quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Do you not see that calling a same sex marriage a marriage is the massive sticking point?

I do see that, quite clearly.
As I noted earlier in the thread, "Granting 'civil unions' to gays and lesbians lets the majority bask in a sense of generosity toward folks lower on the food chain. Allowing us to use the M-word, on the other hand, makes us equals, and that seems to discomfit some people."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I don't see anyone getting butthurt, of course the proposal will go nowhere anyhow. 

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Nice try. We're done here.[/color]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I don't care what the core argument of the thread is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Without a doubt the most stupid post of the morning.
Anyone with a three digit iq and a pulse would recognize that it is not claiming a belief in the supernatural but mearly pointing out that the concept of marriage predates christianity. " Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible?" While that is a true statement it only validates that christians stole the concept and now those punkassmotherfuckers think they own it exclusively. They get their knickers in a twist because they can't keep what they stole.

quote:

Temper, temper.

This discussion is not about me.

quote:

At no point in time did I claim that it was in sole possession of Christianity. But, that it has been ensconced in Christianity for nigh on 2000 years,

This then is an admission that marriage existed before christianity stole it a. Thus if christians have only had this for "nigh on to 2000 years and the non christians have had it for longer than that it would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer that christianity's claim is spurious.

quote:

certainly has to mean something, no?

No

quote:

If not, then DomKen's stating that marriage was part of the Greek pantheon (which was from 8-900 BC or so) isn't any more solid a claim of "ownership," is it? AND if you two are going to rely on a religious system predating Christianity to defend that marriage isn't a religious thing, well, I'm not sure that was such a grand attempt.

So then christianity is exactly the same as all preceeding religions?

quote:

The "solution/proposal" is nothing more than an disingenuous attempt to control the butt hurt felt by those who have been busted on their fraud...

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

quote:

I'm proposing a solution here, DC.

quote:

I don't have any issue with same-sex couples wedding than I do opposite sex couples.

quote:

You and I both agree that calling a same sex marriage a "marriage" is the sticking point.

quote:

How is my proposal to call all marriages, same sex, opposite sex, etc., civil unions, and having all benefits be attached to civil unions, not get around that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


I'm proposing a solution here, DC.

quote:

I don't have any issue with same-sex couples wedding than I do opposite sex couples. You and I both agree that calling a same sex marriage a "marriage" is the sticking point.

quote:

How is my proposal to call all marriages, same sex, opposite sex, etc., civil unions, and having all benefits be attached to civil unions, not get around that?

quote:

because "civil union" is much shorter than "religious union"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If civil unions conferred the benefits currently conferred by marriage and marriages became simply a construct of religion, and held no benefits over an above a civil union, what would the problem be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
At no point in time did I claim that it was in sole possession of Christianity. But, that it has been ensconced in Christianity for nigh on 2000 years,

This then is an admission that marriage existed before christianity stole it a. Thus if christians have only had this for "nigh on to 2000 years and the non christians have had it for longer than that it would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer that christianity's claim is spurious.

quote:

quote:

If not, then DomKen's stating that marriage was part of the Greek pantheon (which was from 8-900 BC or so) isn't any more solid a claim of "ownership," is it? AND if you two are going to rely on a religious system predating Christianity to defend that marriage isn't a religious thing, well, I'm not sure that was such a grand attempt.

So then christianity is exactly the same as all preceeding religions?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm proposing a solution here, DC.

The solution proposed is that gays can't call their union a marrage.

quote:

quote:

I don't have any issue with same-sex couples wedding than I do opposite sex couples.

Just with them calling it a marrage

quote:

quote:

You and I both agree that calling a same sex marriage a "marriage" is the sticking point.

Only for the jesus phreque...gays do not have a problem calling it marrage.

quote:

How is my proposal to call all marriages, same sex, opposite sex, etc., civil unions, and having all benefits be attached to civil unions, not get around that?

Because it restricts the word marrage to opposite sex marrage and denies it to same sex marrage.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


Your proposal is to strike the word 'marriage' from human vocabulary? It's not going to happen, dude. The word 'marriage' will have meaning and attempts to censure it will fall by the way-side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm proposing a solution here, DC.

It's unrealistic.

quote:

I don't have any issue with same-sex couples wedding than I do opposite sex couples. You and I both agree that calling a same sex marriage a "marriage" is the sticking point.

Not for me, it isn't. I have no problem calling a marriage a marriage. I'm not concerned AT ALL with what's between someone's leg. That's 'your' sticking point.

quote:

How is my proposal to call all marriages, same sex, opposite sex, etc., civil unions, and having all benefits be attached to civil unions, not get around that?

Your proposal is to strike the word 'marriage' from human vocabulary? It's not going to happen, dude. The word 'marriage' will have meaning and attempts to censure it will fall by the way-side.
My proposal is for everyone to get used to the idea that gays, lesbians or any other label you want to slap on your ass is going to have a benefit of marriage opportunity eventually. It is inevitable.
I reject your proposal. It's not good enough, it's unrealistic and does nothing to address the core issue which is.. whether I'm gay, straight, bi or something else, I'm still a human oh, and by the way .. I don't need to be allowed the benefits that others have.. I am entitled to them.
Hell, my parental units have 9 marriages and 8 divorces between them. Look at 'that' if you are worried about the institution of marriage failing. Clearly, there is something wrong but it's not being gay or straight that is the root cause.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Marriage does include one benefit which civil unions do not, being called marriage. If you honestly don't think that's important then the solution is to advocate for your crowd to get civil unions and leave marriage to the rest of us who do care about it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LittleStefy
It comes down to people minding their own business. If gay marriage bothers you, it's because you don't know how to mind your own damn business. End of story.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)