Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time

[Lynks]

Then we are right back at where we are now. Except this time, those who oppose this would say smoething like this: "You faggots already have the same rights now so STFU".

Its pointless to meet them half way, then continue, unless of course they make non-religious people have civil unions too, but that opens the door for more discrimination with more people.

[Atokal]

Why have the double standard? Why not just eliminate the word marriage, and make them all civil unions? To make it otherwise would mean we are treating them differently. That means it's discrimination at least lexically if not opening the door up for some other kinds.

-=Lohrno

Lohrno they are different, no worse or better in societies eyes than any other citizen just different. Just because you call a horse a zebra, it does not make it a zebra.

I object to the use of the word marriage because it does not describe the union in a same sex relationship. Why are gays (or in particular Aaeamdar) so attached to the word? If they get a union and the rights associated with that union should they not also want a word that is unique to them unless of course the whole goal is to piss off the "Christian right".

[Fash]

Why have the double standard? Why not just eliminate the word marriage, and make them all civil unions?

Can you really imagining anything like this happening? Lacking a grasp of reality as you do, I don't know how you manage. This is about as possible as the entire world casting aside religion at once.

Key words here, rational, reasonable, and progress.

Gay marraige is a relatively new issue... in comparison to other rights issues such as abortion, women's suffrage, and slavery. 2 years ago they had no way of getting any pairing rights, they are now on the way to having some.

[Atokal]

Ohh I get it, you're afraid. You're afraid that if they use the same word as you, you might turn gay! I get it, you fucking homophobe.

Lynks you daft asshat...

It has nothing to do with being a homophobe. But you lack the intelligence to see this. The truth is that Christians do not want a word that still holds value to the family and to their beliefs changed to incorporate something that it was never meant to include.

Stop fucking with the language.

The insanity of the liberal left subscribes to the following:

Terrorist = Freedom Fighter
Marriage = Same sex unions
Actress = Actor

although...

FAG still means Film Actors Guild.

Don't discriminate, don't use words that actually describe something because some cry baby shithead wants to be the same.

Fuck Aaeamdar if you want so badly to be the same go get a woman. Till then you are gay, not that there is anything wrong with that but you obviously think there is.

[archeiron]

Ohh I get it, you're afraid. You're afraid that if they use the same word as you, you might turn gay! I get it, you fucking homophobe.

Lynks you daft asshat...

It has nothing to do with being a homophobe. But you lack the intelligence to see this. The truth is that Christians do not want a word that still holds value to the family and to their beliefs changed to incorporate something that it was never meant to include.

Stop fucking with the language.

The insanity of the liberal left subscribes to the following:

Terrorist = Freedom Fighter
Marriage = Same sex unions
Actress = Actor

although...

FAG still means Film Actors Guild.

Don't discriminate, don't use words that actually describe something because some cry baby shithead wants to be the same.

Fuck Aaeamdar if you want so badly to be the same go get a woman. Till then you are gay, not that there is anything wrong with that but you obviously think there is.

I happen to agree with Atokal on the semantics of this... Let me dig up what I said I page three...

...
This is also a question of semantics. Marriage according to Christianity is a spiritual union recognized by God and church, affording certain spiritual and religious rights. Marriage according to the Constitution is a civil union recognized by Constituion and state, affording certain legal and civil rights. The most logical approach would be to remove the definition of marriage from the Constitution in favour of a more legal wording that has no religious undertones. The parties that could enter into such a union would be defined as being consistent with the notion of equality found elsewhere in the Constitution.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Ohh I get it, you're afraid. You're afraid that if they use the same word as you, you might turn gay! I get it, you fucking homophobe.

Lynks you daft asshat...

It has nothing to do with being a homophobe. But you lack the intelligence to see this. The truth is that Christians do not want a word that still holds value to the family and to their beliefs changed to incorporate something that it was never meant to include.

Stop fucking with the language.

The insanity of the liberal left subscribes to the following:

Terrorist = Freedom Fighter
Marriage = Same sex unions
Actress = Actor

although...

FAG still means Film Actors Guild.

Don't discriminate, don't use words that actually describe something because some cry baby shithead wants to be the same.

Fuck Aaeamdar if you want so badly to be the same go get a woman. Till then you are gay, not that there is anything wrong with that but you obviously think there is.

I happen to agree with Atokal on the semantics of this... Let me dig up what I said I page three...

...
This is also a question of semantics. Marriage according to Christianity is a spiritual union recognized by God and church, affording certain spiritual and religious rights. Marriage according to the Constitution is a civil union recognized by Constituion and state, affording certain legal and civil rights. The most logical approach would be to remove the definition of marriage from the Constitution in favour of a more legal wording that has no religious undertones. The parties that could enter into such a union would be defined as being consistent with the notion of equality found elsewhere in the Constitution.

Get out your notebooks little kiddies. Here are two examples of common sense reasonable posts on this topic. Throw away your hatred and labels and learn from the above.

[Aaeamdar]

Key word asshole....you DENY THEM RIGHTS.

RIF

A civil union was "GRANT" them new rights they haven't had to this point. Celebrate it. Don't be such a negative CUNT.

Emancipation granted new rights to former slaves. They should have all just celebrated and not demanded other stupid things like voting, equal protection, etc. Now I understand. Thanks.

Gay marraige is a relatively new issue... in comparison to other rights issues such as abortion, women's suffrage, and slavery. 2 years ago they had no way of getting any pairing rights, they are now on the way to having some.

Umm, Yeah. Of course. If laws are passed to grant "Civil Unions" that will be great (though, note, most of the laws that passed this last round banning gay "marriage" also banned civil unions). So "Civil Unions" are good, so what? That does not change that they idea of "seperate but equal" is not a good thing. Just because I argue that the only truly acceptable result is equality does not mean I would reject steps along the way. Blacks did not go from Slaves to Equal over night, but that does not mean the long period between slavery and equality was acceptable. Both were wrong, but being free was still better than being a slave.

[archeiron]

Key word asshole....you DENY THEM RIGHTS.

RIF

A civil union was "GRANT" them new rights they haven't had to this point. Celebrate it. Don't be such a negative CUNT.

Emancipation granted new rights to former slaves. They should have all just celebrated and not demanded other stupid things like voting, equal protection, etc. Now I understand. Thanks.

And scrolling up three posts....

The most logical approach would be to remove the definition of marriage from the Constitution in favour of a more legal wording that has no religious undertones. [editor's note: civil unions]

In Midnyte's defense, I believe that this is what he was referring to.

[archeiron]

Key word asshole....you DENY THEM RIGHTS.

RIF

A civil union was "GRANT" them new rights they haven't had to this point. Celebrate it. Don't be such a negative CUNT.

Emancipation granted new rights to former slaves. They should have all just celebrated and not demanded other stupid things like voting, equal protection, etc. Now I understand. Thanks.

Gay marraige is a relatively new issue... in comparison to other rights issues such as abortion, women's suffrage, and slavery. 2 years ago they had no way of getting any pairing rights, they are now on the way to having some.

Umm, Yeah. Of course. If laws are passed to grant "Civil Unions" that will be great (though, note, most of the laws that passed this last round banning gay "marriage" also banned civil unions). So "Civil Unions" are good, so what? That does not change that they idea of "seperate but equal" is not a good thing. Just because I argue that the only truly acceptable result is equality does not mean I would reject steps along the way. Blacks did not go from Slaves to Equal over night, but that does not mean the long period between slavery and equality was acceptable. Both were wrong, but being free was still better than being a slave.

Nice edit, but I quoted you first!

[Aaeamdar]

Its not an edit. My orignal post still says exactly what it said. I did not see the need to create a new post to also reply to Fash, since at the time my post was on the bottom.

EDIT: though maybe I should have. It gets my signature out there one more time.

[Lynks]

Isn't there something in the Bible that says to share or something? BTW, Atokal, or Midnyte, show me proof that Christians own the word "marriage" please. I bet you can't.

Who's to say 2 gay people can't have a familly? What is a familly, a mom, a dad, and children? Not anymore. I find it very hypocritical of you to only speak out against gay marriages but do/say fuck all when it comes any other thing that damages the "true values of a familly" like divorce, or adultery. Why aren't you trying to make those things illegal?

[Rekaar.]

That's the whole fucking point numbnuts. If it's a baby then I'm right. If it's nothing then you're right.

So when is it a baby and not a fetus (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean to you)? The legality is subject to intepretation. So when the legality changes, so do your morals.

I for one do not base my morals on legality.

Suddenly the baby that was aborted at 6 months - while fine before - is now illegal. Was it murder then? Subjective morality - a wonderful thing for you?

So what makes your timeline better than someone else's?

Now you're talking about something else, limits on the age. I personally would probably put the limit at around 3 months. I think that subject is open to debate while still not being unamerican. Banning abortion is debatable, but I would put it on about the same level as "Should we instate a dictatorship." As long as we're not banning abortion, I have no problems. =D

-=Lohrno

It's now your job to make the rules. You place the cutoff at 3 months based on whatever criteria you feel is appropriate.

Now you have people bitching because they don't think it's a baby until it can live on its own and that wins out in court, thus becoming law. Do you now oppose the newly legal late term abortion or does your moral code change to suit?

[Sylvus]

I happen to agree with Atokal on the semantics of this... Let me dig up what I said I page three...

...
This is also a question of semantics. Marriage according to Christianity is a spiritual union recognized by God and church, affording certain spiritual and religious rights. Marriage according to the Constitution is a civil union recognized by Constituion and state, affording certain legal and civil rights. The most logical approach would be to remove the definition of marriage from the Constitution in favour of a more legal wording that has no religious undertones. The parties that could enter into such a union would be defined as being consistent with the notion of equality found elsewhere in the Constitution.

Here's what I don't get then. The Christians are against "gays" using their word "marriage" because it isn't recognized by God and church, but don't Christians still refer to, say... a Hindu/Bhuddist/Muslim/Jewish couple as being "married"? If it's such a sacred word, shouldn't violating one of God's important rules ("I'm God, you betta recognize!", I think it's like the second or third commandment) be more of an aberration than one that gets such little mention in the Bible?

I don't know, it just seems silly to me to place such faith in a word that comes from a language that God didn't even apparently speak at the one time in history that He apparently decided to talk to humans and lay his rules down. I don't really give a shit about the semantics, I just think it'd be cool for them to have the same rights that normal people have. If "civil unions" is the only way that can happen, so be it. I'll still say that a gay couple is married rather than say that they are civilly unioned, as it just rolls off the tongue a little easier.

