RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 8:57:52 AM)
quote: You know, if you offered the same sex couples the rights that they seek (and I feel they should have) under the term "civil union", I'd be willing to bet that a large portion would happily accept them. But you cannot do that with a single federal law because the Tenth Amendment acolytes would burst their brain matter. So, the change is successfully attacked in court using the 14th Amendment: Gay marriage ban struck down

DaddySatyr -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:15:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But you cannot do that with a single federal law because the Tenth Amendment acolytes would burst their brain matter. So, the change is successfully attacked in court using the 14th Amendment: Gay marriage ban struck down And I'm a huge proponent of states' rights. I used to want to retire to Colorado but because I don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of potheads, that option is off the table. I am as pleased as punch that I am not forced to live in a place where I'm surrounded by dope-smokers. Having said all of that; we have a problem here. There's a significant portion of our population that is being discriminated against and over a fucking word, we're delaying fixing that situation. While some wish to post moronic accusations of me, being someone who thinks that same sex partnership shouldn't be allowed, what's being lost is the opportunity to provide those rights to the people who the posters of moronic flotsam claim to champion. Kind of stupid. Ain't it? Now, if the federal government (and this tough for a Libertarian to type) just made a law that states *must* issue licenses for civil unions, as opposed to "marriage" and then ceased to offer any benefits to "marrieds" but instead offered those *exact same benefits* to "civil unions", problem solved. The 10th Amendment says that any rights not taken by the constitution are retained by the states (or gasp individuals). Well, once the fed grabs the rights, again; problem solved. No. This bickering over a word is so that the issue can be kept alive for the '16 campaign because painting the opposition as "enemies" and "un-American" is a strategy that has served one side very well in the past. What matters, here is that same-sex partners get the rights they deserve. The rest is just coffee house bullshit.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:24:02 AM)
quote: It is about leaving the meaning of a word intact. So all the time, money, and energy that went into Prop 8, DOMA, and amending state constitutions was spurred by concern for linguistic purity? quote: You've already co-opted "gay," isn't that enough? Poor baby. I'm so sorry we gave you vocabulary ache.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:25:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Somebody else in the fish business. The debate has revolved around the issue of civil unions with the same rights as marriage. Popular support for civil unions with the same rights as marriage passed the 50% mark eight years ago. But there was no push for them. The push was for something else. So you are in no position now to bandy complaints if those aren't the kind of civil unions you got. K. Funny thing...though supposedly more than 50% of the people claim to support civic unions instead of the name marriage: 1)No proposal to recognize civic unions or other such things available to same sex couples by the federal government ever got anywhere;some congress people talked about it in the press, but there never was a bill proposed, never got to commttee, hearings, nothing..if supposedly all these people would support full civic rights for gay couples under another name, how come? 2)How come if 60% of the people supported civic unions, very few states created them, most that did were forced to do it by courts..how come if it was so popular? 3)and if it is about the term marriage, how come a lot of the states in God's little acre ban not only same sex marriage, but giving any of the rights of marriage to same sex couples, including invalidating contractual means, like medical powers of attorney, or second child adoption for same sex partners with kids? As they say, the proof is in the doing, and talk is cheap, and what this indicates is for all the so called claims that it is about the term marriage, anyone reading what I just posted above would realize it is a lot more than the term...politicians know what people are thinking, not to mention their own thoughts, and if civic unions as a name was acceptable for same sex couples, or any name but marriage, if it was so popular, the politicians would have jumped on it. Since DOMA only specified marriage, how come congress didn't pass a law saying civic unions would be recognized under federal law? I could write it in 2 minutes, I could pass a 'civic unions act' that directs any program run by or under federal purview to recognize any form of legally recognizes union in their state the same weight as the term marriage, and it would work....but funny thing is, no one proposed it, friend or foe...want to know why? Cause any senator or congressman who proposed such a bill, would face backlash from the knuckle draggers and just plain bigots, and because they feared it, they didn't do it. One thing about polls, when it comes to controversial issues a lot of people will say something in a way that doesn't make them seem like bigots, but bigotry is often at the root. Among those who claim they would support civic unions, probably 70% of them are against legal recognition of anything gays do, but won't admit it. Pick up a history book, Kirata, and read about the Jim Crowe era. Interviews with people where legal segregation was the way of the land, when interviewed or polled, would routinely say they were anti black (or anti nigra, in local parlance), that "some of my best friends are nigra", but the same people supported segregation. Those who claim it is the word marriage are often the same way, they will tell you they aren't anti gay, they will tell you "I have gay friends", or worse "I know gay people who are against marriage" (I also know straight people who think that marriage is slavery, an anachronism, etc, should we ban it for straights cause they don't like it?), and in the end, it is cover for most of those people that they don't like gays. If it were truly about the term marriage, they could simply say "I don't believe same sex marriage is a good thing", all those justifications are defensive, and it is cover for the fact that like the racists 50 years ago, they don't want to admit their problem is they don't like gays.

JeffBC -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:32:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren if civic unions as a name was acceptable for same sex couples, or any name but marriage, if it was so popular, the politicians would have jumped on it. You can't honestly believe that politicians care what is "popular" except insofar as it furthers their own ambitions and power. Things which are popular can be tools for some politician to gain power or they can be impediments or they can simply be ignored. But I doubt very many politicians care one bit about what their constituents want.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:45:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When this damaging hurtful discrimination ceases, when everyone enjoys the same rights obligations and privileges, then my interest in the issue of marriage will cease too. Does that include religious ceremonies or are you solely pointing to State law as to gay marriage as legal? No, it doesn't, and that is the biggest lie of those opposing same sex marriage, that religious leaders would be required to marry same sex couples, it is an outright lie, one so stupid that only Fox News Nation could believe it. Blow hards like Sean Hannity will claim RC priests will be forced to marry gay couples because it would be 'discrimination', and to support it they cite totally different things that involve religion, like insurance plans being forced to cover contraception for church aligned groups (note keyword, church aligned, NOT the church), or for example, where church groups get government contracts to provide services, like adoption, but then want to exclude people based on their religious belief......both of those involve issues that have nothing to do with the church directly. If a group takes government money to provide adoptions, they cannot exclude same sex couples from adopting if the state's law has anti discrimination in it. With marriage, there is no such contract, the state does not, despite what Mr. Hannity with what used to be called bar-room lawyer arguments, contract with priests or ministers to marry people, the state simply grants them the power to sign a marriage certificate, the same they do for ships captains, mayors, public officials and the like, there is no contract, they receive nothing from the state for doing it, so it is not a contract. They will point to a case in NJ, where the Methodists who own the boardwalk in Ocean Grove, NJ were sued for refusing a same sex couples request to use the Gazebo on the boardwalk, which after all, according to Fox News, was 'church property"..what they left out was the church had an agreement with the state, that in return for allowing the public to use the boardwalk and its facilities as a public facility, they got tax exemptions under the Green Acres act (church owned property that is not directly part of the operations of a church is not tax exempt; Trinity Church in NYC is incredibly rich, because it owns many, many parcels of land in NYC that pay very high rents..)...they made a deal with the state, a contract, and once that happened, they had to follow anti discrimination laws, but Hannity and Co claimed they were 'forced' to serve people they thought were sinful. More importantly, no church or temple has ever been forced to marry anyone, period, and they don't have to give reasons. If you are two atheists and want to get married by a priest who is unwilling, try taking that to court. If you are a black couple and a church says "we don't marry blacks", or an interracial couple that the church says "we don't marry interracial couples", there is nothing you can do under the law. An orthodox Jewish rabbi would not marry a couple unless they felt they were really Jewish (for example, if the man or woman or both came from families where the father was Jewish, or they had converted to Judaism under a reform rabbi, they would not recognize them as Jewish unless they converted to the Orthodox tradition the rabbi was part of first), and the law cannot say, and never could, yet the droolers and the idiots running the US Catholic church keep claiming that, despite the fact that the few lawsuits that ever were filed, were laughed out of court. The answer is we are talking legal marriage here, legal rights, which again the right wing has tried to blur, it shows the importance of a word. They claim marriage is sacred, yet marriage is sacred only in churches, and the marriages the churches perform and the legal term have nothing to do with each other; the law granted priests the right to certify a couple has been married, but so can a ship's captain or an airplane pilot or a judge, and a couple can fill out a marriage license, and go to a legal marriage chapel in Vegas and be married by a guy dressed as Elvis, when it comes to the marriage certificate God has nothing to do with it, a priest who signs a marriage certificate is no different than a jp or a mayor or ship's captain, they are a functionary attesting to the fact that the couple agreed to be married in from of them. Attesting that the couple agreed to get married is directly analagous to a notary republic, both simply are functionaries with the right to say 'yes, this person did what they said they did', whether it is the couple agreeing to be married legally, or a guy signing the form. It is about rights, and the reason people are pushing for marriage is the term marriage is a legal term, that might have come from the church originally, but in law has a totally different meaning, it is not sacred, it is a term that grants rights and responsibilities.....and the law is exact, the law plays with words, with the right words/terms, and without the specific word 'marriage', legal unions are inherently inferior.