Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[KevinWestern]

I'm not being prejudice, you didn't even read my fucking posts, I said amend civil unions to give them full legal rights, but to leave marriage alone.

I read your post. Which part of allowing gays being able to be "married" affects anything with you or your life?

To me, it's Biblical.....and I'm not a Bible thumper. So you now know how it "affects" me.

I still don't understand.

If a gay couple gets married, how does that affect you in a negative fashion? Won't you still be able to do all the things you could do before? Are your rights infringed upon? Perhaps bring some more explanation..




.

 

[jgarden]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

The government does provide the alternative of getting married in civil ceremony at "City Hall."

Given the decision by the Founding Fathers that the government not endorse any particular religion or faith, the decision by 2 consenting adults who love each other, to commit themselves to "marriage" should not be ignored by the state - based on their sexual orientation.

Different religions and faiths can always continue to exercise their right to marry/not marry who they chose - as they have done in the past.

 

[KevinWestern]

Try reading the entire sentence next time.

Yo pal, I think I absorbed his post just fine.

I was simply pointing out that these "amendments" to civil unions don't just happen over night, and right now gays are dealing with some very serious issues like having to pay tens of thousands in estate taxes when a partner dies.

Let's just simplify things and bring them under the umbrella of marriage instead of pointing to these theoretical changes that may or may not happen.

.

I'm for redefining Civil Unions, I'm not for redefining Marriage.

Would you be ok with a gov't that OK's only civil unions, and then leave the word marriage to be defined by private institutions like churches?

That way, we are treated equally under the law, but you are still allowed to define marriage however you would like within your own private community.

.

 

[midcan5]

Guy: 'Darling, I love you so much, your eyes are like stars, your smile makes my day, and your body makes my night. Let's share our lives, let's dream and travel this world together, hand in hand, eventually buy a house, and have a garden, two children, maybe three, and raise them in the love we share, and in the life we share, and in this wondrous time we share. But I was thinking instead of marriage with its social legal and emotional baggage let's have a civil union? Whataya think?

Girl: Are you fucking nuts?

 

[Meister]

I read your post. Which part of allowing gays being able to be "married" affects anything with you or your life?

To me, it's Biblical.....and I'm not a Bible thumper. So you now know how it "affects" me.

I still don't understand.

If a gay couple gets married, how does that affect you in a negative fashion? Won't you still be able to do all the things you could do before? Are your rights infringed upon? Perhaps bring some more explanation..



.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To me, it's Biblical.....and I'm not a Bible thumper. So you now know how it "affects" me.

I still don't understand.

If a gay couple gets married, how does that affect you in a negative fashion? Won't you still be able to do all the things you could do before? Are your rights infringed upon? Perhaps bring some more explanation..



.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

 

[Meister]

I still don't understand.

If a gay couple gets married, how does that affect you in a negative fashion? Won't you still be able to do all the things you could do before? Are your rights infringed upon? Perhaps bring some more explanation..



.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

Which book in the Bible states this?

 

[High_Gravity]

A marriage is between a man and a woman. You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

Which book in the Bible states this?

The Holy Quran.

 

[Meister]

Yo pal, I think I absorbed his post just fine.

I was simply pointing out that these "amendments" to civil unions don't just happen over night, and right now gays are dealing with some very serious issues like having to pay tens of thousands in estate taxes when a partner dies.

Let's just simplify things and bring them under the umbrella of marriage instead of pointing to these theoretical changes that may or may not happen.

.

I'm for redefining Civil Unions, I'm not for redefining Marriage.

Would you be ok with a gov't that OK's only civil unions, and then leave the word marriage to be defined by private institutions like churches?

That way, we are treated equally under the law, but you are still allowed to define marriage however you would like within your own private community.

.

I always thought that government should stay out of the marriage business....I would have no issue with it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A marriage is between a man and a woman. You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

Which book in the Bible states this?

Where did I say that the fact that...

a. Polygamy was practiced thousands of years ago had to have come from the Bible? There are other records that show it was practiced in the Middle East, China, and in Africa?

b. Polygamy practiced today in some Middle Eastern and African countries today was based on something written in the Bible?




Are you denying that polygamy was not practiced by some cultures thousands of years ago? Are you denying that there are countries today which still permit polygamy?



>>>>

 

[Meister]

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

Which book in the Bible states this?

Where did I say that the fact that...

a. Polygamy was practiced thousands of years ago had to have come from the Bible? There are other records that show it was practiced in the Middle East, China, and in Africa?

b. Polygamy practiced today in some Middle Eastern and African countries today was based on something written in the Bible?




Are you denying that polygamy was not practiced by some cultures thousands of years ago? Are you denying that there are countries today which still permit polygamy?