[Lohrno]

Why have the double standard? Why not just eliminate the word marriage, and make them all civil unions?

Can you really imagining anything like this happening? Lacking a grasp of reality as you do, I don't know how you manage. This is about as possible as the entire world casting aside religion at once.

In case it was not clear from the other 5 posts I made I was referring to government documents.

Gay marraige is a relatively new issue... in comparison to other rights issues such as abortion, women's suffrage, and slavery. 2 years ago they had no way of getting any pairing rights, they are now on the way to having some.

Good, but why make a half assed attempt at it?

-=Lohrno

[Rekaar.]

The section of people that use that argument are a subset, so dont' generalize one group's stance as everyone's. There are people in every issue that may be on the right side for the wrong reasons.

But just like there are folks that voted for Bush for the wrong reasons I'll take it =p

I should calrify too, that I"m not against gay marriage in actuality. I'm against what it stands for today - as do most people. I've mentioned in other posts what it will take to gain acceptance. The angry self serving mob doesn't ever win.

[Lohrno]

It's now your job to make the rules. You place the cutoff at 3 months based on whatever criteria you feel is appropriate.

I stated that it was up to people to decide. I was just giving my personal opinion on the matter. I am just against a ban on abortions.

Now you have people bitching because they don't think it's a baby until it can live on its own and that wins out in court, thus becoming law. Do you now oppose the newly legal late term abortion or does your moral code change to suit?

I am not sure about this issue. I think abortions past say 7 months are not good, but it's not really my place to legislate my personal morals and thoughts on such things. If they want to make 7 or 8 month abortions legal, fine. I don't like it, but it is debatable, and is not my place to insert my own values where others' liberty is concerned.

-=Lohrno

[Lohrno]

Lohrno they are different, no worse or better in societies eyes than any other citizen just different. Just because you call a horse a zebra, it does not make it a zebra.

And they are still people. We should be striving for equality of law and opportunity for all. You can use all the hate words you want, but our country was in fact founded on the ideals of freedom and justice for all.

I object to the use of the word marriage because it does not describe the union in a same sex relationship. Why are gays (or in particular Aaeamdar) so attached to the word? If they get a union and the rights associated with that union should they not also want a word that is unique to them unless of course the whole goal is to piss off the "Christian right".

You want to put the foundation in place for discrimination because of your offense at a word? Well fine, but again, why the double standard? Since you're offended by gay people's unions being called marriages, why not make everyone's marriage 'civil unions' under the eyes of the law and let people call them whatever they want? I don't see why our government should be making separate laws/verbage for people just because they are a little different.

-=Lohrno

[Nick]

Get out your notebooks little kiddies. Here are two examples of common sense reasonable posts on this topic. Throw away your hatred and labels and learn from the above.

Big breath......

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhhhhahahahahahahhahahahahahah
ahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha
hhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111


That was hilarious, really, you made my day man. I feel so much better about myself after that one!

[Sueven]

Wow. This:

I should calrify too, that I"m not against gay marriage in actuality. I'm against what it stands for today - as do most people. I've mentioned in other posts what it will take to gain acceptance. The angry self serving mob doesn't ever win.

So you actually... support... gay marriage. You oppose it because you think it's 'symbolic' of the queer minority forcing something on the moral majority. You think that, even though that minority is correct, they should not be granted the rights they deserve until they jump through hoops that you set up so it doesn't seem like you were bullied into something by the fags.

If I'm wrong, please offer me a coherent alternate explanation of why you would oppose implementing civil rights policies that you believe in.

[Atokal]

I happen to agree with Atokal on the semantics of this... Let me dig up what I said I page three...

...
This is also a question of semantics. Marriage according to Christianity is a spiritual union recognized by God and church, affording certain spiritual and religious rights. Marriage according to the Constitution is a civil union recognized by Constituion and state, affording certain legal and civil rights. The most logical approach would be to remove the definition of marriage from the Constitution in favour of a more legal wording that has no religious undertones. The parties that could enter into such a union would be defined as being consistent with the notion of equality found elsewhere in the Constitution.

Here's what I don't get then. The Christians are against "gays" using their word "marriage" because it isn't recognized by God and church, but don't Christians still refer to, say... a Hindu/Bhuddist/Muslim/Jewish couple as being "married"? If it's such a sacred word, shouldn't violating one of God's important rules ("I'm God, you betta recognize!", I think it's like the second or third commandment) be more of an aberration than one that gets such little mention in the Bible?

Yes Christians still call a man and woman regardless of religion married if they have indeed been married. You see it does not break the spirit of the word. Man and Woman.

I don't know, it just seems silly to me to place such faith in a word that comes from a language that God didn't even apparently speak at the one time in history that He apparently decided to talk to humans and lay his rules down. I don't really give a shit about the semantics, I just think it'd be cool for them to have the same rights that normal people have. If "civil unions" is the only way that can happen, so be it. I'll still say that a gay couple is married rather than say that they are civilly unioned, as it just rolls off the tongue a little easier.

Doesn't it seem equally silly for something to be called a marriage when it does not meet the criteria of a marriage?
In terms of what you would call a union of same sex folks after the fact it would be up to the individual obvioiusly.

Another issue of course would be the first lawsuit when a church refused to "marry" a gay couple because it is against the churches beliefs.
Discrimination against the individual vs religious freedom.