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:48:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When this damaging hurtful discrimination ceases, when everyone enjoys the same rights obligations and privileges, then my interest in the issue of marriage will cease too. Does that include religious ceremonies or are you solely pointing to State law as to gay marriage as legal? No one has said that conservatives can`t make pretend that legal marriage is something other than legal marriage.... Make pretend is in fact....your Constitutional right.... Less and less though......will your elk be able to impose their religion-cloaked bigotry on the rest of us. The notion that "christians" are being forced to believe in gay marriage is bush-shit..... Interesting non-response as it does not address my question. I thought it was plain enough. Still do. Plain and simple, we are talking legal marriage, has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Among other things, there is no requirement in any marriage law, even down in the hookworm belt (don't know how they missed this one), that the word God be mentioned, and nowhere in any marriage law does it say that marriage is sacred. The laws simply say that to get the benefits accorded to the term "marriage" under the law, that the couple has to be legally married, and in the US, churches do not have a monopoly on that, more people are married by secular functionaries then religious figures by a large percent last I checked..largest group married do so in front of clerks and such, not religious figures.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 10:13:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 This is why I always say conservatives should leave intellect to the intellectuals and stick with their strong point.......spell check....[;)] Plain to see the quickness and dedication....[sm=AttentionWhore.gif] You're jealous because DaddySatyr possesses an extra share of brains. [:D] That and the fact that spellcheck wouldn't have caught "elk" as it is, indeed, a word. Now, mis-use of words is kind of what this whole thread has turned into. The people who are fighting so vehemently to own a word are leaving a trail of destruction as far as the turning of a blind eye to the fact that "civil unions" for ALL would alleviate all of the non-equality issues. They just have to have that word. It has to be theirs. If they really gave a flying fiddler's fuck about people being excluded from rights, they'd agree to actually (He's gonna use a word here that most PPLs don't understand) compromise. They'd agree to a victory, giving them all the rights they seek for same sex partners and all they would have to relinquish is their nit-picking position of ownership of a word. You know, if you offered the same sex couples the rights that they seek (and I feel they should have) under the term "civil union", I'd be willing to bet that a large portion would happily accept them. For my part, I'd be extremely happy because it would allow me to life my life (spiritually) as I chose and not allow government to control who I love. I understand, though. The Lunatic Left has needed to destroy for decades. It's the only way they feel they've won anything. Scorched earth FTW! No, Daddy, it isn't the left that is full of shit, it is people like yourself, because if you really worry about the spiritual nature of marriage, if you truly believe it is sacred, of faith, and so forth, then you would be complaining and bitching that the term marriage has any legal meaning. It sounds like you want marriages done by priests and such to be legally recognized, and you want marriage left in the law, and that is complete hypocrisy. The Jehova's witnesses may be off the deep end for me, but at least they are consistent with their faith, they refuse to swear any oaths, in court or whatnot, because they believe oaths are before God and have no place in non religious context, I can respect that if I don't believe it. People like yourself want your cake and eat it too, you want marriage as a sacred term, claim it is dispiriting that a same sex couple should be allowed to marry, legal or otherwise, claim the term is sacred to you, yet you also support retaining marriage as a legal term. I would have a lot more respect for you and other people who claim the term marriage should sacred if you said that marriage should have zero legal meaning, that in law the only term should be civic unions, rather than retaining marriage as a legal term as you seem to be arguing. I could guarantee you that if you and people who believe as yourself do tomorrow said "we want civic unions to be the legal term for couples to get recognition, that we plan on getting this passed in all 50 states and recognized by the feds, that after this passes all people legally married revert to civic union, all people wanting legal rights after this passes will have a civic union". This would leave the term marriage to the religious bodies to decide, which would be fair. If you believe it is about the 'radical left' types trying to 'steal' the term marriage, why hasn't this happened? Why is it important to you that marriage be a sacred term and be recognized by law? Does the fact that the IRS and SS and all the rest recognize marriage make a religious marriage holier? It sounds to me like we are getting into the real gist of it, and the argument is this: 1)Marriage is for straight couples only 2)The government officially recognizes marriage as a term for rights 3)Since the government recognizes marriage for those rights, and marriage is only between a man and woman, which my church believes is sacred, that means government is recognizing that my marriage is spiritual/sacred, and even if others have civic unions, mine has the stamp of being sacred I have heard this argument before from the 'religious', I have heard