[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So we agree. Excellent. Civil unions for all, marriage for those who wish to have their civil union performed by a church. If the Gay Community want to be married and there are churches that will marry them then there isnt a problem. There are also churches that will marry divorcees, it is simply a matter for the divorcees to find the right church. Either way, in each and every case the rights for ALL civil unions will give the couples identicle rights. What is the problem? I don't see you arguing about the establishment of equal rights but rather the difficulty of getting married. So is this about equal rights or about getting married??? Is this really about equal rights or wanting to be married in a church? Or is this simply about wanting the rights to the word MARRIAGE??? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

*sigh*

You're saying that the government should only grant civil unions, and then churches would dole out the term "married". Fine, but then there are churches that will grant marriages to gay couples, so you've really solved no problem.

As it exists now, although there are still churches that would grant the term "married" to a gay couple, under the law, this marriage is not recognized by the state. This violates equal protection laws. It is not sufficient to say that one class of people gets one designate while another class gets a different but supposedly equal one. They are inherently unequal (otherwise the same term would be used). Gay rights advocates are just paying attention to history.

[thod]

	They are inherently unequal

Which assumes a gay relationship is equal to a normal one.

We can frame the debate in terms of two people yet to do so is to ignore valid counter points. The relationship can also be seen in respect of society. Normal people create the next generation. No society survives without this and thus a normal relationship is inherently more valuable (even if childless). The idea of a couple, the bonding between them, only exists to provide a stable child rearing environment. The homosexual relationship is a parody of this, not the real thing at all. It is only because homosexuals are human that they still feel inclined to engage in this 'pairing monkey' behaviour.

[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Which assumes a gay relationship is equal to a normal one. We can frame the debate in terms of two people yet to do so is to ignore valid counter points. The relationship can also be seen in respect of society. Normal people create the next generation. No society survives without this and thus a normal relationship is inherently more valuable (even if childless). The idea of a couple, the bonding between them, only exists to provide a stable child rearing environment. The homosexual relationship is a parody of this, not the real thing at all. It is only because homosexuals are human that they still feel inclined to engage in this 'pairing monkey' behaviour.

Nah. Even if you judge them inherently inferior, it still does not mean they do not deserve equal protection. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

*sigh* You're saying that the government should only grant civil unions, and then churches would dole out the term "married". Fine, but then there are churches that will grant marriages to gay couples, so you've really solved no problem. As it exists now, although there are still churches that would grant the term "married" to a gay couple, under the law, this marriage is not recognized by the state. This violates equal protection laws. It is not sufficient to say that one class of people gets one designate while another class gets a different but supposedly equal one. They are inherently unequal (otherwise the same term would be used). Gay rights advocates are just paying attention to history.

You may be reading what I write but you are not understanding.

The State will not recognise any marriages performed by a church, only the resulting civil union. And the State can only perform civil unions. All civil unions will have the same rights and will be available to any couple, Gay or Hetrosexual, who wants to enter one.

As I thought the problem was equality and equal rights, then this achieves those. What is not solved???

[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You may be reading what I write but you are not understanding. The State will not recognise any marriages performed by a church, only the resulting civil union. And the State can only perform civil unions. All civil unions will have the same rights and will be available to any couple, Gay or Hetrosexual, who wants to enter one. As I thought the problem was equality and equal rights, then this achieves those. What is not solved???

The answer to women demanding suffrage was not to dilute the meaning or significance of a vote. The answer to human slavery was not to change the name and form of the institution but to retain the racism. Your solution is as childish as if Solomon had really split the baby out of a mixture of spite, ignorance and incompetence. You can advance that line of reasoning, but I'd advise against being proud of it.

BTW: Churches do not hold a monopoly on marriage.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you think its reasonable to expect people to change how they feel about what you are doing?

Nobody cares what people think. Gays just want equal legal treatment and an even footing in society.

Haters gonna hate, but there's no reason for them to punish as well

[newtome]

Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The answer to women demanding suffrage was not to dilute the meaning or significance of a vote. The answer to human slavery was not to change the name and form of the institution but to retain the racism. Your solution is as childish as if Solomon had really split the baby out of a mixture of spite, ignorance and incompetence. You can advance that line of reasoning, but I'd advise against being proud of it. BTW: Churches do not hold a monopoly on marriage.

So is the issue being married in a church or is the issue having equal rights??

The early arguements were about property rights and medical decisions for their partner. Then equality in taxation etc. I agree fully that anyone in a relationship should have equal rights. Tell me again what more you want beyond that? American money says "In God We Trust". Let God decide who will be married in his house and let everyone else have a civil union of equal rights. Marriage will not confer any additional rights, just a name that will be recognised by a religious ceremony. If there are churches that will marry Gays then I don't understand what yout arguement is.

The only reason the public don't object to Gay marriage is because they don't care about marriage. They would be happy in a civil union as long as they retain the rights they have under marriage. This is clearly witnessed by the proportion of church weddings as opposed to cilvil ceremoinies.

[Valiyn]

Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Pastors and priest are on the same level as ship captains, they can only sub in for a justice of the peace. That's it. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Further more, marriages have legal exceptions, like for adoptions (a married person doesn't have to give up their child for adoption and then jointly readopt their own child so their partner has the same parental rights. A civil union couple does, and a gay parent can even be denied the readoption of their child).

[newtome]

Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Pastors and priest are on the same level as ship captains, they can only sub in for a justice of the peace. That's it. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Further more, marriages have legal exceptions, like for adoptions (a married person doesn't have to give up their child for adoption and then jointly readopt their own child so their partner has the same parental rights. A civil union couple does, and a gay parent can even be denied the readoption of their child).

Marriage today has become a legal institution but began as a religious institution. To deny that is just silly. The arguements are over the term marriage even though the Gay community talks about equal rights. If the term marriage is removed and legal rights granted through a civil union then I don't understand the problem.

Civil unions as they are today are discrimatory. They need to be changed. They should be upgraded to have the same rights as marriage and be open to all who wants them, without exception.

Marriage should be returned to the church. When only 30% of marriages are held in a church what is the problem? By practice society cares little about the religious aspect of marriage so I see little reason why taking marriage away from all, and leaving it those married in a church, should be a problem whatsoever.

[Valiyn]

Early christians didn't get married, even in scripture paul was against it.

The church didn't get involved in marriage until the 1200s.

Going all the way back to the code of Hammurabi, predating most existing religions and the earliest records we have, marriage was a legal institution. Religion and marriage is a relatively new development in human history.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Early christians didn't get married, even in scripture paul was against it. The church didn't get involved in marriage until the 1200s. Going all the way back to the code of Hammurabi, predating most existing religions and the earliest records we have, marriage was a legal institution. Religion and marriage is a relatively new development in human history.

That raises more questions than it solves, especially as most past cilvisations were centred around some kind of belief system, so often called religion.

So if it is about the legal rights then why do so many Gays publicly state in front of camera's that they want their love validated in some way, that they want Gods blessing, if they themselves don't see a religious connection??

Furthermore, if it is legal construct then why stop at only a couple or a couple of certain age or other legal prohibitation. Within the legal construct many legal systems recognise polygamous marriages and all manner of other arrangements. Muslims also regularly argue for this under their religious beliefs, even though many countries allow it legally.

Even legal systems in many countries recognise defacto relationships (confering property rights after a period of time living together) on polygamous relationships even though they do not allow polygamous marriage or unions. I think if this was tested under American law then a long time live in partner leaving another in a polygamous relationship would win a settlement due to the end of the relationship. Many legal scholars are already stating this publicly.

There are also countries where Gay couples have identical legal rights to those of married couples. Identical. Yet they still want marriage.

So I keep asking, and no one has been prepared to post an answer, is it about equal rights or is it about the word marriage??

[Vagrant]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So I keep asking, and no one has been prepared to post an answer, is it about equal rights or is it about the word marriage??

You're missing the fundamental point -- Equal rights is marriage.

While the term marriage has been typically used in religious contexts, even atheists and pagans get married. Marriage is typically seen as a legal status, not necessarily a religious one. All gay people want is to be able to legally marry. Some want to marry in a church (they'd have to find one that would let them), others couldn't give a rats ass about a church. They just want the same legal abilities as a heterosexual couple.

As for the difference between marriage and civil union, the idea of "separate but equal" comes to mind. It's simply not the same -- to say you are civil partners does not mean the same thing (socially) as to say you are spouses. No tomfoolery of the law will change society's views.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Which assumes a gay relationship is equal to a normal one. We can frame the debate in terms of two people yet to do so is to ignore valid counter points. The relationship can also be seen in respect of society. Normal people create the next generation. No society survives without this and thus a normal relationship is inherently more valuable (even if childless). The idea of a couple, the bonding between them, only exists to provide a stable child rearing environment. The homosexual relationship is a parody of this, not the real thing at all. It is only because homosexuals are human that they still feel inclined to engage in this 'pairing monkey' behaviour.

It's 2012. A homosexual couple can procreate.

Must suck, to have an argument obliterated merely through the progress of biotechnology.

Not that the potential to procreate (which many "normal" people do not possess) isn't the most unimportant fucking thing in the world when evaluating someone's "worth", which isn't your job in the first place.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Pastors and priest are on the same level as ship captains, they can only sub in for a justice of the peace. That's it. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Further more, marriages have legal exceptions, like for adoptions (a married person doesn't have to give up their child for adoption and then jointly readopt their own child so their partner has the same parental rights. A civil union couple does, and a gay parent can even be denied the readoption of their child).

Actually, it's a social institution. If the government stopped handing out licenses, men and women would still marry.

---------- Post added 06-05-2012 at 06:44 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Early christians didn't get married, even in scripture paul was against it. The church didn't get involved in marriage until the 1200s. Going all the way back to the code of Hammurabi, predating most existing religions and the earliest records we have, marriage was a legal institution. Religion and marriage is a relatively new development in human history.