And for those of you who say it would never happen and/or if it did it would never result in a guilty verdict against the offending church you are deluded. Just another reason why the word "marriage" has significance to Christians.

[Lohrno]

Doesn't it seem equally silly for something to be called a marriage when it does not meet the criteria of a marriage?

I am not sure why you think your definition is the only one.

Another issue of course would be the first lawsuit when a church refused to "marry" a gay couple because it is against the churches beliefs.
Discrimination against the individual vs religious freedom.

This fight I'd probably be siding with you. Churches have the right now to refuse those who have sinned in their eyes right? Freedom of Religion and all. It is discrimination kind of but someone who is gay is not likely to be too enthusiastic about a religion that is not happy about that anyways.

And for those of you who say it would never happen and/or if it did it would never result in a guilty verdict against the offending church you are deluded. Just another reason why the word "marriage" has significance to Christians.

It also has significance to everyone else. But the Christian definition no matter how much you repeat it is not the only one that exists.

-=Lohrno

[Atokal]

Isn't there something in the Bible that says to share or something? BTW, Atokal, or Midnyte, show me proof that Christians own the word "marriage" please. I bet you can't.

Who's to say 2 gay people can't have a familly? What is a familly, a mom, a dad, and children? Not anymore. I find it very hypocritical of you to only speak out against gay marriages but do/say fuck all when it comes any other thing that damages the "true values of a familly" like divorce, or adultery. Why aren't you trying to make those things illegal?

First of all I have never seen a thread on any VV forum that discusses adultery or divorce. If you can find one I would be happy to comment on it. But your statement is as stupid as me accusing you of having no opinion on the cleanliness of the average household in North America.

The stereotypical family is a Mom, Dad and Kids if they can/choose to have them.

Now I have never said that Christians own the word marriage. What I have said is that it is defined as being between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is all.

[Lohrno]

Now I have never said that Christians own the word marriage. What I have said is that it is defined as being between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Not for everyone. That's not the only defintion that is and ever was.

-=Lohrno

[Lynks]

First of all I have never seen a thread on any VV forum that discusses adultery or divorce.

Thats the point I'm trying to make. People keep claiming they want to preserve the word "marriage" and "familly", none of these people talk about divorce and other things.

The stereotypical family is a Mom, Dad and Kids if they can/choose to have them.

And, its not the mold for a family. You can have 2 grandparents, 2 men, 2 women, 3 men even, a single parent, ect. The point is, there is no specific defenition for "family", I don't understand why some of you want to keep family values in place since a family can be anything.

Now I have never said that Christians own the word marriage. What I have said is that it is defined as being between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Religion shouldn't be a part of government (democracy), why are you using religious definitions to state what should be legal, and what shouldn't. What if other religions suddenly say that marriage is a bond between 2 people, any 2 people, would you still deny them because its not your religion?

[Sueven]

Another issue of course would be the first lawsuit when a church refused to "marry" a gay couple because it is against the churches beliefs.

I know that you claim that this would necessarily happen but it's just not true. Churches currently refuse to marry people all the time. I know plenty of people who consider themselves Catholic who were refused permission to be married in a Catholic ceremony. I have a feeling that most churches would reject me if I asked to be married there.

If there is legal basis to force a church to perform a marriage that it does not wish to perform, that challenge could be brought now, as churches already reject people who wish to be married. Can you provide either

1. Evidence that there have been such legal challenges, and that they have either been successful or may be successful in the future
2. A compelling reason as to why, even though there have been no challenges to the rights of churches to marry who they see fit, things would change if we allowed gays to marry; and a compelling legal argument detailing how these lawsuits would have any hope of success.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Isn't there something in the Bible that says to share or something? BTW, Atokal, or Midnyte, show me proof that Christians own the word "marriage" please. I bet you can't.

Did someone say they did? I must have missed that.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

Seriously guys, this thread was interesting until about Page 3... it has since plummeted in quality of arguments and overall entertainment value.

[Rekaar.]

It's now your job to make the rules. You place the cutoff at 3 months based on whatever criteria you feel is appropriate.

I stated that it was up to people to decide. I was just giving my personal opinion on the matter. I am just against a ban on abortions.

Now you have people bitching because they don't think it's a baby until it can live on its own and that wins out in court, thus becoming law. Do you now oppose the newly legal late term abortion or does your moral code change to suit?

I am not sure about this issue. I think abortions past say 7 months are not good, but it's not really my place to legislate my personal morals and thoughts on such things. If they want to make 7 or 8 month abortions legal, fine. I don't like it, but it is debatable, and is not my place to insert my own values where others' liberty is concerned.

-=Lohrno

Somebody missed the point! The purpose of the exercise is to place you in charge of this issue. You are a lawmaker now. Decide where you stand, if you can. It seems you can't stand for anything except being anti-Christian though.

[Kylere]

Umm this thread is fucking moronic, PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS!!!!

[Zaelath]

Somebody missed the point! The purpose of the exercise is to place you in charge of this issue. You are a lawmaker now. Decide where you stand, if you can. It seems you can't stand for anything except being anti-Christian though.

Oh really? I thought the job of the lawmakers was to enshrine public morals (standards if you will) in law, to the point where the higher courts will rule against such laws if they feel they aren't representative of the citizens.

