Take away YOUR rights? What the fuck?

Uncle Leo

dangerboy wrote:

not everyone who holds religious values is a homophobe....

To steal from JS Mill:

While it is true that not all religios people are homophobes, it is true that most homophobes are religious.

(I put is religious for conservatives and homophobes for stupid)

chopitdown

VictoryGin wrote:

what about the people who don't get married in a religious setting (like at the courthouse)? i'm asking that in response to the comment about marriage being a religious institution first.

They would get a civil union certificate (which would grant all the benefits legally that marriage gives now). They would say we were "wed" at the courthouse and that's how they got our union certificate / license.

VictoryGin wrote:

i mean, i understand and i think i agree with the rest of what you're saying, but i don't get the part about the current situation being religious. i agree that, sure, marriage should be a strictly religious tradition, and that civil unions could exist for the nonreligious folk but have all the same benefits. though would that complicate things if the state endorses such a religious tradition as marriage in that scenario?

I don't think the state would be endorsing a religious tradition, in that proposed scenario. The process for licensing for unions would consist of a legal process; it wouldn't matter who you are. The marriage ceremony would be more of a show and religious practice in addition to the legal process. So in essence it would be above and beyond what the law required. But we could define marriage between a man and a women based on the religious view point BUT we could extend the societal benefits of unions to all.

VictoryGin wrote:

although ultimately i think it's weird that the government celebrates relationships and personal commitments to begin with. i think it's indicitive of our societal values (monogamy, procreation, heterosexuality) and i just wish it wasn't the case. i personally don't think the government should be in that business and that people should be able to establish rights (wills, insurance, etc) in other legal ways.

I agree.

hippiemom

chopitdown wrote:

the problem becomes that people feel marriage is a religious institution first and a social institution second. If we made it 2 separate things people would have less problem with it. Everyone should get a civil union license to allow for insurance, purchases, wills etc... Marriage should be a religious institution... compromise. It's semantics but then again, that's why people are pissy. That and people think it's a right to be married...i view it as a privalege

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that nothing done by the government with regards to marriage is going to force their church to do anything. They will always be perfectly free to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. All that legalized gay marriage does is say that the government will not prevent a same-sex couple from marrying. Government officials would be required to marry them, but religious officials would not. Allowing others to live their lives will not affect you or your family or your values or your religion even one teeny-tiny little bit.

I wouldn't care if people who are all hung up on semantics wanted to make up different words for different types of unions. It seems like a big waste of time to me, but if it would get everyone to quit whining about it, it might be worth the effort for that reason alone. Churches that don't approve of gay marriages don't have to perform them, and no one is suggesting that they be forced to.

jlew24asu

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

It's like with me, I'm attracted to crazy ,fucked up chicks. I can't control it.

hey we finally have something in common. but I dont know if im attracted to them or if they are just all like that

norm

hippiemom wrote:

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that nothing done by the government with regards to marriage is going to force their church to do anything. They will always be perfectly free to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. All that legalized gay marriage does is say that the government will not prevent a same-sex couple from marrying. Government officials would be required to marry them, but religious officials would not. Allowing others to live their lives will not affect you or your family or your values or your religion even one teeny-tiny little bit.

I wouldn't care if people who are all hung up on semantics wanted to make up different words for different types of unions. It seems like a big waste of time to me, but if it would get everyone to quit whining about it, it might be worth the effort for that reason alone. Churches that don't approve of gay marriages don't have to perform them, and no one is suggesting that they be forced to.

You know better than to inject logic into this conversation.

RockinInCanada

dangerboy wrote:

not everyone who holds religious values is a homophobe....

Its not what I meant....addresses to homphobes and those that hold traditional (should have put in original post) religous values that practise IMHO intolerance (which is mighty bunch in the world.....where I interpret holy text as saying to love everyone regardless of who they are.....however there are many open-minded relgious folk that open their arms to everyone and I repsect that....

keeponrockin

I STILL think this shouldn't even be an issue. And gay marriage isn't taking rights away from hetero couples.

mammasan

The government has no right being in the business of marriage.

chopitdown

hippiemom wrote:

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that nothing done by the government with regards to marriage is going to force their church to do anything. They will always be perfectly free to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. All that legalized gay marriage does is say that the government will not prevent a same-sex couple from marrying. Government officials would be required to marry them, but religious officials would not. Allowing others to live their lives will not affect you or your family or your values or your religion even one teeny-tiny little bit.

I wouldn't care if people who are all hung up on semantics wanted to make up different words for different types of unions. It seems like a big waste of time to me, but if it would get everyone to quit whining about it, it might be worth the effort for that reason alone. Churches that don't approve of gay marriages don't have to perform them, and no one is suggesting that they be forced to.

no one is suggesting that the gov't will force the church to do anything, unless you're reading things into what i'm saying. I feel that marriage is a religious institution and that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual people, i'm not apologizing for that. I also feel that it's a shame that homosexuals can't form a legal contract to get the benefits. which is why i proposed an alternative instead of pissing and moaning about how supposed rights are being violated...sorry i'm fired up with work

darkcrow

damn homos. stealing our rights. stealing our women/men.... dressing and dancing better than us. time to put them in their place....

on a serious note... this argument is rather purile.

hippiemom

chopitdown wrote:

no one is suggesting that the gov't will force the church to do anything, unless you're reading things into what i'm saying. I feel that marriage is a religious institution and that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual people, i'm not apologizing for that. I also feel that it's a shame that homosexuals can't form a legal contract to get the benefits. which is why i proposed an alternative instead of pissing and moaning about how supposed rights are being violated...sorry i'm fired up with work

But what if, say, the Unitarian Church decided that marriage WASN'T just for heterosexual people? That they would be happy to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples? I think it's a pretty safe bet that's exactly what they do think, by the way. Where's their freedom of religion?

hippiemom

darkcrow wrote:

damn homos. stealing our rights. stealing our women/men.... dressing and dancing better than us. time to put them in their place....

on a serious note... this argument is rather purile.

I could handle the dressing and the dancing, it's the gardening that pisses me off. No matter how hard I work, my yard is always going to look comparatively like shit as long as that guy is living next door :mad:

VictoryGin

darkcrow wrote:

dressing and dancing better than us. time to put them in their place....

this is not *always* true. lesbians ask me for style advice.

chopitdown

hippiemom wrote:

But what if, say, the Unitarian Church decided that marriage WASN'T just for heterosexual people? That they would be happy to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples? I think it's a pretty safe bet that's exactly what they do think, by the way. Where's their freedom of religion?

i agree, they prob would. Their freedom ends where i say it ends...didn't that memo get out?

hippiemom

chopitdown wrote:

i agree, they prob would. Their freedom ends where i say it ends...didn't that memo get out?

Shit, who knows .... there's so damn much paper on this desk, it's probably in here somewhere ......

VictoryGin

hippiemom wrote:

But what if, say, the Unitarian Church decided that marriage WASN'T just for heterosexual people? That they would be happy to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples? I think it's a pretty safe bet that's exactly what they do think, by the way. Where's their freedom of religion?

how about gay marriage being a legal right that can be fulfilled in churches that decide what they want to do about it? and it would be a given at the courthouse. that way a unitarian church could perform them if they wanted and the baptist church didn't have to if they didn't want to. i think that if marriage is to be so tied to the government then there should be equal rights. although i'd rather marriage not be tied to the government at all.

darkcrow

i think someone on this thread said "marraige" is a religious concept... well it is also a lawful concept. if churches/other places of worship do not want to conduct homosexul marraiges they dont have to, but it is not right for the govt to say such marraiges should be illegal. you guys are supposed to have a sepperation of church and state...
while we guys are pretty much rooted in the church of england at least the labour govt passed the civil partnership bill. i would loved to ahve seen it be called a marraige but take the victories you cann i guess....

prism

darkcrow wrote:

damn homos. stealing our rights. stealing our women/men.... dressing and dancing better than us. time to put them in their place....

on a serious note... this argument is rather purile.

not to mention that gay men are better kissers

darkcrow

prism wrote:

not to mention that gay men are better kissers

really? damn... :( us hetrosexuals just can't win can we?! lol

VictoryGin

prism wrote:

not to mention that gay men are better kissers

yeah. that one is true.