them argue that if the government passes laws protecting gay people from discrimination, it is the government "making a sin" normal and such. Under your proposal, where marriage is reserved only for straight couples in the law, that gays would only be civic union, is the government de facto agreeing with your faith that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman, you want the government to sanctify that viewpoint, if you want civc unions parallel to marriage in the law. And it is funny when you run around hysterically claiming allowing gays to be legally married affects your faith, and it leaves out a major point, one that I can see is totally missing in your argument. By saying marriage is sacred, that it is between a man and a woman only because that was what your faith teaches, it leaves out something very, very fundamental, and that is there are a lot of churches that disagree with your beliefs. Every Jewish group outside the orthodox recognize same sex unions as sacred. The UCC, The Unitarians, recognize same sex marriage as fully equal to gays spiritually and otherwise; and while the main bodies have not quite yet gotten around to making it universal, many churches in mainstream protestant churches consider same sex marriage fully sacramental, they think it is blessed by God, in churches I have been in the same sex marriages are recorded in the official register of such things...so why shouldn't their marriages be recognized by the government, if you want your marriages recognized by it? What you are saying, if you wish to retain marriage as a legal term, is that your faith is more real than their faith, that the government should recognize your belief with the term marriage, not a reform Jewish belief, and that is doing exactly what you claim to be railing against, that is using the law to interfere with the religious beliefs of others, since you are saying "nah nah, we marry straight people, and the law recognizes that, you marry those people, and it isn't recognized, that is because my marriage is sacred and yours isn't". If you are going to be consistent, if you really believe marriage is a sacred term, then you should want civic unions for all, you should argue that marriage be taken out of the law completely..but what I suspect you want is exactly what I said above, you want marriage in the law, and defined exactly as you believe, ie a man and a woman, because you want/need it to show how your belief is 'more authentic', your marriage is 'more authentic', since the government recognizes it, and that is wrong, and it is also quite hypocritical, to say the least; you rail against the radical left trying to take away 'your rights to your beliefs', yet that is exactly what you are doing to people of faith who believe differently..... If you want to get respect for your beliefs, then argue that marriage is a sacred term not a legal one, and argue it should have zero meaning in law, the way that communion has zero meaning in law.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 10:19:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If only we uppity queer folk would stop having our own ideas of equality and accept that the straight white guys know what's best for us. It's not about knowing what best for you. It is about leaving the meaning of a word intact. You've already co-opted "gay," isn't that enough? Which word, Yachtie? Marriage? The word marriage was co-opted when it was used as a legal term. You do realize that people can get married by judges, mayors, ships captains and so forth, and that legally no marriage ceremony has to mention God at all? The real issue isn't that gays want to co-opt the term marriage, it is that a religious term marriage was co-opted by the law.BTW, Christians co-opted the term 2000 years ago, according to Hebraic tradition a marriage is between a man and one of more woman, so which is the official belief of marriage? One man, one woman, one man, many women..there were societies were legal couplings were a woman and multiple men..... You cannot claim that a word has sacred definition when it has been taken by the law. Like I told other people, if the word marriage is so spiritual, so important, to straight couples, then fight to have it removed from the law. You can define marriage in your own church and your own beliefs, any way you wish, but when marriage is used as a legal right it is no longer religious in that context. What you and others really want is government recognition that your union is 'more special' than gays, and that is dead wrong, if you need government recognition to show how you are more authentic, it is pretty pathetic, and that is what you and others are seeking if you don't want to remove marriage from the law entirely.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 10:31:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But you cannot do that with a single federal law because the Tenth Amendment acolytes would burst their brain matter. So, the change is successfully attacked in court using the 14th Amendment: Gay marriage ban struck down And I'm a huge proponent of states' rights. I used to want to retire to Colorado but because I don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of potheads, that option is off the table. I am as pleased as punch that I am not forced to live in a place where I'm surrounded by dope-smokers. Having said all of that; we have a problem here. There's a significant portion of our population that is being discriminated against and over a fucking word, we're delaying fixing that situation. While some wish to post moronic accusations of me, being someone who thinks that same sex partnership shouldn't be allowed, what's being lost is the opportunity to provide those rights to the people who the posters of moronic flotsam claim to