>>>>

I think with my posts, it shows that I'm taking the Biblical standard to my opinion.
Also, in the US it never was recognized....even with the Mormons who had to change their beliefs regarding marriage to comply to federal law.
I could give a rats ass as to the rest of the world in what they do.. WW

 

[RDD_1210]

To me, it's Biblical.....and I'm not a Bible thumper. So you now know how it "affects" me.

I still don't understand.

If a gay couple gets married, how does that affect you in a negative fashion? Won't you still be able to do all the things you could do before? Are your rights infringed upon? Perhaps bring some more explanation..



.

A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Says who?

You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Ahh, the old slippery slope argument. When you have no real argument against the actual item in question you raise your objections based upon all the potential future issues that could arise, even though you have no real objections to the actual issue at hand. Talk about a weak ass argument. lol

 

[RDD_1210]

A marriage is between a man and a woman. You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

Which book in the Bible states this?

Why do you think the bible should have any impact on our laws in this country?

 

[Meister]

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

Which book in the Bible states this?

Why do you think the bible should have any impact on our laws in this country?

Regardless of what you or the leftwing whacko's think....this nation was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
To say it's not is moving the truth to fit your opinion

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which book in the Bible states this?

Where did I say that the fact that...

a. Polygamy was practiced thousands of years ago had to have come from the Bible? There are other records that show it was practiced in the Middle East, China, and in Africa?

b. Polygamy practiced today in some Middle Eastern and African countries today was based on something written in the Bible?




Are you denying that polygamy was not practiced by some cultures thousands of years ago? Are you denying that there are countries today which still permit polygamy?



>>>>

I think with my posts, it shows that I'm taking the Biblical standard to my opinion.
Also, in the US it never was recognized....even with the Mormons who had to change their beliefs regarding marriage to comply to federal law.
I could give a rats ass as to the rest of the world in what they do.. WW

Then you're not using logic in your discussion. You say that marriage has been a man and a woman for thousands of years. Yet when it is pointed out that thousands of years ago polygamy was one of the types of marriage that existed, you seem to have an issue.

Then you claim that thousands of years ago marriage was a man and a woman, now that the error is pointed out you referenced the US never recognizing it, but the US wasn't around thousands of years ago.

Just be honest and man up, polygamous marriage was around thousands of years ago and it is still around today.


>>>>

 

[RDD_1210]

Which book in the Bible states this?

Why do you think the bible should have any impact on our laws in this country?

Regardless of what you or the leftwing whacko's think....this nation was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
To say it's not is moving the truth to fit your opinion

Oh, so this part of the constitution....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That part you don't consider worth paying attention to?

How convenient.

 

[Meister]

I still don't understand.

If a gay couple gets married, how does that affect you in a negative fashion? Won't you still be able to do all the things you could do before? Are your rights infringed upon? Perhaps bring some more explanation..



.

A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Says who?

You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Ahh, the old slippery slope argument. When you have no real argument against the actual item in question you raise your objections based upon all the potential future issues that could arise, even though you have no real objections to the actual issue at hand. Talk about a weak ass argument. lol

Thanks for proving my point with a lib like yourself. Actually, it is a good point as a liberal judge on the supreme court was also perplexed by my very point.

 

[RDD_1210]

A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Says who?

You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Ahh, the old slippery slope argument. When you have no real argument against the actual item in question you raise your objections based upon all the potential future issues that could arise, even though you have no real objections to the actual issue at hand. Talk about a weak ass argument. lol

Thanks for proving my point with a lib like yourself. Actually, it is a good point as a liberal judge on the supreme court was also perplexed by my very point.

The point is you have no actual argument. You have no reason why gay marriage is bad, but "it will obviously lead to other terrible things. And this is why we must prevent homosexuals from being able to marry. "

That about sums up your entire flawed piece of shit viewpoint.

 

[Meister]

Why do you think the bible should have any impact on our laws in this country?

Regardless of what you or the leftwing whacko's think....this nation was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
To say it's not is moving the truth to fit your opinion

Oh, so this part of the constitution....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That part you don't consider worth paying attention to?

How convenient.

You sure do lack comprehension, RD....The government was talking about establishing a certain religion(ie, catholic, muslim, Hindu, Budda, etc)....Judeo-Christian beliefs is not a religion.

 

[RDD_1210]

Regardless of what you or the leftwing whacko's think....this nation was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
To say it's not is moving the truth to fit your opinion

Oh, so this part of the constitution....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That part you don't consider worth paying attention to?

How convenient.

You sure do lack comprehension, RD....The government was talking about establishing a certain religion(ie, catholic, muslim, Hindu, Budda, etc)....Judeo-Christian beliefs is not a religion.

So then the Bible has no bearing on our laws then. Got it. Marriage is now free to be between a man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman.