Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

 

[Boss]

Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.

...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.

 

[Syriusly]

Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.

And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults

All illegal at one time.

I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.

Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?

I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).

I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.

All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.

And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults

All illegal at one time.

I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.

Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?

I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).

I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.

All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.

No- I am saying that under the Constitution, the state must have compelling reasons to deny rights to us.

And its not that hard:
A man and woman having consensual sex in the privacy of their home- that is a right to privacy.
A man having sex with a 5 year old girl- the interest of the state in protecting children over-rides the man's right to privacy.

BULLSHIT! Show me where the Constitution says the State can deny our rights for "compelling reasons"!

Also show me where our right to privacy trumps another right, or anything trumps our right to privacy?

These are things that simply are not in the US Constitution.

I don't have to. You know examples of it.

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can.

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.

Yes... If you are going to claim it's in the Constitution, you need to show me where it's at in the fucking Constitution. Every example you gave is represented by a COURT DECISION. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about these limitations on our rights. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the Constitution which says the COURT has that right to determine, they've simply ASSUMED that right.y.

I don't have to. You know examples of it. You can stamp your foot and complain as much as you want- I am telling you the facts

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can.

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.

You don't agree- feel free to go break any city or state gun law- and claim that as your defense.

We will miss your presence while you spend your time in jail arguing that its not in the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.

...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.

And you are welcome to pursue what you want.

Meanwhile the rest of us will support marriage equality within the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boss said:

“I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.”

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The Federal government has nothing to do with the marriage (contract) law written by the states and administered in state courts. Because the states write the contract law that is marriage, in fact making marriage legitimate, marriage is very much the business of state government. With their marriage laws states recognize the committed relationship between two consenting adult partners, same- or opposite-sex, having nothing to do with 'forcing' the rest of society to accept anything.

You and others hostile to gay Americans remain at liberty to practice your ignorance and hate, immune from state interference, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence does not apply to private persons or organizations.

 

[Boss]

Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.

And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults

All illegal at one time.

I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.

Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?

I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).

I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.

All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.

All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.

No- I am saying that under the Constitution, the state must have compelling reasons to deny rights to us.

And its not that hard:
A man and woman having consensual sex in the privacy of their home- that is a right to privacy.
A man having sex with a 5 year old girl- the interest of the state in protecting children over-rides the man's right to privacy.

BULLSHIT! Show me where the Constitution says the State can deny our rights for "compelling reasons"!

Also show me where our right to privacy trumps another right, or anything trumps our right to privacy?

These are things that simply are not in the US Constitution.

I don't have to. You know examples of it.

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can.

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.

Yes... If you are going to claim it's in the Constitution, you need to show me where it's at in the fucking Constitution. Every example you gave is represented by a COURT DECISION. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about these limitations on our rights. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the Constitution which says the COURT has that right to determine, they've simply ASSUMED that right.y.

I don't have to. You know examples of it. You can stamp your foot and complain as much as you want- I am telling you the facts

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can.

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.

You don't agree- feel free to go break any city or state gun law- and claim that as your defense.

We will miss your presence while you spend your time in jail arguing that its not in the Constitution.

I did not say these weren't the law, I said these examples are not stipulated in the Constitution. You have proven me correct by failing to produce the text in the Constitution to support your claim. These are all examples of COURT RULINGS which established these things as laws. Stop trying to twist my comments into an absurd argument you can defeat, I won't tolerate it.

 

[Boss]

Boss said:

“I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.”

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The Federal government has nothing to do with the marriage (contract) law written by the states and administered in state courts. Because the states write the contract law that is marriage, in fact making marriage legitimate, marriage is very much the business of state government. With their marriage laws states recognize the committed relationship between two consenting adult partners, same- or opposite-sex, having nothing to do with 'forcing' the rest of society to accept anything.

You and others hostile to gay Americans remain at liberty to practice your ignorance and hate, immune from state interference, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence does not apply to private persons or organizations.

I reject your argument. There is nothing in the Constitution which permits government to decide what kind of marriage we can or can't have. It was our mistake to ever allow state governments to make marriage their business. THAT is what needs correcting.

As for your assertion that "gay marriage" doesn't impose itself on society or individuals, there are already examples of pastors and clergy being harassed, threatened with fines and jail time if they refuse to conduct gay marriages, having their sermons subpoenaed to see if they are conforming. Courts are ordering bakers to make cakes and photographers to take pictures at gay weddings. Yet you sit here and lie through your shit-stained teeth about that and claim it isn't happening.

 

[Syriusly]

And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults

All illegal at one time.

I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.

Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?

I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).

I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.

All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.

No- I am saying that under the Constitution, the state must have compelling reasons to deny rights to us.

And its not that hard:
A man and woman having consensual sex in the privacy of their home- that is a right to privacy.
A man having sex with a 5 year old girl- the interest of the state in protecting children over-rides the man's right to privacy.

BULLSHIT! Show me where the Constitution says the State can deny our rights for "compelling reasons"!

Also show me where our right to privacy trumps another right, or anything trumps our right to privacy?

These are things that simply are not in the US Constitution.

I don't have to. You know examples of it.

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can.

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.

Yes... If you are going to claim it's in the Constitution, you need to show me where it's at in the fucking Constitution. Every example you gave is represented by a COURT DECISION. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about these limitations on our rights. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the Constitution which says the COURT has that right to determine, they've simply ASSUMED that right.y.

I don't have to. You know examples of it. You can stamp your foot and complain as much as you want- I am telling you the facts

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can.

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.

You don't agree- feel free to go break any city or state gun law- and claim that as your defense.

We will miss your presence while you spend your time in jail arguing that its not in the Constitution.

I did not say these weren't the law, I said these examples are not stipulated in the Constitution. You have proven me correct by failing to produce the text in the Constitution to support your claim. These are all examples of COURT RULINGS which established these things as laws. Stop trying to twist my comments into an absurd argument you can defeat, I won't tolerate it.

Feel free to argue that in court then.

Meanwhile- the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that that is the case.

You disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court is merely an opinion that you disagree with the law.

Meanwhile- the States can only deny rights to any of us, when they can prove a compelling state interest in denying those rights.

And thems the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

Boss said:

“I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.”

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The Federal government has nothing to do with the marriage (contract) law written by the states and administered in state courts. Because the states write the contract law that is marriage, in fact making marriage legitimate, marriage is very much the business of state government. With their marriage laws states recognize the committed relationship between two consenting adult partners, same- or opposite-sex, having nothing to do with 'forcing' the rest of society to accept anything.

You and others hostile to gay Americans remain at liberty to practice your ignorance and hate, immune from state interference, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence does not apply to private persons or organizations.

I reject your argument. .

And that is really all you do.

I am done with your argument in this thread.

 

[Ellipsis]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

I would advise against entering into one then.

And I would demand that others can't.

-Geaux

You can demand all you want to...like a toddler in Walmart. Will you throw a temper tantrum in the parking lot when the world ignores you and marries anyway?

Just noting that Seawytch was the first to make it personal, unable to discuss the topic itself.

 

[Czernobog]

I reject your argument. There is nothing in the Constitution which permits government to decide what kind of marriage we can or can't have. It was our mistake to ever allow state governments to make marriage their business. THAT is what needs correcting.

As for your assertion that "gay marriage" doesn't impose itself on society or individuals, there are already examples of pastors and clergy being harassed, threatened with fines and jail time if they refuse to conduct gay marriages, having their sermons subpoenaed to see if they are conforming. Courts are ordering bakers to make cakes and photographers to take pictures at gay weddings. Yet you sit here and lie through your shit-stained teeth about that and claim it isn't happening.

Now you're making an entirely different kind of argument. Recognizing domestic partnerships is entirely different from mandating what types of partnerships are legally acceptable. The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people. For you to suggest otherwise is ignorant, and pointless. Now, to argue that they have no right to dictate what kind of marriage we can, and cannot have is entirely different, and on that we are in agreement. The latter has nothing to do with the former.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.

...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.

That ship has already sailed. The government has a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnership of spouses. The government regulates divorce law. It regulates inheritance law. it provides evidential protections of spouses. There are hundreds of ways in which the government, on a local, county, state, and even federal level, is intimately entwined with the civil contract of domestic partnership. Thus what you want government doing is irrelevant; part of its function requires that it recognise those contractual partnerships. Now, if you don't want that being called "marriage" for all, then by all means pick a different label, and apply it to all, and relegate marriage to the useless, meaningless realm of all other purely religious practices, like baptism, and communion.

But, to bitch and whine that government "recognises" the legal domestic partnerships of heterosexuals, and homosexuals is ridiculous, pointless, ignorant, and, frankly, comes across a bit disingenuous. No one had any problem with government recognising these partnerships before the gays got involved. Why, suddenly, have we decided that it is "none of the government's business"? Is it possible that we have decided this because we don't like the position that the government is taking? If so, guess what? That's just sour grapes; get over it.

 

[Boss]

I reject your argument. There is nothing in the Constitution which permits government to decide what kind of marriage we can or can't have. It was our mistake to ever allow state governments to make marriage their business. THAT is what needs correcting.

As for your assertion that "gay marriage" doesn't impose itself on society or individuals, there are already examples of pastors and clergy being harassed, threatened with fines and jail time if they refuse to conduct gay marriages, having their sermons subpoenaed to see if they are conforming. Courts are ordering bakers to make cakes and photographers to take pictures at gay weddings. Yet you sit here and lie through your shit-stained teeth about that and claim it isn't happening.

Now you're making an entirely different kind of argument. Recognizing domestic partnerships is entirely different from mandating what types of partnerships are legally acceptable. The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people. For you to suggest otherwise is ignorant, and pointless. Now, to argue that they have no right to dictate what kind of marriage we can, and cannot have is entirely different, and on that we are in agreement. The latter has nothing to do with the former.

The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.
A simple joint partnership contract solves the problem. They have NO compelling interest in what type of intimate relationship that may or may not involve.

 

[Boss]

Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.

...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.

That ship has already sailed. The government has a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnership of spouses. The government regulates divorce law. It regulates inheritance law. it provides evidential protections of spouses. There are hundreds of ways in which the government, on a local, county, state, and even federal level, is intimately entwined with the civil contract of domestic partnership. Thus what you want government doing is irrelevant; part of its function requires that it recognise those contractual partnerships. Now, if you don't want that being called "marriage" for all, then by all means pick a different label, and apply it to all, and relegate marriage to the useless, meaningless realm of all other purely religious practices, like baptism, and communion.

But, to bitch and whine that government "recognises" the legal domestic partnerships of heterosexuals, and homosexuals is ridiculous, pointless, ignorant, and, frankly, comes across a bit disingenuous. No one had any problem with government recognising these partnerships before the gays got involved. Why, suddenly, have we decided that it is "none of the government's business"? Is it possible that we have decided this because we don't like the position that the government is taking? If so, guess what? That's just sour grapes; get over it.

Well I'm not getting over it. Sorry. The government works for ME! I hire the government to handle certain things that I can't do by myself. I give them enumerated powers to conduct those affairs and nothing more. They don't own me, they don't get to tell me how to live.

I will continue to speak out whenever government usurps powers they don't have and encroaches on my rights as an individual. And if you don't like that, you can suck my ass.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.

...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.

That ship has already sailed. The government has a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnership of spouses. The government regulates divorce law. It regulates inheritance law. it provides evidential protections of spouses. There are hundreds of ways in which the government, on a local, county, state, and even federal level, is intimately entwined with the civil contract of domestic partnership. Thus what you want government doing is irrelevant; part of its function requires that it recognise those contractual partnerships. Now, if you don't want that being called "marriage" for all, then by all means pick a different label, and apply it to all, and relegate marriage to the useless, meaningless realm of all other purely religious practices, like baptism, and communion.

But, to bitch and whine that government "recognises" the legal domestic partnerships of heterosexuals, and homosexuals is ridiculous, pointless, ignorant, and, frankly, comes across a bit disingenuous. No one had any problem with government recognising these partnerships before the gays got involved. Why, suddenly, have we decided that it is "none of the government's business"? Is it possible that we have decided this because we don't like the position that the government is taking? If so, guess what? That's just sour grapes; get over it.

Well I'm not getting over it. Sorry. The government works for ME! I hire the government to handle certain things that I can't do by myself. I give them enumerated powers to conduct those affairs and nothing more. They don't own me, they don't get to tell me how to live.

I will continue to speak out whenever government usurps powers they don't have and encroaches on my rights as an individual. And if you don't like that, you can suck my ass.