champion. Kind of stupid. Ain't it? Now, if the federal government (and this tough for a Libertarian to type) just made a law that states *must* issue licenses for civil unions, as opposed to "marriage" and then ceased to offer any benefits to "marrieds" but instead offered those *exact same benefits* to "civil unions", problem solved. The 10th Amendment says that any rights not taken by the constitution are retained by the states (or gasp individuals). Well, once the fed grabs the rights, again; problem solved. No. This bickering over a word is so that the issue can be kept alive for the '16 campaign because painting the opposition as "enemies" and "un-American" is a strategy that has served one side very well in the past. What matters, here is that same-sex partners get the rights they deserve. The rest is just coffee house bullshit. You would need a constitutional amendment to do what you say, the federal government cannot force states to have civic unions, I don't know what schools you went to, but the 10th amendment gives the power of the rights of marriage to the states, the federal government has no right to do so, it is why DOMA was thrown out by SCOTUS. The reason that marriage is in all 50 states is marriage is a right granted by all 50 states, the federal government didn't tell them to do it, it was there. And because of the full faith and credit clause, states recognize each other's marriages 'respecting the laws of other states'. The federal government could pass laws saying that they would respect any legal term granted by the states recognizing unions of people, but that is not the same thing. They cannot tell states whom to marry/grant rights to, they can only respect those rights in terms of the federal government. The most crucial part of this debate is that not only would all 50 states have to have civic unions, but they would also explicitly have to recognize the terms of other states, and again, the federal government can't force that one. Under the full faith and credit clause Congress does have the right to adjudicate disputes, but it would be very hard if the 50 states came up with seperate laws and terms for civil unions, to make law that would cover it all. BTW, your argument is not libertarian, it is the same thing as when conservatives claim to be libertarian, it is bullshit. True libertarians don't say "I am libertarian, except where religious belief comes in", a libertarian would say "to me, marriage is between a man and a woman, but I cannot let the law define that for other people", which is exactly what you are doing, Daddy, because if the law recognizes the term marriage as being between a man and a woman only, they are limiting people's choices. If a same sex couple gets married in a temple or church that considers that married, the libertarian position is that the law has to recognize that equally with churches that do only opposite sex couples, because otherwise it limits freedom. The libertarian position would be to take the term marriage out of the law entirely, and have everyone get s civic union, but you seem hung up on a parallel track, which is anti libertarian and quite honestly, is theistic law dominating civic law and that is not libertarian. Either everyone gets the term marriage, however they do it, or everyone has a civic union, anything else is non libertarian and disriminatory in various ways, whether it is the 14th amendment or the 1st (government shall recognize no faith, which also means government shall not recognize the beliefs of one faith above another).

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 10:46:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren if civic unions as a name was acceptable for same sex couples, or any name but marriage, if it was so popular, the politicians would have jumped on it. You can't honestly believe that politicians care what is "popular" except insofar as it furthers their own ambitions and power. Things which are popular can be tools for some politician to gain power or they can be impediments or they can simply be ignored. But I doubt very many politicians care one bit about what their constituents want. No, but what they do think is 'hmm, will this hurt me or not'. Obama did not come out in support of same sex marriage until it became evident that those against it are losing, big time, that people's attitudes have changed (in part thanks to the bad taste conservative religion has left in people's mouths, between the RC abuse scandal, the RC turning Catholicism into being anti gay and anti abortion, and the evangelicals with their ugly rhetoric and actions). They don't look at what polls say and say "wow, 60% support this", they say "hmm, if I support this, the old people, the evangelicals, will be pissed off and turn up in droves and vote me out; or uber right wing groups will pour in the money to beat me up). Politicians operate on staying in office, and it isn't always about popular opinion, it is more like the threat to them. Prop 8 in california passed, despite what polls said, because right wing groups spent 10's of millions of dollars, flooded the state from outside, with all kinds of hate propaganda and fired up right wing types, and even people who might otherwise support it, with all kinds of lies and half truths, that this would allow teachers to date same sex students and have sex with them, typical right wing playbook. The reason no politicians recognized supporting same sex unions legally is they knew that most of the opposition to same sex unions had nothing to do with the term marriage, they knew if they introduced a law recognizing anything other than marriage, that the RC, the evangelicals and the like would roast him/her,even if his constitutuents were for it. Note that since SCOTUS ruled on prop 8 and on DOMA, the damn has burst, judges