heteros who are married - you are now pronounced civil partners?

Yeah, I don't see this idea sweeping the nation SF. I hate to tell you.
Click to expand...

Unreal... so now they can't be husband and wife unless they have a ceremony that is called 'marriage'? Like I said, too many people are hung up on that fucking word.
 
Superfreak said:
Only on the secular level. You are free to disagree and continue to insist that the government be involved in marriage. You have every right to that opinion, though I do question the 'humble' part. :)

yes, it is silly that so many people are hung up on a fucking word.... silly that so many people want it defined their way.... and yes, you do want it defined to include any consenting couple. The RR wants it just consenting hetero couples. you don't want anything to change that might affect your definition. They don't want anything changed either.

That is why this continues to be an issue.
Click to expand...


The idea that it would be better and easier to do something that has an actual impact on all married couples (transforming their marriages to civil unions and allowing gays to marry) than to do something that has no impact on anyone other than gay people (allowing them to marry) is just stupid.

And the only reason that you propose that nonsensical "solution" is because the religious right jackasses are stupid and cannot differential between secular marriage and religious marriage. Why go through all that just to appease people like Dixie who will never be appeased anyway?
 
Superfreak said:
Unreal... so now they can't be husband and wife unless they have a ceremony that is called 'marriage'? Like I said, too many people are hung up on that fucking word.
Click to expand...

You sound like a hippie! Oh I don't need a piece of paper to know I love you baby. LOL I bet you have said that!
 
NigelTufnel said:
The idea that it would be better and easier to do something that has an actual impact on all married couples (transforming their marriages to civil unions and allowing gays to marry) than to do something that has no impact on anyone other than gay people (allowing them to marry) is just stupid.

And the only reason that you propose that nonsensical "solution" is because the religious right jackasses are stupid and cannot differential between secular marriage and religious marriage. Why go through all that just to appease people like Dixie who will never be appeased anyway?
Click to expand...

That I believe is the key question.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The idea that it would be better and easier to do something that has an actual impact on all married couples (transforming their marriages to civil unions and allowing gays to marry) than to do something that has no impact on anyone other than gay people (allowing them to marry) is just stupid.

And the only reason that you propose that nonsensical "solution" is because the religious right jackasses are stupid and cannot differential between secular marriage and religious marriage. Why go through all that just to appease people like Dixie who will never be appeased anyway?
Click to expand...

people like dixie? really....you do realize obama is opposed to gay marriage and believes marriage is between one woman and one man....

the issue is not as simple as you would like to believe
 
Yurt said:
people like dixie? really....you do realize obama is opposed to gay marriage and believes marriage is between one woman and one man....

the issue is not as simple as you would like to believe
Click to expand...


People like Dixie and Obama. Better?

Yes, it is quite simple.
 
NigelTufnel said:
People like Dixie and Obama. Better?

Yes, it is quite simple.
Click to expand...

yeah...it is better...you tried to pass it off as far right like dixie...when the truth is, many on both sides oppose "marriage" for homosexuals

sf realizes this, hence why his proposal isn't that far fetched
 
Yurt said:
yeah...it is better...you tried to pass it off as far right like dixie...when the truth is, many on both sides oppose "marriage" for homosexuals

sf realizes this, hence why his proposal isn't that far fetched
Click to expand...


How well does changing all existing marriages to civil unions poll?

It's a dumbass idea. And people like Dixie are the loudest and most obnoxious.
 
NigelTufnel said:
How well does changing all existing marriages to civil unions poll?

It's a dumbass idea. And people like Dixie are the loudest and most obnoxious.
Click to expand...

you claiming dixie is the loudest is nonsense...on 'this' site maybe...but good lord, stop attributing to him spokesman status

you're the poll expert, you tell me...further, i never claimed it had a majority, it does however have a good number who support it

i would prefer to leave it as is, except allow homosexuals to marry...marriage is no longer the domain of religoin, elvis can marry you in vegas and you can divorce or anull the next day
 
Superfreak said:
To this day I do not understand why so many politicians fear this issue. From the center right out to the far left, the nation supports removing DADT and civil unions for everyone.

Only the far right opposes removing DADT. F them. Do it.

As for marriage... just get the government out of it all together. Civil unions for everyone who wants the inheritance/visitation/tax/etc... benefits provided by the government. Leave marriage to the religious institutions. Done.

This is one of those issues that people make far more complex than it needs to be.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Traditionally, marriage is a religious union; and as one who believes religion and state ought to remain more or less entirely separate, I would be in favor of replacing state marriage with civil unions (or domestic partnerships, either works), leaving marriage to institutions of religion.

That said, I wouldn't lose any sleep if my state granted marriage equality to gays and lesbians. I am a Christian who believes marriage should be between one man and one woman; therefore, I will marry one woman. My faith does not grant me the authority to force my belief on the general populace.

To quote Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top