Gay Marriage Ban

your move now

pandora wrote:

your move now wrote:

no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies

It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.

Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.

you can't actually think that by giving something different you are giving equality...

why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, because something has been it should always be? the world would never progress if we lived by that

pandora

ComeToTX wrote:

pandora wrote:

your move now wrote:

no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies

It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.

Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.

But why? Why are you so attached to a word? People and definitions evolve. We didn't change the word "vote" for women or black people when they got that right.

Me? I think you should read my posts...
the preservers of marriage are, I understand their stance. They showed how they felt
about the word, the union yesterday. I understand the hinderance this is causing to equal rights.

I have said repeatedly I'd like to see a resolution and in my lifetime
and preferably that of my dearest friend. I would like to see her and her partner
have the same rights as JB and I have shared a lifetime.

Really just a word :? well then lets find that awesome new term for the next century
for gay unions and get on with equal rights for all.
And leave marriage to the tradition the history the union is was intended for.

your move now

understanding and defending their stance... whether you believe it or not.

I've said I'll be fine if they change the name for everyone but that isn't the suggestion I was reading.
and that's far less likely than allowing gay marriage. so some people are bigotted and in denial about their bigotry, what's new... things change, word definitions change, the world changes hopefully to remove discrimination.

interested to see where intersex individuals would stand if we had two different institutions, or transgenders?
change is necessary - it's evolution baby

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Me? I think you should read my posts...
the preservers of marriage are, I understand their stance. They showed how they felt
about the word, the union yesterday. I understand the hinderance this is causing to equal rights.

I have said repeatedly I'd like to see a resolution and in my lifetime
and preferably that of my dearest friend. I would like to see her and her partner
have the same rights as JB and I have shared a lifetime.

Really just a word :? well then lets find that awesome new term for the next century
for gay unions and get on with equal rights for all.
And leave marriage to the tradition the history the union is was intended for.

cop out. you act as if you are speaking on behalf of this new group called the "preservers", but then go on to say that marriage was intended for a man and a woman for thousands of years throughout history.

if you are speaking for the preservers, what is your stance, and why?

pandora

your move now wrote:

pandora wrote:

your move now wrote:

no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies

It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.

Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.

you can't actually think that by giving something different you are giving equality...

why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, because something has been it should always be? the world would never progress if we lived by that

It is nothing different. And yes there are those preserving the tradition the definition
of marriage and yes they feel it should stay the same.
Please try to see long past the time you leave this world
get the big picture.

There will be many more gay people in the future more gay unions than heterosexual marriages
it matters not the name of the union now or then what matters is rights.

Today there are people without rights because marriage is being preserved and it will
be preserved as a union between a man and a woman for some time to come,
yesterday showed us that.

I would like to see equal rights now, a new term for gay union and an amendment.
It is change now is what I am seeking a resolution and progress that can actually
take place now.

your move now wrote:

understanding and defending their stance... whether you believe it or not.

I've said I'll be fine if they change the name for everyone but that isn't the suggestion I was reading.
and that's far less likely than allowing gay marriage. so some people are bigotted and in denial about their bigotry, what's new... things change, word definitions change, the world changes hopefully to remove discrimination.

interested to see where intersex individuals would stand if we had two different institutions, or transgenders?
change is necessary - it's evolution baby

what is evolution is where the gay population is moving us yes

I don't see it as defending but as trying to find a solution now.

I feel most marriage preservers are not the least bit bigoted but are protecting the union
of marriage that has been in place thousands of years.
They are not against equal rights, nor gay unions, nor gay people.

strilo

I will say this. No one has the right to VOTE on the civil rights of another human being. Sorry. These votes are ludicrous at best. I don't give a shit what the majority of voters in NC or California or any other state have to say with their votes when it comes to the inalienable human rights we are ALL deserving of.

And honestly, I don't want a civil union. I don't want a lofty new word. I want marriage. Period. It's what everyone else has and I want EQUAL rights. This whole "call marriage something else and let the gays have that" just smacks of "I would rather get rid of it completely than let you have it."

the wolf

Let's preserve all of our words and their history then.

Let's go back to calling people colored, or the N word. I mean they do have a place in our history yeah?
There is a tradition there am I wrong? Albeit a deeply fucked up tradition and history.
Ah to hell with it, let's just put them back in chains and out in the fields. There's some history and tradition.

Woman can't vote anymore either, in fact, all the women that have opinions on this topic should just keep quiet ya little darlings. Just stay in the kitchen and make sure your husbands dinner is ready when he gets home from a hard days work and wants to watch some slaves fight to the death in a coliseum. I mean, that's some deep tradition and history.

Let's just go backwards, cause this whole evolution of the human spirit and all this equality for all is just too hard right?

Jeesh.

200 years ago is calling, and they want their traditional words back.

Its called progress people. Think about it.

That we are having this debate in this day and age sickens me to death.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

the wolf wrote:

That we are having this debate in this day and age sickens me to death.

agreed.

ComeToTX

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

the wolf wrote:

That we are having this debate in this day and age sickens me to death.

agreed.

+2

strilo

So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...

your move now

strilo wrote:

So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...

either/or.... if we have no marriage for anyone we have equality as well, but of course it would be easier if they let go of their issues and bigotry ... and it is bigotry, although I will acknowledge that they probably don't view themselves as homophobes

strilo

I understand, but I still feel like this whole "call marriage something else and get the government out of marriage entirely" thing still seems like "It's easier to just get rid of it completely than let you have it."

the wolf

strilo wrote:

So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...

If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?

It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.

A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.

whygohome

the wolf wrote:

strilo wrote:

So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...

If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?

It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.

A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.

People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.

strilo

Cool, we agree then.

ComeToTX

whygohome wrote:

the wolf wrote:

strilo wrote:

So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...

If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?

It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.

A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.

People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.

Well yeah but baby steps.

Godfather.

whygohome wrote:

the wolf wrote:

strilo wrote:

So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...

If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?

It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.

A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.

People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.

and you believe what ?????

Godfather.

ComeToTX

You just laugh off others beliefs if they don't align with yours? There's millions of people all over this world that have never cracked open a Christian bible. Others like myself have read it, studied it and seen 100's of things in it that are completely ridiculous and false.


And yes I've been here long enough to know the answer.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Godfather. wrote:

and you believe what ?????

Godfather.

:nono:

oh, dude. :fp:

whygohome

Godfather. wrote:

whygohome wrote:

People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.

and you believe what ?????

Godfather.

Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces......and science .

Maybe this is more appropriate: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: