Oregon judge orders recognition of Gay marriages...

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 22, 2004, 2:11 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I hesitate to share freely on this issue because I get the feeling some of you will use it to trash me.

I have a hard time with this issue.

I'm going to say this anyway, and if some of the bile-spitters here want to use it as a tool to tear me down so be it.

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

On the other hand I currently have read no evidence to suggest that people who openly engage in a homosexual lifestyle cause harm to society.

If our moral code expressed in laws is based upon liberty and protection from societal harm, I don't see any reason not to accept gay marriage.

This places me into an area where I have to make a choice between what God says, and what my personal reasoning says.

In this situation, I trust God over my own reasoning. This is an act of faith. Every time I chose God's preference over my own reasoning it's worked out much better than what my own reasoning could produce later on.

I know this hard to understand if viewed from a secular perspective. That's why I say we really can't come to full persuasion one way or the other on this issue.

The best I can do without violating my relationship with God is to not interfere with people who seek to have civil unions. If I were to go further I'd be violating my own beliefs.

I just can't compromise further.

Dregor,

Life is full of hypocracy. I disagree with my muslim, and hindu co-workers, yet I consider them my friends. I'm comfortable leaving those issues unresolved. I've had gay suitemates before when I was living with 8 people. I considered them my friends, despite their lifestyle choice.

Well there it is as honest as I can state it.

Feel free to tell me how horrible and bigoted and hypocritical I am. Because of my unresolved dilemma it wouldn't be too far from the truth.

so its basically ... i'll be your friend to your face but hate you to your back?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 22, 2004, 2:21 pm

Just the opposite Drasta,

Because you are my friend, I do all that I can to respect your right to make your own decisions.

In return I ask that you respect my right to choose differently from you.

Right now I think current law is unfair to you. I support giving you equal access to governmental benefits that married people currently enjoy in the form of an across the board civil union recognition.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 22, 2004, 3:31 pm

Ashur wrote:Did you just compare Adex to a Klansman?

Must be an interesting world you live in.

what is the difference between someone who hates gay people "just because" and someone who hates minorities for the same reason?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 22, 2004, 3:41 pm

The neato costume!

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 22, 2004, 3:59 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Ashur wrote:Did you just compare Adex to a Klansman?

Must be an interesting world you live in.
what is the difference between someone who hates gay people "just because" and someone who hates minorities for the same reason?

I do not believe Adex hates homosexuals. He has said as much. I'm amazed at the beligerance here. The guy states his opinion and he's called a bigot, liar, whatever. The hate in this thread isn't coming from his direction.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 22, 2004, 4:06 pm

For what other reason besides hatred would you deny someone the right to marry someone they love?

If gay people marrying somehow effected him even the tiniest little bit I would honestly be able to buy any argument. What we have here is a case of someone who would willfully deny two people in love the right to marry for absolutely no reason that they will admit. It's obvious he won't admit because the explanation is "because faggots disgust me"

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 22, 2004, 4:18 pm

kyoukan wrote:For what other reason besides hatred would you deny someone the right to marry someone they love?

If gay people marrying somehow effected him even the tiniest little bit I would honestly be able to buy any argument. What we have here is a case of someone who would willfully deny two people in love the right to marry for absolutely no reason that they will admit. It's obvious he won't admit because the explanation is "because faggots disgust me"

He is not the only one who feels that way. In fact, you would find yourself in the minority in this country if you do believe gay marriage is something that is needed. I know more than a few gay or bisexual people. I dated a girl who was bisexual and had been involved in a gay relationship. I can't say that I hate or have hated any of them....at least any more than I hate everyone else.

Personally, I don't see how you all cannot understand the concept of not agreeing with someone's lifestyle, yet still be friends with them or loving them. There are a lot of things my friends do that I do not agree with...and I do not condone or participate in.....but it does not change my friendship with them. They chose a path in life and I chose a path that happens to intersect with theirs at frequent points.

You all are just too eager to jump on him because he is one of the few with the balls to stand by his beliefs.....and the fact that he has such a strong faith angers many of you.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 22, 2004, 4:19 pm

But you're forgetting that Christians created, own and copywrited the word "marriage"

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 22, 2004, 4:20 pm

Ok then....show me a documented case pre-Christianity of 2 men being married to one another.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 22, 2004, 4:24 pm

2 men, 2 women, or a man and a woman, doesn't matter. Marriage is something 2 PEOPLE do to show their love to society. It existed before christianity.

