Not sure where you are going with this. I'm stating that the U.S. should recognize gay marriages as "civil unions." If the Churches decide they are married, and they have their certificate, why should anyone care? They will have the EXACT same rights as any other married couple, but it will be described as a "civil union". ****. They already are calling each other "life-partners" right now. At least this way they could say they were "married." Why the hell hell should they care about what the gov't dictates it as. AS YOU just said, it is about rights, not name-sakes, or we'd all just be called "people." (perhaps soylent green...) As for the name-sake, remember, slow and incremental. Take each one as a stepping-stone. Demand everything at once, and it will be trampled. This is a world based on compromise. I thought I had a good one on the smoking ban. That is my soap-box now, baby! Let me know next time you're in town. We'll swing you to my neck of the woods in Midtown. First 3 on me!
It's a deal on the midtown drinks, Fatty. But since we're still in this thread, and since I've explained I wouldn't ask the churches be forced into anything, tell me why you are so insistent on calling these unions 'civil unions' instead of marriages. And maybe help me understand why the Bush admin and various states including Texas are so insistent on passing laws saying that gays can never marry. More than either of those questions (both of which I REALLY hope you'll answer), do you honestly OPPOSE gay marriage?
(quick aside) BTW, Bats, do you even have a myspace, or a website? Methinks you have a website, but, considering your speeding mouse on a motorcycle thingie, you should definitely set something up there, as well. Tell ya what, I'll get you at least 100 people to see your site. Perhaps not many, but it is Texas, and quite frankly, plays are faggy. (sorry. I just had to... ) Here's mine: www.myspace.com/texanfan
Don't you hate that this entire debate would be riveting (ie. boring and ignored) by everyone around us if we were having it at a bar. And SMOKING, nonetheless? Again, I personally feel that the term "marriage" is a church based saying. Honestly, I would rather have the Gov't dictate ALL marriages as civil unions for tax purposes.... Or we could just have the damn flat tax and leave the f***ing Gov't out of it. You know my feelings on this. I know yours. I personally don't feel it is ever in our right to judge someone (unless that ******* is cutting in front of me. They should ALL go to hell) But, again, it is all slow and incremental. Accept compromise. Who knows? By the time we're both 50, we will laugh at how stupid this argument was. But it won't happen overnight. And they need to realize that.
That's still giving someone status according to sexual orientation. Straight people are "married" and gays have "civil unions". That creates a second class status for homosexuals and is incompatible with the 14th amendment.
These "christians" are pathetic. Tolerance does not extend to tolerating intolerance. Yes, you have a right to be a bigoted r****d. That does not mean people have to accept it or congratulate you for it. What an idiotic argument. If you're an american christian, it really boils down to is marriage spiritual or civil in it's nature. If it's civil, then the state should not discriminate and anyone can be "legally" married. If it's spiritual, the state should be ambivalent and church's should be free to marry whoever the heck they choose. Whining about how persecuted you are for being openly bigoted is just pathetic and hypocritical.
Idiocy begets idiocy. The good ol' Internet, bringing religious bigotry and vindictive self-righteousness together like never before There are pathetic people in this world, but if you think making life miserable for them is noble and correct and actually adds meaning to your own existence, you're just as pathetic. Congrats.
Wow, I feel sorry for those people. Their lives have been turned upside down. Apparently, there is little tolerance in America these days. Do what I do and believe what I believe...OR ELSE!
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/leanEpzkEnU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/leanEpzkEnU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
You know, it's one thing to be uncomfortable with homosexuality and belief its wrong. It's another thing to discriminate against homosexuals...which is wrong. You don't have to be their friend, but in America, the only color that's suppose to matter is green. And that's what's beautiful about our greedy lovin' arses.
What probably happened is that the Aggie gardeners wanted to put Lawn Balls and Lawn Jockeys all over the place and when the clients said no they figured that they MUST BE gay. The whole gay marriage thing is just about rights. Civil Unions as they currently are defined by the law do not give the same rights as married couples. There is a famous case in FL where an openly gay policewoman died in the line of dutey and her long time partner, who was well know and liked by everyone, didn't get her pension and the their house was given to the policewoman’s family. Hospital visitation rights denied to "partners" because it might only be for "family" members. Tax returns, inheritance, and many many other things "married" people take for granted.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JpuLYvBJMo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JpuLYvBJMo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
The government should be there serving people, not using some religious rules to decide people's fate. All those kind of "marriage is a sacret thing" talks made me laugh. Marriage in the city hall, is NOT a sacret thing, but rather to get a certificate to officially recognize and prove the partnership between two people. A marriage ceremony in a church might be called a sacret thing. Following the consitution to serve marrying couple to provide certificates, even to gay people; following the Bible to refuse gay couple getting married in the Church. Isn't that what Lord's words: "Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", is about? So next time, it's ok for store to refuse to do business with Blacks, Jews, Asians, or any other minority group, or women? It's ok to disallow minorities to sit in the front rows of a bus, as long as the bus company is owned privately? What were those people thinking? Or were they thinking at all?
If I felt it were relevant to this discussion, then I might answer. But, dragging race into this discussion isn't relevant IMO.