[Lohrno]

Somebody missed the point! The purpose of the exercise is to place you in charge of this issue. You are a lawmaker now. Decide where you stand, if you can. It seems you can't stand for anything except being anti-Christian though.

I thought you were accusing me of trying to assert my opinion as absolute. You're right I wouldn't make the law immediately. I would take a poll and find a median limit to allow abortions at.

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

I happen to agree with Atokal on the semantics of this... Let me dig up what I said I page three...

...
This is also a question of semantics. Marriage according to Christianity is a spiritual union recognized by God and church, affording certain spiritual and religious rights. Marriage according to the Constitution is a civil union recognized by Constituion and state, affording certain legal and civil rights. The most logical approach would be to remove the definition of marriage from the Constitution in favour of a more legal wording that has no religious undertones. The parties that could enter into such a union would be defined as being consistent with the notion of equality found elsewhere in the Constitution.

Here's what I don't get then. The Christians are against "gays" using their word "marriage" because it isn't recognized by God and church, but don't Christians still refer to, say... a Hindu/Bhuddist/Muslim/Jewish couple as being "married"? If it's such a sacred word, shouldn't violating one of God's important rules ("I'm God, you betta recognize!", I think it's like the second or third commandment) be more of an aberration than one that gets such little mention in the Bible?

I don't know, it just seems silly to me to place such faith in a word that comes from a language that God didn't even apparently speak at the one time in history that He apparently decided to talk to humans and lay his rules down. I don't really give a shit about the semantics, I just think it'd be cool for them to have the same rights that normal people have. If "civil unions" is the only way that can happen, so be it. I'll still say that a gay couple is married rather than say that they are civilly unioned, as it just rolls off the tongue a little easier.

I am interested in solving the problem; the religious semantics and connotations of a particular word are a distraction from the real issue. Focus on finding a way to give fair, equal status to gay couples and bundle it all up in a law that addresses the issue.

While you may find it silly, there are people in this world that hold that word dear to them. We may or may not agree that, but we should remain respectful of their feelings on the matter.

There appear to be two paths: one to force the issue on the conservative traditionalists in America, and one to focus on the law. Since this is ultimately a legal issue, it seems that latter is the better course of action. It will be much easier on everyone to change the laws than it will to change people's opinions of homosexuality.

[Sylvus]

I am interested in solving the problem; the religious semantics and connotations of a particular word are a distraction from the real issue. Focus on finding a way to give fair, equal status to gay couples and bundle it all up in a law that addresses the issue.

While you may find it silly, there are people in this world that hold that word dear to them. We may or may not agree that, but we should remain respectful of their feelings on the matter.

There appear to be two paths: one to force the issue on the conservative traditionalists in America, and one to focus on the law. Since this is ultimately a legal issue, it seems that latter is the better course of action. It will be much easier on everyone to change the laws than it will to change people's opinions of homosexuality.

I agree with you 100% that the only important thing is that the rights are given, under any name. This is also VV and I enjoy debating, so I will continue...

The bottom line is that the word marriage refers to a contract between to people, religious or legal or otherwise, who are committing themselves to each other. While some people may be fighting for the word because they believe it should be between a man and a woman, others who may not fit the traditional meaning of the word are fighting for it because it's a symbol of how much they care for their partner. Civil Union just doesn't cut it for them. In my opinion, if we have an existing institution that some people are excluded from based solely on prejudice, they shouldn't be the ones who have to make concessions. Calling two gay people married in no way infringes on the rights or freedoms of any straight married people.

The reality is that in various points throughout history it was either illegal or taboo for people of different "tribes", religions or races to get married to each other. As society evolved, each of those situations became more commonplace and eventually became accepted by all but the most intolerant people. Language is malleable, the word has grown to include specific cases that were not explicitly defined when the word was first used (but that fall under its definition of "the legal and/or religious union of two people") and it has not lost any of its meaning. The same will hold true when homosexuals are included under its umbrella. It's going to happen, the only question is when.

[archeiron]

I am interested in solving the problem; the religious semantics and connotations of a particular word are a distraction from the real issue. Focus on finding a way to give fair, equal status to gay couples and bundle it all up in a law that addresses the issue.

While you may find it silly, there are people in this world that hold that word dear to them. We may or may not agree that, but we should remain respectful of their feelings on the matter.

There appear to be two paths: one to force the issue on the conservative traditionalists in America, and one to focus on the law. Since this is ultimately a legal issue, it seems that latter is the better course of action. It will be much easier on everyone to change the laws than it will to change people's opinions of homosexuality.

I agree with you 100% that the only important thing is that the rights are given, under any name. This is also VV and I enjoy debating, so I will continue...

The bottom line is that the word marriage refers to a contract between to people, religious or legal or otherwise, who are committing themselves to each other. While some people may be fighting for the word because they believe it should be between a man and a woman, others who may not fit the traditional meaning of the word are fighting for it because it's a symbol of how much they care for their partner. Civil Union just doesn't cut it for them. In my opinion, if we have an existing institution that some people are excluded from based solely on prejudice, they shouldn't be the ones who have to make concessions. Calling two gay people married in no way infringes on the rights or freedoms of any straight married people.