Also, you probably wouldn't find any because people were afraid of others stoning them to death (or whatever punishement they did at the time)

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 22, 2004, 4:27 pm

You brought it up.....now show me documented cases of homosexual marriage before "teh Christians" showed up to legislate morality.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 22, 2004, 4:32 pm

How did I bring this up? WHat does this have to do with anything? Stop living like is 2000 BC.

I merely said that some christians are claiming the word marriage.

The only important thing is that 2 people would get married to each other far before christianity was created.

I still haven't seen any reason for not to allow gays to marry besides "God told me to", or "It's disgusting".

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 22, 2004, 4:34 pm

You can disagree with their lifestyle all day long if you want. Now provide me a single reason why they should not have the right to marry each other.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 22, 2004, 4:37 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Ok then....show me a documented case pre-Christianity of 2 men being married to one another.

Ermmm most of Greece...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 22, 2004, 4:37 pm

yeah but the greeks also wrote about evolution around 600BC, but that didnt stop the Christians from ignoring that either.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 22, 2004, 4:48 pm

kyoukan wrote:You can disagree with their lifestyle all day long if you want. Now provide me a single reason why they should not have the right to marry each other.

It is because there should be no need for marriage.

Your main arguments for gay marriage are because of legal rights and taxation purposes and insurance.

If the government would prevent companies and state laws from neglecting "partners", much like people who are in common law marriages, then this would never once have cropped up as an issue.

If they do make it legal for gay marriages, then they are going to have to rewrite all of the common law marriage statues in every state as well.....otherwise people will end up in serious legal messes if they have roomates for long periods of time.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 22, 2004, 4:50 pm

There's lots of kooky stuff that went on before the christianity fad.

Most of the kooky stuff takes place in Sunday school and behind closed doors in the church these days.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 22, 2004, 4:59 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:It is because there should be no need for marriage

Says who? You're arguing in circles.

Your main arguments for gay marriage are because of legal rights and taxation purposes and insurance.

uhh that is absolutely not my main argument. people who happen to be gay and also respect the institution of legal marriage as a commitment to their partner should have the right to get married.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 22, 2004, 5:02 pm

Ashur wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Ashur wrote:Did you just compare Adex to a Klansman?

Must be an interesting world you live in.
what is the difference between someone who hates gay people "just because" and someone who hates minorities for the same reason?
I do not believe Adex hates homosexuals. He has said as much. I'm amazed at the beligerance here. The guy states his opinion and he's called a bigot, liar, whatever. The hate in this thread isn't coming from his direction.

I'm pretty much a homophobe. Not in the hate sense but rather I'm uncomfortable with it and tend to avoid it.

Adex doesn't take heat because of his faith. Nor is it because he doesn't agree with the lifestyle. I certainly don't agree with the lifestyle but it has 0 impact on mine. I see no justification for not allowing them marry. I see no harm caused by it but I do see harm by not allowing it.

He (and right wing christians in general) take heat because they wish to impose restrictions on others for no reason other than their faith. Feel free to be as close minded as you like and observe religion as you like where it applies to your own life but do not try to impose yourself or your faith on others without just cause.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 22, 2004, 5:05 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: If they do make it legal for gay marriages, then they are going to have to rewrite all of the common law marriage statues in every state as well.....otherwise people will end up in serious legal messes if they have roomates for long periods of time.

hehehe...common law is not written...

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 22, 2004, 5:09 pm

You brought it up.....now show me documented cases of homosexual marriage before "teh Christians" showed up to legislate morality.

Native Americans practiced gay marriage before the arrival of the European Christian settlers.

I can dig up a citation if you like.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 22, 2004, 5:20 pm

Karae wrote:
Metanis wrote:
Karae wrote:You're either going to hell or a bigot, stop trying to play both sides of the fence. Unless you want to do both...
And you're annoying. At least read what the man posted...
I read what he posted you stupid motherfucker.

Let me paraphrase.

Gays are bad cos God says so, but they're not really bad, but they're bad cos God said they were, but they're not really bad, but they're bad because that's what God says. Repeat ad nauseum. Adex is a dumbfuck torn between his religious teachings and the moderate common sense he seems to posses. He needs to make a decision. Either he sides with the religious right (bigots) or those of us who see a human being as a human being, regardless of race, sexual preference, or religion.

In short, I don't give a flying fuck if I annoy you, I'm gonna continue to call people on their bigotry.

And, yes, you're a bigot too. You don't see the light, dumbass. Seeing the "light" is seeing that gays and lesbians are no different than you. You still think they are, you're just willing to accept it.

But at least you're taking a step in the right direction.

They are different than me. That fact I can discern differences doesn't make me a bigot! Does tossing around labels like "Bigot" make you feel all smug and happy inside? In your case I think it's simple amusements for simple minds.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 22, 2004, 6:01 pm

kyoukan wrote:For what other reason besides hatred would you deny someone the right to marry someone they love?

Kooky, you're the one spreading 'hatred' here.

To attribute all resistance to homosexual marraige simply as 'hatred' is as shallow-minded and inflexible as it comes. You are as bad as those you attempt to browbeat.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 22, 2004, 6:12 pm

then why don't you answer the question I've asked like 20 times on this thread. why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry each other, if it's not hatred?

flowchart of thread:

morons (like you): gay people shouldnt be allowed to get married
smart people (like me): why? are you a homophobe?
morons: I don't hate gay people I just think they should arbitrarily be denied personal freedoms, rights and liberties that I enjoy.
smart people: that's homophobic
morons: its not about hate
smart people: whats it about then?
morons: I dont hate gay people
smart people: then why does it bother you if they get married?
morons: I'm totally cool with gay people. I even have a gay friend who I really like but behind his back say that he shouldn't have the same rights as me. how dare you call me a homophobe when I have a gay friend!
smart people: what is it then?
morons: its not about hatred!
smart people: then what do you have against gay people marrying?
morons: it's not a hate thing at all.
smart people: then why does the idea of allowing them to marry each other bother you?
morons: you LIEbrals are always turning everything into hate.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 22, 2004, 6:19 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You brought it up.....now show me documented cases of homosexual marriage before "teh Christians" showed up to legislate morality.

Pre christmas, people were smart enough not to need documentation. Two people liked each other, they hitched up and spent a happy life together.

Civil Unions between any two consenting individuals all the way. Keep fucking religion out of anything even remotely connected to our government.

Get married in your church and have them make you a cool certificate to place on your wall.

Marriage between two gay people is needed about as much as marriage between a male and female. (it's not needed at all so let them both have their fun or let neither)

Edit: I could care less about "marriage" That word should have no meaning at all to our government. When you line up your lawyer for a divorce, it should be your civil union paperwork you refer to.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 22, 2004, 6:29 pm

You homophobes are fucking nuts. There are numerous examples of marriage GAY AND STRAIGHT that predate the guy on stick by centuries. Just because your fucking church tried to bury history in the dark ages by destroying texts and denying people the right to read does not mean that these things did not occur. What we are seeing here are too many years of christian rulers porking their own relatives.

Since you like circular arguments so much, let me give you one to ponder: Gay behavior occurs in nature. Gay marriages (and marriage itself) existed for a millenium before christiantiy and centuries before judiasm (the model T of christianity). So, either God changes his mind a lot, or your priests are making this declaration and playing to your homophobia. After all in the span of human history homosexuals have been around over three times as long as the jesus crispies, so he must not actually care or maybe he had to spend a couple thousand years evaluating teh hot man sex0r? I don't recall god or christ ever stating anywhere in the bible that we "must cast out teh homos" or even references to homosexuality (outside of extremely vague references in lectivus which christians ignore 99% of anyhow, since they love their pork).

There is nothing wrong with being afraid of something different or unknown. When you choose to impose your outdated and suspect belief system, one solely based on fairy tales and fiction, on others that you are doing something incredibly wrong. The sad thing is you do not even see where this is going or who is behind this shit. First off, insurance companies and other benefit companies do not want to have to pay out the benefits to legally wed gays. Second, the crispies are doing this as part of a two point attack on personal freedom. Once they have banned gay marriage, the next step will be to crack down on sex out of wedlock and push the homos back into the closet. Think this is an exaguration? Think again it has already been talked about publicly by the crispies. If you spent half the energy rooting out the pedophiles in your own ranks that you did on hating gays......

Anyhow, I've rambled a lot here. Adex, I don't hold you in contempt with a lot of the rest of the homophobes here because I understand what you are going through. It is a battle in your mind between reason and the dogma you were raised on and it is very hard to grow beyond your upbringing. The christian leaders know this and this is why they are fighting to control marriage so hard, because it is key to their survival as a publically approved cult. Clearly there are a heirarchy of sins and being gay, even if you could provide a biblical basis for the belief gays are sinning, didn't even merrit a commandment. Would it not make more sense for the flock to focus its efforts on the more serious evils of the world? I think you know this, but you cannot let your upbringing go. I went through this as a teenager, so I appreciate the internal struggle going on. Whatever side within you wins, just remember everyone has their own belief system and no one has the right to impose theirs on other people.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 22, 2004, 7:03 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: If they do make it legal for gay marriages, then they are going to have to rewrite all of the common law marriage statues in every state as well.....otherwise people will end up in serious legal messes if they have roomates for long periods of time.
hehehe...common law is not written...

Actually....yes it is. I know for a fact that it is written into the code for the state of Ohio. They did stop common law marriage in 1991 here and it is no longer recognized as a legal marriage unless it was declared before 1991.

Basically, before that, if you presented a woman as your wife in public and cohabitated afetrwards, you were legally married.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 22, 2004, 7:21 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If they do make it legal for gay marriages, then they are going to have to rewrite all of the common law marriage statues in every state as well.....otherwise people will end up in serious legal messes if they have roomates for long periods of time.

What the...

That is one of the stupidest arguments I've heard in a long time. Do you think the only mixed gender couples living together for "long periods of time" now are those in relationships?

Stop trying to make up bullshit legal reasons for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. If any such reasons do exist, no one in this thread has even come close to touching upon them.

Perhaps the worst solution to this problem is the creation of a separate, non-religious status for those who wish to be married. I would rather see people living happily in their ignorance only to eventually be shot down by the Supreme Court, than have them endorse a new, separate status of "civil union" that some otherwise logical people might be coerced into finding acceptable. Legally reinforcing inequality goes against everything this country stands for, and I sincerely hope that it is never officially condoned on this issue in the interest of 'peace.'

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 22, 2004, 7:31 pm

We all know how well that seperate bubbler and bathroom for negroes thing worked out in the south!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 22, 2004, 7:55 pm

Sueven wrote:
You brought it up.....now show me documented cases of homosexual marriage before "teh Christians" showed up to legislate morality.
Native Americans practiced gay marriage before the arrival of the European Christian settlers.

I can dig up a citation if you like.

Please don't, they might stop flapping around like a dick on their forehead and then my entertainment would go away

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 22, 2004, 8:01 pm

Okay, so let's for just a second assume that all homosexuals want to get married purely for financial reasons. So what? Heterosexuals have the right to get married for financial reasons, why shouldn't gays have that same right?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 22, 2004, 9:02 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: If they do make it legal for gay marriages, then they are going to have to rewrite all of the common law marriage statues in every state as well.....otherwise people will end up in serious legal messes if they have roomates for long periods of time.
hehehe...common law is not written...
Actually....yes it is. I know for a fact that it is written into the code for the state of Ohio. They did stop common law marriage in 1991 here and it is no longer recognized as a legal marriage unless it was declared before 1991.

Basically, before that, if you presented a woman as your wife in public and cohabitated afetrwards, you were legally married.

Psst when law is written...it is statutory law...you are talking about commonlaw marriage...not common law...

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 22, 2004, 9:49 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You brought it up.....now show me documented cases of homosexual marriage before "teh Christians" showed up to legislate morality.

The spartains actually encouraged gay marriage. Since they had a very war-like culture, they found that one man would try to impress his lover in battle.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » April 22, 2004, 11:39 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:He is not the only one who feels that way. In fact, you would find yourself in the minority in this country if you do believe gay marriage is something that is needed.

It wasn't all that long ago that people that thought slavery was wrong, or that women shouldn't vote, were in the minority as well.

What's your point?

Post by **Sylvus** » April 23, 2004, 3:12 am

The GAYS are merely trying to elbow their way into the gravy train of the awesome tax breaks, insurance benefits and rights in tort that Jesus (I love you Jesus!) specifically set aside for God-fearing procreators. Just because Harry and Larry have been together for 30 years doesn't mean that Larry (that QUEER) should have any ability to take one of our straight brothers to court for injuring Harry through gross negligence. How could it be "gross" negligence anyway if that's the way JC intended it? Fucking money hungry BUTT PIRATES!

All you GAY-LOVERS make me sick. Homosexuality is not something that should be allowed between two consenting adults who love each other and want that love to be recognized by their friends, family, community and government. The only time that homosexuality should be allowed is when practiced by a trained man of God, untainted by the impure touch of a woman, and even then only when his partner is a minor who is participating against his will.

I want to ROCK and ROLL with JESUS!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 23, 2004, 3:14 am

I believe that any anti-gay laws that are created in the next few years will be reversed within the following 50. The anti-gays may win some battles, but will never win the war. Think about that Adex.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 23, 2004, 8:47 am

I do not know, but perhaps some more of our religiously devout members can tell me where and when god said "Homosexuality is bad."

I cannot find any records of him saying that, nor have I spoken to him personally on the issue.

Before you go quoting the bible, please understand that from a logical standpoint, that book has been re-written several times, cross-translated and butchered to support things like indulgences and bigotry. Do NOT quote that book and expect it to be the "word of god" in my mind, as we both know that it is the "word of men who would be gods".

That said, how can you attribute homosexuality to something that is harmful to the spirit? I would think that two people finding love with eachother would enrich the soul. I would think people wanting to swear an oath of loyalty and manogomy before a court of law would further enhance that oath and the meaning it conveys.

Adex, please do not take this as a personal attack (It is not). I have a beef with christianity as a religion, but not god, and not you man. I want to know if you have a reason for feeling that homosexual marige is wrong, even if it is just a gut instinct, but leave the bible (as a corrupted bit of fiction that is based on fact) at the door.

If you can't do this, I will understand.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2004, 11:53 am

The issue here isn't about whether I think homosexuality is right or wrong.

This issue is how do we write our laws such that same sex couples have equal access and protection under the law, and at the same time not go too far as to force people who disagree with the gay moral code to celebrate or endorse it.

You shouldn't legislate morality, in this case a gay one.

Civil unions for all, and the removal of governmental recognition of marriage, provides equal access and protection under the law without forcing moral codes on people.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 23, 2004, 12:09 pm

the gay moral code

beauty

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2004, 12:26 pm

Think of this scale:

Rejection......Recognition......Tolerance.........Acceptance........Celebration

Right now it is legal in the US to produce pornography. While there are many people who think pornography wrong, they tolerate it out of respect for other people who want to freedom to view it. Laws are written that allow for pornography. Nothing in our laws celebrate pornography, but it is tolerated.

Marital infidelity is not illegal. Many people think cheating on your spouse is wrong, and a despicable act, yet you don't go to jail over it. Marity infidelity is Recognised and more or less Tolerated.

Stealing today is illegal. A vast majority of people in our country belive stealing to be so harmful that they Reject it.

Nascar is a popular event in America. Many people like like to watch it, yet there are no laws giving it's participants a tax break. Likewise there are no laws restricting it. Nascar is Accepted as a entertainment industry.

In the past and today Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is Celebrated. There are special government benefits given to married people. In the past it was widely belived that marriages provided a benefit to American society and so it was encouraged and Celebrated by government recognition and tax incentives.

In the past, acting homosexuals were rejected so much they were considered mentally ill. Their actions were Rejected and through laws made illegal. At the start of the last century open homosexuality was Rejected.

Times have changed. Today people in general either Accept or Tolerate acting homosexuals. There is a movement now to allow the government Celebration of marriage to include same-sex couples. A majority of people today still maintain that acting on homosexual impluses is wrong and harmful. But as it stands same sex couples are not provided equal access and protection under our laws. They are still Rejected by current law.

A civil union option, open to both gay and straight people would provide all rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual marriages yet it wouldn't go so far as to Celebrate such unions. Civil unions allow for Acceptance. Civil unions recognise peoples' right to be treated as one entity by our government.

To ask for gay marriage is to request Celebration of a gay union. There is by far no clear majority that agrees celebrate gay unions. Many still hold gay unions to be wrong. By forcing the idea of government recognition of gay marriage on people. It legislates one particular moral code on a diverse group of people who disagree with it. It goes too far and people will vote to stop it.