So, explain to us why the sudden interest in keeping government "out of your marriage". Government recognition of marriages, and the enforcement of the rights, and privileges of that recognition has been going on since, at least, the middle ages. Why is it only now, when the Government has agreed to add same-sex couples to that recognition, that you suddenly feel so intruded on by Government's recognition of marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.

...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.

That ship has already sailed. The government has a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnership of spouses. The government regulates divorce law. It regulates inheritance law. it provides evidential protections of spouses. There are hundreds of ways in which the government, on a local, county, state, and even federal level, is intimately entwined with the civil contract of domestic partnership. Thus what you want government doing is irrelevant; part of its function requires that it recognise those contractual partnerships. Now, if you don't want that being called "marriage" for all, then by all means pick a different label, and apply it to all, and relegate marriage to the useless, meaningless realm of all other purely religious practices, like baptism, and communion.

But, to bitch and whine that government "recognises" the legal domestic partnerships of heterosexuals, and homosexuals is ridiculous, pointless, ignorant, and, frankly, comes across a bit disingenuous. No one had any problem with government recognising these partnerships before the gays got involved. Why, suddenly, have we decided that it is "none of the government's business"? Is it possible that we have decided this because we don't like the position that the government is taking? If so, guess what? That's just sour grapes; get over it.

Well I'm not getting over it. Sorry. The government works for ME! I hire the government to handle certain things that I can't do by myself. I give them enumerated powers to conduct those affairs and nothing more. They don't own me, they don't get to tell me how to live.

I will continue to speak out whenever government usurps powers they don't have and encroaches on my rights as an individual. And if you don't like that, you can suck my ass.

So, explain to us why the sudden interest in keeping government "out of your marriage". Government recognition of marriages, and the enforcement of the rights, and privileges of that recognition has been going on since, at least, the middle ages. Why is it only now, when the Government has agreed to add same-sex couples to that recognition, that you suddenly feel so intruded on by Government's recognition of marriage?

Filling the pool with cement.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?

NO! Because that is EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.

I never said that I don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything not "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?

No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.

...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.

That ship has already sailed. The government has a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnership of spouses. The government regulates divorce law. It regulates inheritance law. it provides evidential protections of spouses. There are hundreds of ways in which the government, on a local, county, state, and even federal level, is intimately entwined with the civil contract of domestic partnership. Thus what you want government doing is irrelevant; part of its function requires that it recognise those contractual partnerships. Now, if you don't want that being called "marriage" for all, then by all means pick a different label, and apply it to all, and relegate marriage to the useless, meaningless realm of all other purely religious practices, like baptism, and communion.

But, to bitch and whine that government "recognises" the legal domestic partnerships of heterosexuals, and homosexuals is ridiculous, pointless, ignorant, and, frankly, comes across a bit disingenuous. No one had any problem with government recognising these partnerships before the gays got involved. Why, suddenly, have we decided that it is "none of the government's business"? Is it possible that we have decided this because we don't like the position that the government is taking? If so, guess what? That's just sour grapes; get over it.

Well I'm not getting over it. Sorry. The government works for ME! I hire the government to handle certain things that I can't do by myself. I give them enumerated powers to conduct those affairs and nothing more. They don't own me, they don't get to tell me how to live.

I will continue to speak out whenever government usurps powers they don't have and encroaches on my rights as an individual. And if you don't like that, you can suck my ass.

Actually it doesn't - work for you, I mean. The government works for the Republic. You are only one very small part of that Republic. For you to assume that you get to dictate what the government can, and cannot do, based on your own, tiny little opinion is the height of arrogance. but, I'll tell you what. Don't take my word for it. Take your grievances to court. Sue the Government, and demand that they stop recognising marriages of any kind. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

You see, you don't really want Government to stop recognising marriages - you just want them to stop recognising same-sex marriages. However, since you have already seen the writing on the wall, and know that you have lost that fight, you have chosen to stake out this outrageously extreme position of "Get government out of all marriages", in the hopes that it will gain more popularity.

Guess what? It won't. People like having divorce regulated. They like being able to file taxes as married couples. They like the protections, and privileges that come from the State recognising civil domestic partners. And for the record, joint partnership agreements don't cover everything. For instance, business partners do not have the criminal protection from being forced to testify against each other that spouses do. And that is just off the top of my head. They also do not have the right to supersede family members in terms of medical decisions, should their partner become incapacitated, as spouses do.