The reality is that in various points throughout history it was either illegal or taboo for people of different "tribes", religions or races to get married to each other. As society evolved, each of those situations became more commonplace and eventually became accepted by all but the most intolerant people. Language is malleable, the word has grown to include specific cases that were not explicitly defined when the word was first used (but that fall under its definition of "the legal and/or religious union of two people") and it has not lost any of its meaning. The same will hold true when homosexuals are included under its umbrella. It's going to happen, the only question is when.

I don't object to what you are saying is the ultimate objective to have public and open freedom and acceptance for all people in America, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Respect for existing religions falls under this umbrella. If we want respect and acceptance for gay couples, then it makes sense to extend the same respect and acceptance for traditional Christians who want to protect their words, their morals, and their way of life. All of these disparate group can co-exist provided that they do not attempt to persecute one another in the pursuit of their ideals.

One step at a time is the best course of action. Give the more conservative thinkers time to grow accustomed to gay civil unions and then slowly build more tolerance and acceptance from there. Acceptance of the idea that not everyone has the same connotation for the word "marriage" is a good place to start.

[Atokal]

I am interested in solving the problem; the religious semantics and connotations of a particular word are a distraction from the real issue. Focus on finding a way to give fair, equal status to gay couples and bundle it all up in a law that addresses the issue.

While you may find it silly, there are people in this world that hold that word dear to them. We may or may not agree that, but we should remain respectful of their feelings on the matter.

There appear to be two paths: one to force the issue on the conservative traditionalists in America, and one to focus on the law. Since this is ultimately a legal issue, it seems that latter is the better course of action. It will be much easier on everyone to change the laws than it will to change people's opinions of homosexuality.

I agree with you 100% that the only important thing is that the rights are given, under any name. This is also VV and I enjoy debating, so I will continue...

The bottom line is that the word marriage refers to a contract between to people, religious or legal or otherwise, who are committing themselves to each other. While some people may be fighting for the word because they believe it should be between a man and a woman, others who may not fit the traditional meaning of the word are fighting for it because it's a symbol of how much they care for their partner. Civil Union just doesn't cut it for them. In my opinion, if we have an existing institution that some people are excluded from based solely on prejudice, they shouldn't be the ones who have to make concessions. Calling two gay people married in no way infringes on the rights or freedoms of any straight married people.

The reality is that in various points throughout history it was either illegal or taboo for people of different "tribes", religions or races to get married to each other. As society evolved, each of those situations became more commonplace and eventually became accepted by all but the most intolerant people. Language is malleable, the word has grown to include specific cases that were not explicitly defined when the word was first used (but that fall under its definition of "the legal and/or religious union of two people") and it has not lost any of its meaning. The same will hold true when homosexuals are included under its umbrella. It's going to happen, the only question is when.

I don't object to what you are saying is the ultimate objective to have public and open freedom and acceptance for all people in America, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Respect for existing religions falls under this umbrella. If we want respect and acceptance for gay couples, then it makes sense to extend the same respect and acceptance for traditional Christians who want to protect their words, their morals, and their way of life. All of these disparate group can co-exist provided that they do not attempt to persecute one another in the pursuit of their ideals.

One step at a time is the best course of action. Give the more conservative thinkers time to grow accustomed to gay civil unions and then slowly build more tolerance and acceptance from there. Acceptance of the idea that not everyone has the same connotation for the word "marriage" is a good place to start.

What I find disturbing is the amount of acceptance we heap upon every single group out there. It is not about acceptance. It is about maintaining the traditional family as Christians and many other religions hold it dear.

It is all too easy to preach acceptance, when the only cost is too those of us who are once again being asked to compromise our beliefs.

Now back to my argument that it will definately infringe on my freedom of religion. Please read the following article:

Gay teen wins fight over Catholic prom
Last Updated Wed, 22 May 2002 17:05:24

OSHAWA, ONT. - A Roman Catholic high school student celebrated Friday after a judge ruled that the teen has the right to take his boyfriend to an end-of-the-year dance.

The decision came only hours before the prom was scheduled to begin in Oshawa, Ont., just east of Toronto.

"I feel at ease now just knowing that we're getting free of discrimination," said Marc Hall, 17, sporting a white tuxedo and blue hair as he prepared to hop in a limousine with his boyfriend.


Marc Hall

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert McKinnon granted the student's request for an injunction against the Durham Catholic District School Board.

"The idea of equality speaks to the conscience of all humanity dignity and worth," McKinnon wrote in his ruling.

"Marc Hall is a Roman Catholic Canadian trying to be himself. He is gay. It's not an answer to Section 15 Charter rights on these facts to deny permission to attend a school function to celebrate the end of his high school career with his classmates."

Hall said he's not worried about encountering anyone at the prom who might be upset about the judge's decision.

"Most them support me anyway, so I'm just going to go have fun with them," he told reporters.

Hall launched the case after officials told him not to bring his 21-year-old boyfriend to the dance at Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic high school.

Officials acknowledged that Hall has the right to be gay, but said permitting the date would send a message that the church supports his "homosexual lifestyle."


* FROM MAY 7, 2002: Gay student a 'bad example' says school board

The board had argued that allowing a gay student to bring a date to a Catholic function is "not consistent with teachings of the church." Officials told McKinnon that if Hall doesn't accept the faith's beliefs he could always go to a public school.

But Hall said his rights were being violated because the ruling was based solely on his sexual orientation.

Now how far of a stretch is it for a gay couple to demand they be married in a church by the pastor and if refused to litigate the discrimination?