are throwing out anti same sex marriage bans, states are passing it, what they finally are realizing is they have political cover to support same sex marriage, they can argue as fatso, our bully of a governor, did when not bothering to appeal a court decision ruling NJ had same sex marriage, that it was already lost,now politicians, even conservatives, are saying it is a rights issue, not a religious one, that marriage defines the rights and therefore should be allowed, it is amazing to see. I think this argument is going to be moot soon, the religious and the just plain bigots have lost this one. The Pope has all but told the Bishops in the US to shut up about same sex marriage, and every day as things change more and more people are basically saying "what is the big deal?". Some of those who claimed it was the term, who probably did object to the term, have come to realize that it isn't just the term, and among younger people, the idea that the term marriage is a big deal is practically nill........politicians are realizing that the religious right was never that powerful a force, that DOMA and the rest were passed based on fear of a chimera, and I think you will see, prob in the next 5-10 years, a scotus decision like Loving, for all intents and purposes saying that bans on same sex marriages are illegal, that they violate the 14th amendment and also in deference to the Brown decision, that separate cannot be equal (prob14th). I think they should argue the 1st as well, because the crux of the anti same sex marriage thing is that those who oppose same sex marriage want the law to define marriage as between a man and a woman only, which is the law taking only one religious view and putting it above others (since many religious groups have no problem with same sex mariage), which is a violation of the 1st amendment.

DaddySatyr -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 11:59:20 AM)
Ooooops! Back to ignoreland quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr from 05 MAY 2013 Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the purview of religion and "civil unions" as the purview of the government. My way, religions won't eventually be forced into doing something they don't want to do. Both will enjoy the same protections. Peace and comfort, Michael or ... this: quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr from 13 JAN 2012 I have long held that marriage should have always remained a religious ritual and allowing government *any* entrée into it was a mistake. Peace and comfort, Michael quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren No, Daddy, it isn't the left that is full of shit, it is people like yourself, because if you really worry about the spiritual nature of marriage, if you truly believe it is sacred, of faith, and so forth, then you would be complaining and bitching that the term marriage has any legal meaning. All-in-all, a pathetic attempt at mis-positioning me with strawman(woman) tactics

Owner59 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 1:18:46 PM)
If the "defenders of marriage" were at all sincere,they would make it near impossible to divorce and twice as hard to marry...... But since most "defenders" have no intention of abiding by the rules they`d like to impose on others(newty).....that`ll never happen. The homosexual bigotry the right makes us suffer though is about hate and winning elections.....not "defending" marriage.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 4:22:23 PM)
Fast reply Make real sure your comments are about the topic and not each other. There are a few that have shown this to be a habit and you may well find yourself on moderation without further warnings. Regards, Gamma

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 6:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Another way of saying I support inequality...... We got it..... We understand your need to dress it up w/ pseudo-intellectual jibber jabber, to get around the guilt and embarrassment of association with our anti-gay-rights movement and it`s ugly machinations(fred phelps).... But please also understand we see past your bull shit. What Owner said QFT [:D] Gee, I would have thought we could agree that some functioning reading comprehension ability was necessary to participate in a forum. I guess not. I'm not against gay marriage. As I said before, I am indifferent to it. I only took up the issue because I don't like the insistence that social justice allows only one solution, and that any disagreement with this holy truth *seals one's indictment as an oppressor of gays.* You know, like you two are doing. And very conveniently too, thank you very much. Get it now? K.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:28:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Ooooops! Back to ignoreland quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr from 05 MAY 2013 Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the purview of religion and "civil unions" as the purview of the government. My way, religions won't eventually be forced into doing something they don't want to do. Both will enjoy the same protections. Peace and comfort, Michael or ... this: quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr from 13 JAN 2012 I have long held that marriage should have always remained a religious ritual and allowing government *any* entrée into it was a mistake. Peace and comfort, Michael quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren No, Daddy, it isn't the left that is full of shit, it is people like yourself, because if you really worry about the spiritual nature of marriage, if you truly believe it is sacred, of faith, and so forth, then you would be complaining and bitching that the term marriage has any legal meaning. All-in-all, a pathetic attempt at