No. What you are trying to advocate is forcing citizens to suddenly have to file reams of new paperwork, in order to be recognised as having the rights, and privileges that are currently afforded to spouses through a single document, and civil service. All because you have gotten your panties in a bunch over the fact that those damned gays are crashing your party.

But, hey! By all means. Stake out that position. Advocate for making things messier, more complicated, and for making the marriage of every couple in the United States - both gay, and straight - useless, and meaningless. This should be fun. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Oh, and one last point. You, Sir, are a hypocrite. You insisted that, if I weren't trying to "force my morals" on you, I would not push for Gay marriage, but would advocate civil unions. Yet, when I said that I would, in fact, support just that, you suddenly shat yourself, and moved the goal post, insisting that wasn't good enough; that you want government out of the "domestic partnership business" altogether. So, now we see that it is not those of us who support people making their own choices trying to dictate morality; it is moralistic hypocrites like you, who will just keep moving the goal posts until you reach a line that it would be impossible for any reasonable person to support, and then insist that it is us who are being "unreasonable".

 

[Boss]

All the pitfalls and problems you mention about civil union contracts are fixable. I've not said that government should have no interest in domestic partnership, just the intimate nature of those partnerships. And I haven't raised the issue before because it hasn't come up until now.

As for your little diatribe about government, you should read that back to yourself. Government is not your tool to use in order to force society to accept your personal principles. So stop trying to use government to do that and I will be happy.

 

[Czernobog]

All the pitfalls and problems you mention about civil union contracts are fixable. I've not said that government should have no interest in domestic partnership, just the intimate nature of those partnerships. And I haven't raised the issue before because it hasn't come up until now.

As for your little diatribe about government, you should read that back to yourself. Government is not your tool to use in order to force society to accept your personal principles. So stop trying to use government to do that and I will be happy.

I'm not the one doing that. That would be you. I have said all along that it is not the government's job to decide who can, and cannot get married. It is only their job to recognise the validity of the marriage certificate, regardless of who the participants are, and to afford those participants the rights, and privileges that come with that recognition. I don't even care that it is necessarily called "marriage". You indicated , originally, that this was your issue. Fine. Call it a civil union. Call it a life partnership. Call it a carfulflargen, for all I care. But, when it comes to the rights, and privileges that come to the participants of the arrangement, you call it the same for everyone, and you treat everyone equally when they participate.

If your only interest is not having morality forced on you, you should agree with this civil, secular arrangement.

 

[Boss]

I have said all along that it is not the government's job to decide who can, and cannot get married. It is only their job to recognise the validity of the marriage certificate, regardless of who the participants are, and to afford those participants the rights, and privileges that come with that recognition. I don't even care that it is necessarily called "marriage". You indicated , originally, that this was your issue. Fine. Call it a civil union. Call it a life partnership. Call it a carfulflargen, for all I care. But, when it comes to the rights, and privileges that come to the participants of the arrangement, you call it the same for everyone, and you treat everyone equally when they participate.

If your only interest is not having morality forced on you, you should agree with this civil, secular arrangement.

Okay, so we both agree on the principle and have a reasonable way to settle the issue, but you insist on adopting the activist approach of trying to force "gay marriage" on society instead. If you are going to demand "gay marriage" then I am going to oppose you. I don't believe in gay marriage, I think it's an oxymoron. Marriage is the joining in matrimony of husband and wife, not same-sex couples.

Now on the matter of "rights and privileges" we're not likely on the same page, because I don't think the government should be doling out rights and privies based on whether or not you are single or a couple. I think everyone should have the same rights and privileges. But for the sake of certain governmental standards which we already have established, we can simply reform language to adopt a benign term for domestic partners, which leaves "marriage" to the individual to define. I'm okay with that, you're okay with that... so why do you refuse to join me in that effort and insist on cramming "gay marriage" down my throat?

Now, you say you don't think my idea is practical or doable, but your idea is certainly not going to be any better. Half the country is opposed to what you want to do. Here I've given you a solution that you (a gay marriage advocate) and I (a gay marriage opponent) can both live with. You get what you want, I get what I want, and we're both satisfied. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why my solution wouldn't work or wouldn't be wildly popular.