Further there are people in Canada who are licensed to marry folks that are now being told they MUST marry gays or lose their license. Regardless of their personal beliefs. You see gays always have choices, they can be married by a Justice or a gay friendly church, but in many instances they will turn it into a media circus, have no second thoughts about trampling on my religious freedoms just as long as they get their way.

It can happen and it will. Now to those of you who say Too bad for the Christians just remember that religious freedom is also part of that big package of personal rights and freedoms we all are so proud of and concerned with.

[Fash]

Jeez Atokal, how does 2 gay guys getting married affect your religious freedom? It doesn't, in fact it only expands upon it, for when you come out of the closet.

[Atokal]

Jeez Atokal, how does 2 gay guys getting married affect your religious freedom? It doesn't, in fact it only expands upon it, for when you come out of the closet.

Fash, ask yourself a few questions here:
Does calling me a closet homosexual qualify as an insult?

If so then that would make you a homophobe.

If not then why make a post that implies that being gay is a bad thing?

I am sure you will understand just how incredibly stupid your post makes you look.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Unfortunately Atokal, many people supporting gay marriage do not see how they hurt their cause by acting so immaturely with such hatred and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with them.

[Fash]

Some actual reasoning on how 2 people in another state getting 'married' affects YOUR religious freedom would be nice... got any?

I consider myself a homophobe because I would not become close friends with a gay guy, because it would make me uncomfortable. I still support gay marraige, because it can't affect me.

Neither me being a homophobe, nor me insinuating you could be a closet homo leads any connotation than homosexuality is bad or evil.

[Atokal]

Some actual reasoning on how 2 people in another state getting 'married' affects YOUR religious freedom would be nice... got any?

I consider myself a homophobe because I would not become close friends with a gay guy, because it would make me uncomfortable. I still support gay marraige, because it can't affect me.

Neither me being a homophobe, nor me insinuating you could be a closet homo leads any connotation than homosexuality is bad or evil.

Ok so lets examine this little gem.

You would not become close friends with a gay guy cause it would make you uncomfortable. So you discriminate against gay folks on a personal level. But because you have no religious perspective on the matter it is all good to cause discomfort for others. Think about that.

Now I assume you are probably in your teens and therefore have not fully developed your brain for linear thought let alone abstract thought. Try reading my post again and draaaaaww a correlation between the guy attending a CATHOLIC school and all the inherent beliefs of that organization in spite of the fact that he is gay. Now move along to the fact that this kid had no respect for the RELIGIOUS beliefs of the Catholic church and proceeded to take them to court.

Fast forward to a society where Gay "Marriage" is legal and the definition of marriage has been changed to include same sex couples. Gay couple goes to a Baptist Church and requests a marriage ceremony. The Preacher says sorry we do not perform gay marriages as it is against our beliefs. Gay couple goes to court and ..... I am sure you can follow this now.

[Zaelath]

Ugly, stupid people having kids makes me uncomfortable too. Ban that and I'll shut up about the gays.

Your baptist preacher can refuse to marry anyone he feels like now, so why would it be different if it was two gays?

Honestly, all this forcing religious institutions to do anything under force of law is just horseshit.

[Fash]

a school prom and a marraige ceremony are two drastically different things, something even a judge isn't going to draw a correlation between.

I'm not discriminating against gays on a personal level, it's not their right to be my close friend, it's a priviledge i bestow upon people i'm comfortable spending a lot of time with.

I'm 25, and you still have not provided any reasoning how it affects your religious freedom.

[Kriista]

You would not become close friends with a gay guy cause it would make you uncomfortable. So you discriminate against gay folks on a personal level. But because you have no religious perspective on the matter it is all good to cause discomfort for others. Think about that.

here i believe lies the crux of the whole bit
i believe you to be unable to diferentiate between personal distates and choices and legislation that forces those views onto others

[archeiron]

Some actual reasoning on how 2 people in another state getting 'married' affects YOUR religious freedom would be nice... got any?

I consider myself a homophobe because I would not become close friends with a gay guy, because it would make me uncomfortable. I still support gay marraige, because it can't affect me.

Neither me being a homophobe, nor me insinuating you could be a closet homo leads any connotation than homosexuality is bad or evil.

Ok so lets examine this little gem.

You would not become close friends with a gay guy cause it would make you uncomfortable. So you discriminate against gay folks on a personal level. But because you have no religious perspective on the matter it is all good to cause discomfort for others. Think about that.

Now I assume you are probably in your teens and therefore have not fully developed your brain for linear thought let alone abstract thought. Try reading my post again and draaaaaww a correlation between the guy attending a CATHOLIC school and all the inherent beliefs of that organization in spite of the fact that he is gay. Now move along to the fact that this kid had no respect for the RELIGIOUS beliefs of the Catholic church and proceeded to take them to court.

Fast forward to a society where Gay "Marriage" is legal and the definition of marriage has been changed to include same sex couples. Gay couple goes to a Baptist Church and requests a marriage ceremony. The Preacher says sorry we do not perform gay marriages as it is against our beliefs. Gay couple goes to court and ..... I am sure you can follow this now.

This would fall down on the grounds that the court should not be allowed to legislate what the church can and cannot do. As it stands now, you still have to obtain a marriage certificate through a courthouse to actually be married. Amongst many people, church officials have been granted the power to preside over the ceremony in a legally recognized sense.

