Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

[bodecea]

And they will...they will demand to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country, using this philosophy.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,"​

Just like interracial couples and interfaith couples successfully DEMAND to have marriage ceremonies in churches across the country today?

Again, there is a difference between race and sexual orientation.

You can't choose to stop being black or asian or hispanic or arab.

However you can choose who you have sex with.

You missed the part about interfaith couples? Faith is a choice. Or are you playing the same deceiving game as did the segregationist religious groups here in CA?

BTW....equal rights are equal rights, whether we are talking race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Show me where the legal rules change if something LEGAL is considered a choice rather than a born trait.

 

[bodecea]

Well, you can do like the church groups in CA did...drag their kids out of church and Sunday School to stand on the street corners with their parents holding up....... signs and chanting.

I don't ever "drag my children" anywhere.

But I have taken my kids to various events and "let" them hold up signs as a form of protest.

It was an object lesson in participative democracy that I wish more parents would involve their kids in.

Of course you don't.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, you can do like the church groups in CA did...drag their kids out of church and Sunday School to stand on the street corners with their parents holding up....... signs and chanting.

I don't ever "drag my children" anywhere.

But I have taken my kids to various events and "let" them hold up signs as a form of protest.

It was an object lesson in participative democracy that I wish more parents would involve their kids in.

Sounds like Fred Phelps

 

[Sunni Man]

Well, you can do like the church groups in CA did...drag their kids out of church and Sunday School to stand on the street corners with their parents holding up....... signs and chanting.

I don't ever "drag my children" anywhere.

But I have taken my kids to various events and "let" them hold up signs as a form of protest.

It was an object lesson in participative democracy that I wish more parents would involve their kids in.

Sounds like Fred Phelps

My children and I held up Vote for Obama signs during the last presidental election.

So how is that being like Fred Phelps???

 

[Missourian]

You missed the part about interfaith couples? Faith is a choice. Or are you playing the same deceiving game as did the segregationist religious groups here in CA?

I agree that religion is a choice. I said so about 50 posts back.

BTW....equal rights are equal rights, whether we are talking race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Show me where the legal rules change if something LEGAL is considered a choice rather than a born trait.

If that's the case then when a schizophrenic applies for a job as a day care worker, and is the most qualified, I be forced to hire him or face legal action.

 

[bodecea]

You missed the part about interfaith couples? Faith is a choice. Or are you playing the same deceiving game as did the segregationist religious groups here in CA?

I agree that religion is a choice. I said so about 50 posts back.

BTW....equal rights are equal rights, whether we are talking race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Show me where the legal rules change if something LEGAL is considered a choice rather than a born trait.

If that's the case then when a schizophrenic applies for a job as a day care worker, and is the most qualified, I have no choice but to hire him or face legal action.

Well, depending on the child care laws in your state and depending on whether that schizophrenic is on medication and certified by the state as a qualified day care worker...the answer just might be yes.

 

[immto]

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

And of course, no one lives in Utah but Mormons.

Why would the donations from Utah be so disproportionately high?
Is Utah a very populous state? No, it's 34th largest state in terms of population.
Is Utah a wealthy state? No. It's 33rd in GSP (gross state product) and one of the poorest states per capita.

If your numbers are true is there an explanation? Is there an group or organization based in Utah? It doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

[immto]

How are they endorsing pedophilia? It's stupid arguments like that which really harm the cause of equality.

Not understanding an argument doesn't make it stupid and I said "silently supporting." Do you know what that means? We are forever hearing things like:

Gay marriage will destroy marriage!

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman!

Marriage is defined as two adults of the opposite sex!


There has never been a single definition of marriage in the US. If a 50 year old marries a 13 year old in Texas and moves to Maine then by Law Maine must legally recognize that marriage....which is legalized pedophilia.
So what I am doing with that argument is showing several reasons why the arguments from the anti gay crowd have little to no merit and it doesn't matter if you think it's stupid but thanks for your high quality feedback.

Marriage is in the bible and that pre-dates any laws in the US. The US never came up with an actual definition because it never had the foresight to see one day that Jack would want to marry Bob or Diane would want to marry Susan. That's why I feel the problem really has more to do with the fact the Government used the word "marriage" when they decieded to join people as couples.

 

[immto]

Could you be a neocon?

Huh? Rephrase that so it makes a little more sense please. Little confused.

Are you asking me if I am one?

Yeah, I added to it, to make it more clear.

Could you become a neocon?

I tried to send you a PM but you have it turned off. I believe you Washington quote is wrong. It's a fake passed around the internet, modified from it's original content.

