Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Aug 2011, 7:28 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
14 Aug 2011, 7:40 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah that seems like a fairly decent solution.....I honestly do not even find the idea of traditional marrige all that appealing, but people should have the right to it if they so choose.
But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
I don't think a compromise is good enough. Separate but equal isn't equal and legislature should not be governed by religion or some juvenile complex about it. They should have equal rights and recognition and not have to settle for less.But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
14 Aug 2011, 8:13 pm
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah that seems like a fairly decent solution.....I honestly do not even find the idea of traditional marrige all that appealing, but people should have the right to it if they so choose.
But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
I don't think a compromise is good enough. Separate but equal isn't equal and legislature should not be governed by religion or some juvenile complex about it. They should have equal rights and recognition and not have to settle for less.But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
However what you are advocating is effectively turning religious people into second class citizens, because homosexuality is actually considered sinful in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran (sp?).
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Aug 2011, 8:30 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah that seems like a fairly decent solution.....I honestly do not even find the idea of traditional marrige all that appealing, but people should have the right to it if they so choose.
But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
I don't think a compromise is good enough. Separate but equal isn't equal and legislature should not be governed by religion or some juvenile complex about it. They should have equal rights and recognition and not have to settle for less.But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
However what you are advocating is effectively turning religious people into second class citizens, because homosexuality is actually considered sinful in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran (sp?).
I'm sure white southerners claimed they were going to be made second class citizens too, if blacks were given equal rights.
Expanding rights to others isn't going to diminish your rights. Isn't that the whole point of America for everyone to enjoy the same equality and liberty?
Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
14 Aug 2011, 8:34 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah that seems like a fairly decent solution.....I honestly do not even find the idea of traditional marrige all that appealing, but people should have the right to it if they so choose.
But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
I don't think a compromise is good enough. Separate but equal isn't equal and legislature should not be governed by religion or some juvenile complex about it. They should have equal rights and recognition and not have to settle for less.But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
However what you are advocating is effectively turning religious people into second class citizens, because homosexuality is actually considered sinful in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran (sp?).
Not everyone shares this interpretation. There are religious groups who would would accept, honor, and perform a marriage ceremony for homosexuals and they should be well within their rights to do so.
But the larger point here is that the term marriage is already a civil term. I got married in Vegas. No church, no priest (Elvis technically doesn't count, but I could see a strong argument
), no problems. Never once has my marriage been questioned.
And what Kraichgauer said (just saw it).
Last edited by number5 on 14 Aug 2011, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
14 Aug 2011, 8:42 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah that seems like a fairly decent solution.....I honestly do not even find the idea of traditional marrige all that appealing, but people should have the right to it if they so choose.
But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
I don't think a compromise is good enough. Separate but equal isn't equal and legislature should not be governed by religion or some juvenile complex about it. They should have equal rights and recognition and not have to settle for less.But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
However what you are advocating is effectively turning religious people into second class citizens, because homosexuality is actually considered sinful in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran (sp?).
I'm sure white southerners claimed they were going to be made second class citizens too, if blacks were given equal rights.
Expanding rights to others isn't going to diminish your rights. Isn't that the whole point of America for everyone to enjoy the same equality and liberty?
Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Unlike those white southerners, religious people are going to be charged for hate speech for speaking out on their religious beliefs.
14 Aug 2011, 8:49 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
However what you are advocating is effectively turning religious people into second class citizens, because homosexuality is actually considered sinful in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran (sp?).
Right, thinking that laws should be justified with reasons other than "Because God said so" makes religious people second class citizens . No, separating the Church from the state means preventing the system from being theocratic. I don't give an iota of a s**t about what Churches recognize as real marriages, they can conduct marriages within their Churches however they like but legally gay marriage should be recognized equally. Also there are Churches that have accepted homosexuality, so why don't they have any say in the matter over the Churches that haven't? There is no reason to be against it other than for religious reasons, having a juvenile complex about it, and because of some ridiculous notion that homosexuality is unnatural and nuclear families are the only type of functional family structure.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Aug 2011, 9:17 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah that seems like a fairly decent solution.....I honestly do not even find the idea of traditional marrige all that appealing, but people should have the right to it if they so choose.
But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
I don't think a compromise is good enough. Separate but equal isn't equal and legislature should not be governed by religion or some juvenile complex about it. They should have equal rights and recognition and not have to settle for less.But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
However what you are advocating is effectively turning religious people into second class citizens, because homosexuality is actually considered sinful in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran (sp?).
I'm sure white southerners claimed they were going to be made second class citizens too, if blacks were given equal rights.
Expanding rights to others isn't going to diminish your rights. Isn't that the whole point of America for everyone to enjoy the same equality and liberty?
Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Unlike those white southerners, religious people are going to be charged for hate speech for speaking out on their religious beliefs.
I very much doubt that the average religious person is going to be punished by the law for speaking their church's opinions about gays, unless their speech includes advocating violence and denial of civil rights, which then does constitute hate speech.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
14 Aug 2011, 9:34 pm
14 Aug 2011, 9:37 pm
14 Aug 2011, 9:39 pm
14 Aug 2011, 9:41 pm
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,691
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
14 Aug 2011, 9:45 pm
14 Aug 2011, 9:51 pm
14 Aug 2011, 9:55 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah that seems like a fairly decent solution.....I honestly do not even find the idea of traditional marrige all that appealing, but people should have the right to it if they so choose.
But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
I don't think a compromise is good enough. Separate but equal isn't equal and legislature should not be governed by religion or some juvenile complex about it. They should have equal rights and recognition and not have to settle for less.But yes I think there could be various types of marrige type set ups that all receive the same legal rights or whatever, like I belive homosexuals should be able to have a civil union or whatever they would like to call it and have it treated the same as a traditional marrige as far as the legal status....I also think they should be able to adopt for instance as I see no reason why a homosexual couple could not provide a loving home for a child.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't think there should be a multi-tier system. But ultimately it's about what voters will bear and today gay marriage is rapidly becoming acceptable. Once the older generation dies, it's over. The young are for it.
Explains those judges getting kicked out of office in Iowa.
Really, it isn't gaining as much acceptance as you think, in fact the pro-gay marriage groups have actually gotten to the point where they are fighting to silence their critics.
Furthermore, the primary issue many people take with "gay marriage" is the fact you call it marriage. There wouldn't be half the protests if people you called it a 'civil union.'
But that's the point; Gays are still given second class standing. They're told that they have to be content with civil unions, which in everyone's minds is not equal to marriage, regardless if the benefits of marriage are included.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
However what you are advocating is effectively turning religious people into second class citizens, because homosexuality is actually considered sinful in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran (sp?).
No, because no citizen should(or does) have the right to have their religious beliefs placed as law, not in America. That homosexuals should have equal treatment and opportunities as everyone else is not a religious belief and so does not deprive religious folks of any rights they are entitled to as citizens.
Just because a group doesn't get to enforce their religious beliefs doesn't mean they have been deprived of a constitutional right it just means everyone else's is being enforced.
Inuyasha wrote:
Unlike those white southerners, religious people are going to be charged for hate speech for speaking out on their religious beliefs.
Nope, they may speak but they may not strike.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,691
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
14 Aug 2011, 10:21 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Abandoning Marriage and Parenting goals PERMANENTLY!!! |
31 Dec 1969, 7:00 pm Guest
|
| Abandoning Marriage and Parenting goals PERMANENTLY!!! |
Yesterday, 12:48 pm |