mis-positioning me with strawman(woman) tactics Nice little dodge, but it fails. When you argued that this whole issue was about the radical left trying to co-opt the word marriage, your other arguments are blown out of the water. You say the government shouldn't use the word marriage, but in another post you state that gays should simply accept civic unions and in fact propose that the federal government force states to create civic unions, which would leave us with marriage for straight couples and civic unions for straights, bot with marriage outside the law. Gays want the term marriage because of the legal rights, but they also want them truly equal, but by leaving the word marriage in the law you aren't doing that, you are saying de facto that the government recognizes the term marriage only for straight couples, it creates a divide, rather than saying all couples are civic unions. If you leave the term marriage in law, it screws gay couple, pure and simple. By the way, your comment also says a lot. Gays don't have to co opt the word 'marriage', many religious groups marry same sex couples and say it is sacramental and very real, a gay couple can go to the church and be married, they don't have to co -op anything. Gays aren't co-opting the term, they can get married plenty of places, but they can't get the rights of marriage without the state recognizing their union, and that is what they are fighting for. Why should gays accept the term 'civic marriage' in law, have to go through a two step process, when a straight couple can get married anywhere they want, and have it recognized automatically? Your claim that gays and the radical left want to co-opt the term marriage is where you uncovered your true intention, because that despite any other posts you said, says you are saying that the law should still recognize marriage as granting rights but that gays should only be allowed civic unions. Among other things, if you think marriage is a religious term, you shouldn't give a crap if the government allows same sex marriage, since the government is not a religious body so marriage there cannot be sacred..by saying that gays want to co-opt the term, you contradict yourself, you say the government never should have been allowed to use the term marriage, but in the other breath, you are saying the government should deny the word marriage to gays, implying you want to keep it into the law, instead of fighting to get marriage out of government entirely. I also will add that if you are so set in your faith and your beliefs, what the government does with a term, who they recognize in terms of marriage, shouldn't bother you, since what they government says shouldn't matter, the government doesn't sanctify marriage, they don't have any religious sway, they are a civic body granting rights, so if a same sex couple called married by the state, it shouldn't matter, any more than a minister marrying a couple is not recognized as marriage by the Catholic Church, since they didn't perform it.

Owner59 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:46:51 PM)
It`s only oppression when cons are oppressed... When cons inflict their hateful dogma on our society.....that`s not oppression....it`s their religious freedom. Only a coincidence tho,that everything falls one way in right-wing-world......their way.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 9:52:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Another way of saying I support inequality...... We got it..... We understand your need to dress it up w/ pseudo-intellectual jibber jabber, to get around the guilt and embarrassment of association with our anti-gay-rights movement and it`s ugly machinations(fred phelps).... But please also understand we see past your bull shit. What Owner said QFT [:D] Gee, I would have thought we could agree that some functioning reading comprehension ability was necessary to participate in a forum. I guess not. I'm not against gay marriage. As I said before, I am indifferent to it. I only took up the issue because I don't like the insistence that social justice allows only one solution, and that any disagreement with this holy truth *seals one's indictment as an oppressor of gays.* You know, like you two are doing. And very conveniently too, thank you very much. Get it now? K. There is more than one solution, but not all provide social Justice. Let me lay out the options, and why they work or don't work -State granted civic unions/dp's- Don't work, because A)feds don't recognize them at all and B)in practical reality, even inside the state couples with them have to fight for the rights they supposedly grant. Our dear Governor, who is now up to his eyeballs in shit he created around him, claimed that civic unions gave gays all the rights of marriage, that he opposed same sex marriage because he was Catholic....what he left out was the State Courts had a ton of evidence that civic unions don't work for same sex couples, that the hurdles people need to get rights makes it practically useless, and if Scotus hadn't dumped DOMA, they would have ruled that gays had to be allowed to marry. -Civic unions for everyone, marriage no longer in legal lexicon- Would work, because no longer could anyone, the feds, local clerks, hospitals, anyone, say 'I don't recognize civic unions', because that would mean denying anyone recognition of their rights, gay or straight. Some ignorant jerk in the bible belt can't say "ain't no such thing as a legal couple of fags", it won't work because all are equal, the law, legal jargon, all says civic unions. -Marriage stays in place for straights, but civic unions are in federal law. Unworkable, even if on paper it is the same thing. Some things would work easier, but again, it would allow jack offs to make the lives of people with civic unions miserable, refuse