First Annual Message to Congress by George Washington

See the 4th paragraph from this address to Congress in 1790

 

[immto]

If you give them the same bennies as Marriage then why......call it something else?
Wow many legal loopholes lawyers would make?

I'm curious about something. Why do all the bigots against gay marriage silently endorse legalized pedophilia? Do yo really find a higher moral value in a 50 year old banging a 13 year old than two adults of the same sex? What, exactly does that moral code look like? Thank you in advance.

It's the other way around buddy. Many of the folks who support Same Sex marriage are also in support of NAMBLA

Unless you have some proof to back up that statement, I will say that you simply made that inflammatory statement up...in other words, you lied.

I admit I can't post any links, but I know many gay people and I can say beyond a shadow of doubt that I have had conversations with many who believe in Gay Marriage and think all the fuss about NAMBLA is wrong. They believe the folks at NAMBLA are simply there to allow the Gay Children of the world a way to seek out their true sexuality. Will they admit this in public with a camera rolling, HELL NO, but put a few beers in em and watch what comes out.

 

[CurveLight]

How are they endorsing pedophilia? It's stupid arguments like that which really harm the cause of equality.

Not understanding an argument doesn't make it stupid and I said "silently supporting." Do you know what that means? We are forever hearing things like:

Gay marriage will destroy marriage!

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman!

Marriage is defined as two adults of the opposite sex!


There has never been a single definition of marriage in the US. If a 50 year old marries a 13 year old in Texas and moves to Maine then by Law Maine must legally recognize that marriage....which is legalized pedophilia.
So what I am doing with that argument is showing several reasons why the arguments from the anti gay crowd have little to no merit and it doesn't matter if you think it's stupid but thanks for your high quality feedback.

Marriage is in the bible and that pre-dates any laws in the US. The US never came up with an actual definition because it never had the foresight to see one day that Jack would want to marry Bob or Diane would want to marry Susan. That's why I feel the problem really has more to do with the fact the Government used the word "marriage" when they decieded to join people as couples.

What does marriage in the bible have to do with anything? The Old Testament did not invent marriage.

Apparently you also failed to understand my post. I was pointing out legalized pedophilia has always been around and through silence the homophobes have had no problem with that, yet two adults are immoral?

 

[bodecea]

How are they endorsing pedophilia? It's stupid arguments like that which really harm the cause of equality.

Not understanding an argument doesn't make it stupid and I said "silently supporting." Do you know what that means? We are forever hearing things like:

Gay marriage will destroy marriage!

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman!

Marriage is defined as two adults of the opposite sex!


There has never been a single definition of marriage in the US. If a 50 year old marries a 13 year old in Texas and moves to Maine then by Law Maine must legally recognize that marriage....which is legalized pedophilia.
So what I am doing with that argument is showing several reasons why the arguments from the anti gay crowd have little to no merit and it doesn't matter if you think it's stupid but thanks for your high quality feedback.

Marriage is in the bible and that pre-dates any laws in the US.

Marriage pre-dates the bible too. But legal civil marriage is much more recent.

The US never came up with an actual definition because it never had the foresight to see one day that Jack would want to marry Bob or Diane would want to marry Susan.

I don't know why....gay people have been marrying each other non-civilly as far back as history can remember.

That's why I feel the problem really has more to do with the fact the Government used the word "marriage" when they decieded to join people as couples.

Sue them to take it back from the government...good luck with that, btw.

 

[immto]

Sue them to take it back from the government...good luck with that, btw.[/

I don't know about suing them, but they could make a law reversing or converting Marriage into a civil union which would allow for the church to deciede what and whom they will "marry".

 

[CurveLight]

Sue them to take it back from the government...good luck with that, btw.[/

I don't know about suing them, but they could make a law reversing or converting Marriage into a civil union which would allow for the church to deciede what and whom they will "marry".

Could you show a couple of cases where churches have been forced to marry anyone? Are you not aware churches are exempt from public anti discrimination laws and that they have not been forced to marry anyone?

 

[bodecea]

Sue them to take it back from the government...good luck with that, btw.[/

I don't know about suing them, but they could make a law reversing or converting Marriage into a civil union which would allow for the church to deciede what and whom they will "marry".

No they wouldn't....but feel free to keep up the Christian Lying Front.

 

[Immanuel]

Sue them to take it back from the government...good luck with that, btw.[/

I don't know about suing them, but they could make a law reversing or converting Marriage into a civil union which would allow for the church to deciede what and whom they will "marry".

No they wouldn't....but feel free to keep up the Christian Lying Front.

Your reply doesn't make a bit of sense.