I believe that we must protect the rights of a church to choose what does and does not violate their beliefs. In your hypothetical case, I would fight with the law on my side to see that the church's rights were protected. However, the scaremongering that you are using is not a foregone conclusion and must not be used as sufficient justification to deny civil union rights to homosexual couples. A live and let live approach must be adopted by all sides. Conservative christian heterosexual couples must be allowed to live their lives according to their beliefs with the full protection of the law for themselves, while homosexual couples must be allowed to according to their beliefs with the full protection of the law.

The church's acceptance of homosexuality is not a topic for legislation.

[Atokal]

a school prom and a marraige ceremony are two drastically different things, something even a judge isn't going to draw a correlation between.

I'm not discriminating against gays on a personal level, it's not their right to be my close friend, it's a priviledge i bestow upon people i'm comfortable spending a lot of time with.

I'm 25, and you still have not provided any reasoning how it affects your religious freedom.

A school prom at a CATHOLIC school. Catholic schools have the same beliefs that a Catholic Church has. The Catholic church believes that homosexuality is a sin. The court decided in favour of the gay kid in spite of the fact that the kid could have attended a public school where we all know that no religious overtones or beliefs are permitted. Instead he chose to grandstand. Where is the religious tolerance? If this could happen in a religious school could it not also happen in an actual church?

[Lynks]

Its a fucking prom!! Who cares if 2 guys start dancing with each other, I don't see that in the Bible anywhere. Do you see the church or catholic school board denying kids the right to go to a prom because they are going to have sex after?


Also, not all kids have a choice on where they go to highschool.

Midnyte, the same goes for others that give BS reasons why they shouldn't allow it. DON"T MESS WITH THE WORD, ITS THE ONLY THING WE HAVE LEFT!!!

[Zaelath]

Priests and Churches are very different entities legally than Teachers and Schools, regardless of what denomination they happen to be.

In fact, they're so different it's totally irrelevant to the question at hand, perhaps even as different as say.. dancing and fucking.

[Lohrno]

Ok so lets examine this little gem.

You would not become close friends with a gay guy cause it would make you uncomfortable. So you discriminate against gay folks on a personal level. But because you have no religious perspective on the matter it is all good to cause discomfort for others. Think about that.

Since when do you have the right to not be offended by anything? Sorry but freedom and civil rights trump any 'discomfort' you might feel.

Now I assume you are probably in your teens and therefore have not fully developed your brain for linear thought let alone abstract thought.

Oh good! When you don't have an argument or someone disagrees with you, try insulting people! It always makes you look waaaaaay smarter!

(I think for you I should clarify that that is sarcasm.)

Try reading my post again and draaaaaww a correlation between the guy attending a CATHOLIC school and all the inherent beliefs of that organization in spite of the fact that he is gay. Now move along to the fact that this kid had no respect for the RELIGIOUS beliefs of the Catholic church and proceeded to take them to court.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't even responding to you. the article. He just wanted to know how two gay people getting married affects your liberty.

Fast forward to a society where Gay "Marriage" is legal and the definition of marriage has been changed to include same sex couples. Gay couple goes to a Baptist Church and requests a marriage ceremony. The Preacher says sorry we do not perform gay marriages as it is against our beliefs. Gay couple goes to court and ..... I am sure you can follow this now.

Yeah they are thrown out of court because to do otherwise would be unconstitutional. Although I haven't seen much respect from your camp for the core values that America was founded on anyways so even if it wasn't, you would have no place to bitch.

-=Lohrno

[Atokal]

Now I assume you are probably in your teens and therefore have not fully developed your brain for linear thought let alone abstract thought.

Oh good! When you don't have an argument or someone disagrees with you, try insulting people! It always makes you look waaaaaay smarter!

(I think for you I should clarify that that is sarcasm.)

Oh the irony hahahaha.

Try reading my post again and draaaaaww a correlation between the guy attending a CATHOLIC school and all the inherent beliefs of that organization in spite of the fact that he is gay. Now move along to the fact that this kid had no respect for the RELIGIOUS beliefs of the Catholic church and proceeded to take them to court.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't even responding to you. the article. He just wanted to know how two gay people getting married affects your liberty.

Fast forward to a society where Gay "Marriage" is legal and the definition of marriage has been changed to include same sex couples. Gay couple goes to a Baptist Church and requests a marriage ceremony. The Preacher says sorry we do not perform gay marriages as it is against our beliefs. Gay couple goes to court and ..... I am sure you can follow this now.

Yeah they are thrown out of court because to do otherwise would be unconstitutional. Although I haven't seen much respect from your camp for the core values that America was founded on anyways so even if it wasn't, you would have no place to bitch.

-=Lohrno

ROFL you have the unique ability to debate intelligently then post something completely stupid.

What core values was America founded upon that I am not respecting?

Your next statement implies because I have a concern that my religious rights and freedoms could be the next victim of gay activism that I have no right to bitch if a case of this nature was not thrown out of court is naive and ignorant.

Because it is those very rights and freedoms that America was founded upon.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

People have the right to make friends and hang out with whomever they choose. If someone chooses not to befriend gay people because they make them feel uncomfortable, why don't they have that right and freedom? What fucking kind of freedom is it to be forced to spend personal time with someone they don't care for? And how does that make someone a homophobe?