quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

Gay marriage dosent interfere in the separation of church and state, but this pointless bickering over semantics does. By rejecting the word 'civial union' and insisting that only one word be used in both cases, there is no longer any way to distinguish the leageal issues from the religious issues. It becomes only one issue. Now rejection of the term 'civial union' due to it holding less legal standing might have been a valid argument in some other cases, but when the term 'civial union' is rejectyed even when it carries the same legal weight (as it did in the previous vermont law) I cant seer any reason why gay activists to reject it other than just maliciousness.

quote:

Your arguments seems to amount to "we shouldn't have gay marriage because the words confuse people",

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

Again let me ask, if someone can just give me the words to use I will use them. If a straight couple or a gay couple goes befoee a judge, the same word should be used to describe that situation regardless if the couple is gay and straight. If 'civial union' is so bloody offensive, even if its used EQUALY for both gay and straight, then by all means give me a difrent word and I will use it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

Again let me ask, if someone can just give me the words to use I will use them. If a straight couple or a gay couple goes befoee a judge, the same word should be used to describe that situation regardless if the couple is gay and straight. If 'civial union' is so bloody offensive, even if its used EQUALY for both gay and straight, then by all means give me a difrent word and I will use it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

But that's a choice they can legally make as het couple which gay and lesbian couples cannot legally make.

The Vermont law dosent change that. The wording of the law is quite clear that it refers only to civil marriage and not all mariage.

If thats your viewpoint, shouldent we be trashing and badmouting the new vermont law as a step backwards for gay rights? It cheepens and lessens the standing of gay people by only giving them the cheeper infirior form of mariage. Straight couples get both civial and religious mariage but gay couples are left with a lesser set of rights by only having access to civial mariage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger
I also would be quite happy for religious and legal marriage to be entirely separate entities. But the biggest obstical to that is not the bible thumpin jesus freaks. It is rather the militant gay activists who point fingers and screasm 'seperate but equal dosent work' every time that anyone attempts to seperate the two.

quote:

The problem would be solved if we stopped using the term "marriage" or "married" or anything like that for legal reasons but guess what, they are use for legal reasons.

quote:

Marriage. We have the term, and it's been in use for quite some time. If you could explain why you, personally, don't seem to want gay couples using it, perhaps we'd be getting somewhere with this conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

I know this is breaking uglos law, but if the jews were being marched off to the gas chamber I dont think I would be fighingt to have everyone else marched off to the gas chambers also and justify it by saying that all other people have to be 'equal' to the jews.

quote:

.....you're free to have a relationship without ever marrying the person you're with.

quote:

I know this is breaking uglos law, but if the jews were being marched off to the gas chamber I dont think I would be fighingt to have everyone else marched off to the gas chambers also and justify it by saying that all other people have to be 'equal' to the jews.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

.....you're free to have a relationship without ever marrying the person you're with.

Fine by me .... just tell me the word I should be using for such a situation.

quote:

You can call it The Incredible String Band if you like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

You can call it The Incredible String Band if you like.

Now we are making progress. I will call it 'The Incredible String Band' at your suggestion.

From here on out in the conversation, I will use 'marriage' to describe the legal construct that has no religious component and use 'The Incredible String Band' to describe the religious ceremony that has no legal component.

quote:

..... only how your opinions effect others and their relationships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

..... only how your opinions effect others and their relationships.

Ok, now we are getting closer to the heart of the issue .....

Let me expand on the example you previously gave about divorced people. The catholic church has a policy that they will only preform a 'The Incredible String Band' on a person once. If someone gets a 'The Incredible String Band', then gets divorced, the church will not preform a 'The Incredible String Band' on them again.

I support this. A private church has the right to preform a 'The Incredible String Band' or refuse a 'The Incredible String Band' to anyone of their choosing.

Now here is where my opinion gets entangled in other peoples relationships. Say a divorced person comes to the catholic church and asks for a 'The Incredible String Band'. The church turns them down. Can that person file an anti-discrimination lawsuit againt the church? Should the church loose its tax exempt status? Arnt I forcing my views onto that couple by denying them the right to an 'The Incredible String Band'?

And to just pick a TOTALLY random date and place out of a hat, say a divorced couple in April of 2007 in Wyoming came to a church asking that church to preform a 'The Incredible String Band', and the church turned them away. Would the divorced couple je justified in filing an anti-discrimination lawsuit agint tyhe church? (remember, a 'The Incredible String Band' has zero legal standing at all, it is purely a religious cermony)

Wouldent the best solution to be that if I dont believe divorced people should get 'The Incredible String Band' then I should simply not get a 'The Incredible String Band' if I am divorced. But as soon as I start pointing fingers at others and telling them they they cant get 'The Incredible String Band' then that is me forcing my views onto other couples. Shouldent a divorced couple have the right to get 'The Incredible String Band' if they want to? What harm does it do to me and my relationships if some other couple who is divorced gets a 'The Incredible String Band'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WestBaySlave
This is not because I necessarily agree with their stances, but because I believe in freedom of speech and that it's best allow for such wide differences in opinion, especially when it comes to intangibles such as religion or philosophy.