Gay rights opinions?

[beachbum111111]

I don't care.... They can do what they want as long as they leave me out of there plans.

[Ad Bot]

[Aces]

whats so bad about civil unions? its the same thing as a marriage but without the religion aspect.
maybe i want to marry a dog. they would call that a bisjac union so i dont offend religous folk, and so i wont offend gay folk in that i wont be using thieir terms either.


its one thing to fight for rights when you are lacking them.
but dusty clearly wants to take away from religion lol. he feels there should be no middle ground where both groups can be happy. happiness must instead be removed from 1 side.

Do you mind if I convert to Bisjacism?

[ShadowsfeaR]

Irrelevant. I don't give a damn what the Church says about who can get married in it's own congregation. The issue here is federal marriage, which supplies federal benefits that the government has no right to deny to anyone.
No they aren't. Civil Unions are even more insulting than denying homoloveuals the prospect of marriage entirely, and for you to suggest that we should accept it is laughable. Second-class citizenship. If it was 'fine' they wouldn't have to call it a separate term. That's like going back into the fifties, leaning against the wall by a black-only fountain and then saying 'well at least you /have/ a fountain'. That doesn't really loving matter, because, you know... they had to call it something different, had to separate it from the 'normal' stuff. It's insulting, and no one should accept half of the glass of water.

You don't seem to understand what federal marriage is. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a government institution. Religion has no place and is not in the government. No one's asking any religion to accept anything, and I could give less of a stuff if they do. It's asking the GOVERNMENT to recognize it.

All of my yes.

[Stocking]

I have here, in my hand, a marriage certificate regarding the union of my parents in 1995. My mother and my father went down to the Cook County courthouse and were married there. There was no pastor, no religious ceremony, nothing of the sort. It was a government-performed and government-recognized union.

That's a marriage certificate issued by the state government, what does that have to do with with federal marriage?

See previous: it's not a religious institution if a non-religious organization and non-ordained 'minister' validates it in the eyes of the state. Marriage embodies far more than benefits and rights, it's also a very big social step. While I can understand removing benefits that are there solely for the encouragement of procreation, there's no need for a separate term for it.

If we changed nothing but calling civil unions "Marriages," it wouldn't satisfy anybody.

This doesn't even deserve a response.

Because a society's hedonism can't be criticized without warranting a crusade in its favor. See: Furries.

Yeah, I do - do you? 'As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion' is the thing of interest there. I agree I picked the wrong word there, and secular was what I was really aiming for. Sure, there are Christian principles, but this still isn't a Christian nation. The laws of Christianity do not apply to the federal government. No religious laws apply to the government, nor should they influence it. That's the point I was trying to make.

Rescinding Christianity was a move to prevent conflict with Muslim fundamentalist powers like the Ottoman empire. To assert that western government has no basis in Christianity is beyond foolish.

[Bisjac]

Do you mind if I convert to Bisjacism?

my son, all are welcome to the house of the bisjac.
all that is expected is complete reverence to nerding out on computers on the nerd sabbath. (late evenings)

[_Rave_]

i love it when stupid people assume that our government is based on christian principles

laws like "don't kill, steal, rape, cheat (monetarily), etc." are common sense, they aren't christian principles.

[Planr]

against. but they should make their own kind of civil union for gay people to make them happy. i dont want them screwing up marriage

i love it when stupid people assume that our government is based on christian principles

laws like "don't kill, steal, rape, cheat (monetarily), etc." are common sense, they aren't christian principles.

it was built on christian principles.

what are you smoking?

the founding documents of the country make many references to christianity

[_Rave_]

it was built on christian principles

what are you smoking?

ok, explain what principles please.

[Aces]

my son, all are welcome to the house of the bisjac.
all that is expected is complete reverence to nerding out on computers on the nerd sabbath. (late evenings)

That's me basically.

[Dusty12]

That's a marriage certificate issued by the state government, what does that have to do with with federal marriage?

Did you miss the entire part of 'they were legally wed by a judge and thus there was no religious influence'? No pastor, no minister, no church, it was all performed by the state and state-appointed officials. This means the state performed the marriage. This means it is independent of religion. A 'civil marriage'.

If we changed nothing but calling civil unions "Marriages," it would change nothing at all.

If we called civil unions what they are, it would change little. Radical religious people would still be pissed because homoloveual relations get any form of recognition whatsoever, and gay people wouldn't be labelled as 'offensive' or anything of the sort. The entire notion that you have to call something completely different because the thought of two people who love each other affirming that idea (along with getting the benefits they're due - in this case nothing to do with procreation) because it offends you is disgusting in of itself. Like you don't want them to be associated with the 'normal', 'non-deviant' people who get heteroloveual marriages.

Rescinding Christianity was a move to prevent conflict with the Ottoman empire. To assert that western government has no basis in Christianity is beyond foolish.

I never claimed we don't have roots with Christianity - I claim that Christianity itself has no place and should not have a place in our government. Laws should not be made or shot down depending on how God would feel about them, or if they're blasphemous to any sort of religion. We are not a Christian nation, and like I said, the laws of religion do not matter and should not matter when it comes to government laws. We may have been founded with Christian principles but we were not founded on the Christian religion itself.

[_Rave_]

the founding documents of the country make many references to christianity

...and?

why does that matter?

[Bisjac]

ok, explain what principles please.

because the 10 commandments cover things that only christians have ever considered lol

[Deceius]

They're people and deserve the same rights as everyone else. On a side note though I think everyone should keep their personal lives to themselves no exception so that way no one really has anything to be offended over.

[Kalphiter]

the founding documents of the country make many references to christianity

Where?

[Stocking]

Did you miss the entire part of 'they were legally wed by a judge and thus there was no religious influence'? No pastor, no minister, no church, it was all performed by the state and state-appointed officials. This means the state performed the marriage. This means it is independent of religion. A 'civil marriage'.

All because it was done without religious ceremony doesn't mean it's not religiously endorsed.

If we called civil unions what they are, it would change little. Radical religious people would still be pissed because homoloveual relations get any form of recognition whatsoever, and gay people wouldn't be labelled as 'offensive' or anything of the sort. The entire notion that you have to call something completely different because the thought of two people who love each other affirming that idea (along with getting the benefits they're due - in this case nothing to do with procreation) because it offends you is disgusting in of itself. Like you don't want them to be associated with the 'normal', 'non-deviant' people who get heteroloveual marriages.

How are they entitled to those benefits? The government pays couples to have children, since governments love population growth. Why should they have to pay gay couples to have children when they biologically cannot give the government what they're paying for?

I never claimed we don't have roots with Christianity - I claim that Christianity itself has no place and should not have a place in our government. Laws should not be made or shot down depending on how God would feel about them, or if they're blasphemous to any sort of religion. We are not a Christian nation, and like I said, the laws of religion do not matter and should not matter when it comes to government laws. We may have been founded with Christian principles but we were not founded on the Christian religion itself.

That's what I've been saying. Christian principles are ingrained in our culture and inevitably affect the course of government. We are not fundamentalist, but to deny the Christian presence in our government is nothing but willing ignorance.

They're people and deserve the same rights as everyone else. On a side note though I think everyone should keep their personal lives to themselves no exception so that way no one really has anything to be offended over.

They HAVE all the same rights. Both a straight man and a gay man can marry a woman. Neither a straight nor a gay man can marry another man.