to recognize it, etc.....states could say they only recognize marriage if they themselves don't have it,and even if all 50 states had alternatives, if they are named differently, forget it..also, a state could very easily, as they do with same sex marriages today, refuse to recognize the civic unions from other states, even if they have it themselves, it is a mess. Not to mention that it also allows the bigots to say "Marriage is only for straight people, what you fags have isn't as good as what us Christian straight people have, ha ha". Think some little snot nosed bastard of evangelicals wouldn't be running around if they found a kid whose parents were same sex, saying "you ain't real, you aint got a mommy and daddy and they aint married' (no the kid didn't do this themselves, but their fucktard parents would, I have heard of cases like this from states that have dual recognition) -All people can get married. This works, it minimizes rewriting the law, and it gives everyone equal rights. It means a same sex couple can get married in a church or temple that will perform the services, and simply have the officiator sign the legal marriage certificate, same as a same sex couple. If a same sex partner gets sick, the other partner can say "I am their legal spouse, we are married" and the hospital can't say "we don't recognize it', or make the partner get a lawyer call their lawyer to stop the bullshit. If the couple has kids, the surviving spouse, even if non bio, will get custody automatically, and so forth. 2 and 4 are alternatives, and they share something in common, they are both 'all or none'. What many on this board are proposing is keeping marriage as a legal term for straights, and giving gays civic unions, and that doesn't fly, nor does the patchwork we have today. The reality is, Kira, we won't get marriage out of the law, all 50 states are not going to change to civic unions for everyone, nor will the federal government recognize anything except marriage. The religious will fight for the most part to keep marriage in the law, because once marriage is no longer there, they cannot argue it is over the term marriage, and they would be exposed for what they are, bigots, so if gays are going to get rights, it is going to have to be marriage. In a perfect world, rational people would sit back and say "okay, marriage the term is the problem, let's make everyone have civic unions", but could you see people in places like North Carolina, Texas, Arkansas et al ever doing anything that rational or nice? They don't even want to grant the rights in the first place, so what would the odds of civic unions being passed there work? In the end, enough states are going to pass same sex marriage and/or courts are going to invalidate laws banning same sex marriage, and once it gets well into the 20's that offer same sex marriage, the court is going to rule that the other states have to recognize it, on the simple grounds if they don't, war will break out between the states. States that allow same sex marriage will retaliate against the ones who refuse to recognize them, by not recognizing it from that state in return, it will become a tangled mess that the courts cannot allow to happen. The first step will be SCOTUS rejecting the second half of DOMA, where congress said states don't have to recognize marriages from other states (which is on shaky ground, the full faith and credit clause does give congress the right to regulate this clause, but it has been held by long legal tradition that it is they can force states to recognize other state law, not permit them to ignore it), then they will probably rule that states under the clause have to recognize any marriage another state does.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 10:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You've already co-opted "gay," isn't that enough? Poor baby. I'm so sorry we gave you vocabulary ache. Indeed. How presumptuous of you to demand equal rights. What on earth give you the idea that you are as entitled as any one to have your relationships recognised - you ought to know that, as far as some are concerned, gay sex is something that only happens furtively, anonymously between strangers in dark alleys and bathhouses. Why you need relationship rights when everyone knows that gay men are far too promiscuous to shoulder the responsibilities of marriage or long term commitment is open to question. How very very presumptuous to insist that your love is as loving any one else's. How ungrateful of you not to accept as your lot in life, the few crumbs that reactionaries resentfully and reluctantly throw your way. It must make those reactionaries wonder why they bother putting up with you and your petulance in the first place. PS Yachtie, if you need a second opinion on where to stick your condescension please feel free to ask me.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/22/2014 10:47:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata . I only took up the issue because I don't like the insistence that social justice allows only one solution, and that any disagreement with this holy truth *seals one's indictment as an oppressor of gays.*[/link] [/font][/size] The solution is simple - equality. Anything that falls short of this solution necessarily consigns queers to second class status ie a status of oppression. So if you oppose equality and insist that queers accept second class status, why shouldn't you be considered oppressive? It is not acceptable to claim, as you claimed earlier, that denying marriage equalty may be done by people who bear no ill towards queers. Denying equality to queers is de facto bearing ill will towards queers. It is explicit discrimination based solely on sexual preference.

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625