They wouldn't what? Immto stated that the government could make a law converting all marriages to civil unions and that would allow the church to decide what and whom they would marry. Are you saying that the church would not decide whom to marry?

BTW: No one in this thread has stated that anyone has forced or could force any church to do anything at all. Not being able to do something has not stopped people from trying to accomplish their desires before. I still contend that there are gay activists out there that will attempt to force the church, in legal manners or otherwise, into full acceptance of their lifestyle and that includes by marriage.

History backs me on this too. I think it was you that brought up interracial marriage earlier. At one time interracial marriages were considered taboo and now they are accepted. Also, fifty years ago we were engaged in a struggle for racial equality and activists fought for that equality and won at least major steps towards equality.

Someday, I believe that our children will look at our history in much the same light as we look at the civil rights movement and wonder WTF was the big deal. Because we as a people are becoming accustomed to the idea of homosexuality just as we have become accustomed to hearing the F word on tv. When I was a kid, "shit" and "damn" and I think even "hell" were forbidden on the airwaves... not anymore.

Will activists succeed in bringing gay marriage all the way to the altar of Catholic Churches nationwide? I don't know if they will be successful or not, but I fully expect that they will try. I'm not so sure that they shouldn't try. As I said in a reply to Curvelight, the church needs to think about its response to the homosexual community. I don't believe the church should come out and declare homosexuality not to be a sin, but I do think that the church needs to decide whether or not it truly believes that God's Grace is available to all sinners including homosexuals or not.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

I don't know about suing them, but they could make a law reversing or converting Marriage into a civil union which would allow for the church to deciede what and whom they will "marry".

No they wouldn't....but feel free to keep up the Christian Lying Front.

Your reply doesn't make a bit of sense.

They wouldn't what? Immto stated that the government could make a law converting all marriages to civil unions and that would allow the church to decide what and whom they would marry. Are you saying that the church would not decide whom to marry?

I'm saying they will never reverse the legal term of Marriage to Civil Unions. There is an attempt to do it here in CA, and I am supportive of it. But it will never happen in real life....why? Because the complaint by the anti-gay marriage crowd about the term "marriage" is a red herring. They don't want us to have civil unions either.

BTW: No one in this thread has stated that anyone has forced or could force any church to do anything at all. Not being able to do something has not stopped people from trying to accomplish their desires before. I still contend that there are gay activists out there that will attempt to force the church, in legal manners or otherwise, into full acceptance of their lifestyle and that includes by marriage.

And I hope they would be 100 times LESS successful than the church has been in FORCING us to abide legally by their perceptions of marriage.

History backs me on this too. I think it was you that brought up interracial marriage earlier. At one time interracial marriages were considered taboo and now they are accepted. Also, fifty years ago we were engaged in a struggle for racial equality and activists fought for that equality and won at least major steps towards equality.

Someday, I believe that our children will look at our history in much the same light as we look at the civil rights movement and wonder WTF was the big deal. Because we as a people are becoming accustomed to the idea of homosexuality just as we have become accustomed to hearing the F word on tv. When I was a kid, "shit" and "damn" and I think even "hell" were forbidden on the airwaves... not anymore.

On this we agree.

Will activists succeed in bringing gay marriage all the way to the altar of Catholic Churches nationwide? I don't know if they will be successful or not, but I fully expect that they will try. I'm not so sure that they shouldn't try. As I said in a reply to Curvelight, the church needs to think about its response to the homosexual community. I don't believe the church should come out and declare homosexuality not to be a sin, but I do think that the church needs to decide whether or not it truly believes that God's Grace is available to all sinners including homosexuals or not.

Immie

No one has the right to force the church to accept anything....just like some churchs still don't accept interracial marriage and most don't like and not accept interfaith marriages.

 

[Immanuel]

No they wouldn't....but feel free to keep up the Christian Lying Front.

Your reply doesn't make a bit of sense.

They wouldn't what? Immto stated that the government could make a law converting all marriages to civil unions and that would allow the church to decide what and whom they would marry. Are you saying that the church would not decide whom to marry?

I'm saying they will never reverse the legal term of Marriage to Civil Unions. There is an attempt to do it here in CA, and I am supportive of it. But it will never happen in real life....why? Because the complaint by the anti-gay marriage crowd about the term "marriage" is a red herring. They don't want us to have civil unions either.

I happen to be one of those "they"'s and I disagree with you here. Why do I disagree? Because just as I believe that most gay people are willing to accept the "Civil Union" compromise, I believe that most Christians (and I am one of those) know in their hearts that God loves gay people too. And then we have the non-practicing Christian, the people who although they believe in Christ don't generally go to church or may not be religious at all. I believe that most people whether they are gay or Christian or somewhere in between believe that it is wrong for the government to choose sides in this issue. I believe that in the long run, civil unions will become a fact whether the church accepts it or not. You seem to think that if the church says no, then no it is especially among Christians. Well, ask how many Catholics use birth control and that should clear up that fallacy.

When you get right down to it, most of us hated Christians are not hateful of most gays. We may not appreciate the activists, (I must admit extremism turns my stomach) but we don't hate our sons and daughters, our neighbors, our friends, our fathers and mothers, aunts and uncles that are gay. We may not agree with the lifestyle, and maybe some of us fear it, but we do not hate the people that we know who happen to be gay.

Will the institution that is the church ever change its attitude towards homosexuality? I don't know the answer to that. But, I would hope that it would start practicing what it preaches... love the sinner, hate the sin.

And I hope they would be 100 times LESS successful than the church has been in FORCING us to abide legally by their perceptions of marriage.

You lost me here again. Who are they and less successful at what?

It is the gay community that is fighting to change things. It is the gay community that is pressing the issues at hand. It is the Religious Right that is fighting to prevent gay marriage in any manner. Surely you don't hope the gay community is less successful at bringing about civil unions, since you support the idea, than the church has been in forcing you to abide by their perceptions of marriage?

by Immanuel, History backs me on this too. I think it was you that brought up interracial marriage earlier. At one time interracial marriages were considered taboo and now they are accepted. Also, fifty years ago we were engaged in a struggle for racial equality and activists fought for that equality and won at least major steps towards equality.

Someday, I believe that our children will look at our history in much the same light as we look at the civil rights movement and wonder WTF was the big deal. Because we as a people are becoming accustomed to the idea of homosexuality just as we have become accustomed to hearing the F word on tv. When I was a kid, "shit" and "damn" and I think even "hell" were forbidden on the airwaves... not anymore.

On this we agree.

by Immanuel, Will activists succeed in bringing gay marriage all the way to the altar of Catholic Churches nationwide? I don't know if they will be successful or not, but I fully expect that they will try. I'm not so sure that they shouldn't try. As I said in a reply to Curvelight, the church needs to think about its response to the homosexual community. I don't believe the church should come out and declare homosexuality not to be a sin, but I do think that the church needs to decide whether or not it truly believes that God's Grace is available to all sinners including homosexuals or not.

Immie

No one has the right to force the church to accept anything....just like some churchs still don't accept interracial marriage and most don't like and not accept interfaith marriages.

On this we agree, but that wont stop the extremists. There will be some who will not accept a compromise. They will stop at nothing less than complete and total victory. That is all I have said throughout this discussion.

You are right, no one has the right to force the church to accept anything, at least not as things stand in America today. However, our freedoms are under attack. Our freedom of speech! Our freedom of religious choice or the freedom to choose no religion at all! Our freedom to peacefully assemble! Our freedom to carry weapons! Our freedom to speak to those whom we care to speak to in other countries without having our conversations listened in to! Our freedom to smoke! Our freedom to drive without seat belts! Our freedom to ride motorcycles without helmets! Our freedom to eat fattening foods for crying out loud! All these things and more are under attack by an over zealous government that thinks it knows better than we, what we want or should do. Let me be clear I am not attacking either party with this paragraph, I am attacking both!

With those freedoms at risk who knows what may happen in the future? Whose freedoms will be removed next? Christians? Gays? Mothers? Muslims? Soldiers? Veterans? The elderly? The sick? The crippled? The rich? The poor? Middle Class? Workers? Employers? Teens?... oh wait, they don't have any rights. Who's rights are at risk tomorrow?

The politicians have us right where they want us... fighting each other rather than uniting together and putting them in their place. We're complacent in our own downfall.

/end of sermon

Immie

 

[immto]

I don't know why....gay people have been marrying each other non-civilly as far back as history can remember.

Just because Gay people have been shacking up and calling them self man and man doesn't count. How can you even consider that. Give me one example of a serious push for Gay Marriage before 1950. It didn't become a real issue until about 1990.

 

[CurveLight]

I don't know why....gay people have been marrying each other non-civilly as far back as history can remember.

Just because Gay people have been shacking up and calling them self man and man doesn't count. How can you even consider that. Give me one example of a serious push for Gay Marriage before 1950. It didn't become a real issue until about 1990.

You obviously don't know history.
Gay History - Famous Homosexual Couples of Ancient Greece - The World History of Male Love