If we can no longer agree on one definition of marriage, it is unfair to be forcing the celebration the traditional definition. Governmental laws that endorse and Celebration traditional marriage need to be removed out of respect for those who cannot agree on the traditional definition.

What we all can agree on is the rights that people have regardless of their gender preference to be treated equally by our laws.

This is why the government should do no more than allow civil unions for all who want them.

By doing this same sex couples are no longer treated unequally, and people who disagree with gay unions are not forced to Celebrate it.

*edit typos*

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 23, 2004, 12:32 pm

So you are just hung up on the word?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 23, 2004, 12:36 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:This is why the government should do no more than allow civil unions for all who want them.

By doing this same sex couples are no longer treated inequally, and people who disagree with gay unions are not forced to Celebrate it.

1. No one is forcing you to "Celebrate" gay marriage.

2. Let's get back to reality, okay? The government is never going to stop recognizing marriage. Suggesting it is fine, but it's never going to happen. It would be too much of a sweeping change and just isn't realistic. However, allowing gay marriage to happen is realistic.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2004, 12:37 pm

I support laws that treats people equally.

I vigorously oppose any law that would force me to celebrate or endorse a gay union.

Tolerate, yes
Celebrate, no

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 23, 2004, 12:38 pm

If you were any more hung up on semantics than you already are you'd probably accidently hang yourself. You regard a traditional marriage as how your religion dictates it. Wouldn't that mean that those people, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, who don't get married with the blessings of your religion aren't "traditionally" married in your view? Do you call them married? Are they merely in a civil union in your eyes?

You suggest removing government from marriage and calling it civil unions. What possible reason is there to change the name of it for everyone to something else just for your peace of mind. Why force government, companies, etc, etc, to change all their documentation from [ ] Married to [ ] Civilly Unionized? (Haha, sorry, that made me laugh). You ask for this compromise. What if you were asked to compromise the term marriage of any religious conotations. What if marriage were decided to be the norm and your unions would become a Religious Union, devoid of any significance in the governments eyes, merely a "tradition" of your church, like Sunday Mass.

Would you be willing to oh-so-benevolently compromise for the evil-sinner-gays-who-are-really-ok-because-you-have-several-gay-friends?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 23, 2004, 12:40 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I support laws that treats people equally.

I vigorously oppose any law that would force me to celebrate or endorse a gay union.

Tolerate, yes
Celebrate, no

No ones forcing you to hold a party for them, Tex. But any law that validates it is you endorsing it by proxy via your elected officials endorsement. So really it still all comes back to you don't want gay people to have any kind of official, government-recognized union.

God damn it's a slow day at work!

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 23, 2004, 12:41 pm

So, as an example, if Texas were to require that Adex attend all gay marriages and wear a party hat at the reception, that would be bad, but if Texas were merely to allow gays to be married, that is ok.

So far, I have not seen any party hat requirements in the draft legislation for gay marriages, so I guess Adex is all for them. He was just confused on the content. Adex, you should know better than to get your information about gay marriages from Pat Robertson.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2004, 12:48 pm

Acting on homosexual impluses is wrong and it scars the spirit.

However I respect a gay person's right to be treated equally.

I also seek to defend the traditional definition of marriage as a celebrated status. (but not by the government out of respect to people like Aaeamdar)

Sadly, today we no longer can agree on what marriage is. This is why we shouldn't be making marriage a government expression. It's time to allow marriage (in it's now dual definitions) to be defined and celebrated by the local community or culture.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » April 23, 2004, 12:51 pm

Man...if it's a scar on the soul, Dar and I must look like burn victims

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 23, 2004, 12:55 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Acting on homosexual impluses is wrong and it scars the spirit.

However I respect a gay person's right to be treated equally.

I also seek to defend the traditional definition of marriage as a celebrated status. (but not by the government out of respect to people like Aaeamdar)

Sadly, today we no longer can agree on what marriage is. This is why we shouldn't be making marriage a government expression. It's time to allow marriage (in it's now dual definitions) to be defined and celebrated by the local community or culture.

Personally if I were gay I'd be more concerned with scarring of the rectum rather than the spirit. You just managed to fail to respond to anything that was said to you otherwise. Stop trying to act like you're reciting scripture.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2004, 12:55 pm

You guys must understand the impact behind the word marriage.

Especially if you want to push legislation past traditional voters.