Yeah, because the Mosaic covenant (circa 1800BCE) said nothing about marriage...

Oh.. wait...

[newtome]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're missing the fundamental point -- Equal rights is marriage. While the term marriage has been typically used in religious contexts, even atheists and pagans get married. Marriage is typically seen as a legal status, not necessarily a religious one. All gay people want is to be able to legally marry. Some want to marry in a church (they'd have to find one that would let them), others couldn't give a rats ass about a church. They just want the same legal abilities as a heterosexual couple. As for the difference between marriage and civil union, the idea of "separate but equal" comes to mind. It's simply not the same -- to say you are civil partners does not mean the same thing (socially) as to say you are spouses. No tomfoolery of the law will change society's views.

So there we have it, its not about gaining equal rights.

You would instantly get equal rights by upgrading the definition of civil union. You could be spouses, husbands and wives under but clearly all that is wanted is marriage, nothing else, even if marriage was taken away from hetrosexuals.

And Gays wonder why people have a problem, it is the hypocrisy of the arguement.

Not equal rights under the law but the right to marriage.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The issue of gay rights comes up. What exactly is it? What is the goal?

to be treated equally under the law. What's hard to understand about that?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	to be treated equally under the law. What's hard to understand about that?

They are. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Vagrant]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So there we have it, its not about gaining equal rights. You would instantly get equal rights by upgrading the definition of civil union. You could be spouses, husbands and wives under but clearly all that is wanted is marriage, nothing else, even if marriage was taken away from hetrosexuals. And Gays wonder why people have a problem, it is the hypocrisy of the arguement. Not equal rights under the law but the right to marriage.

Here's what I get from you:

If every marriage is a civil union, and every civil union is an oobleck, and every oobleck is a troogledad, and every troogledad is geelzbab, then is every geelzbab a marriage?

Your response is no, but the logical answer is yes.

So stop wasting everybody's time and energy by renaming it, and leave it as the same name. Why would you rename it?

	They are. What's so hard to understand about that?

Oh for fucks sake. They aren't treated equally under the law.

You keep arguing the license line over and over again. We get it. Except a governmental license cannot and should not be denied to anybody on the basis of what they are born as. It may be denied on the grounds that they show they are not capable of handling such a license (IE gun license, driver's license, etc), but they should be ABLE to get it in the first place. Gay people are automatically disqualified from getting a marriage license for no reason other than what they have been born as.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They are. What's so hard to understand about that?

Continue to be delusional on your own time if you so choose, but please, sell the crazy somewhere else.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's what I get from you: If every marriage is a civil union, and every civil union is an oobleck, and every oobleck is a troogledad, and every troogledad is geelzbab, then is every geelzbab a marriage? Your response is no, but the logical answer is yes. So stop wasting everybody's time and energy by renaming it, and leave it as the same name. Why would you rename it? Oh for fucks sake. They aren't treated equally under the law. You keep arguing the license line over and over again. We get it. Except a governmental license cannot and should not be denied to anybody on the basis of what they are born as. It may be denied on the grounds that they show they are not capable of handling such a license (IE gun license, driver's license, etc), but they should be ABLE to get it in the first place. Gay people are automatically disqualified from getting a marriage license for no reason other than what they have been born as.

2 points

1. It is legal for some cases of discrimination, for example a religious school insisting that teachers and staff follow that religion. What a shock, they can decide.

2. Gays have the right to marriage. But they are not allowed to marry their mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter or a person of their own gender or more than one person, to name but a few exceptions. Every person is denied in the same way a gay person is denied, the issue is that Gays want to have the right to marry a person who is currently prohibited to them under the existing law. It is not discrimination, it is about changing the law. It is not about the rights that a couple get upon marriage, it is about marriage itself. Yet so many Gays start out by complaining about the lack of equal rights in property, medical decisions, taxation and so on. To many people marriage has a meaning beyond the marriage act.

[Ravendicon]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2. Gays have the right to marriage. But they are not allowed to marry their mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter or a person of their own gender or more than one person, to name but a few exceptions. Every person is denied in the same way a gay person is denied, the issue is that Gays want to have the right to marry a person who is currently prohibited to them under the existing law. It is not discrimination, it is about changing the law. It is not about the rights that a couple get upon marriage, it is about marriage itself. Yet so many Gays start out by complaining about the lack of equal rights in property, medical decisions, taxation and so on. To many people marriage has a meaning beyond the marriage act.

Wow.. now that is the strangest piece of mental gymnastics I've ever seen someone pull off.

A thinly-veiled slippery slope argument isn't much of an argument at all.

[zibber]

The right not to have hetereosexual people discuss what rights they deserve.

[Vagrant]

	1. It is legal for some cases of discrimination, for example a religious school insisting that teachers and staff follow that religion.

Those are private institutions. They can follow whatever policies they please. They are not governmental institutions.

As for 2, see Ravendicon's comment.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by Ravendicon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wow.. now that is the strangest piece of mental gymnastics I've ever seen someone pull off. A thinly-veiled slippery slope argument isn't much of an argument at all.

I wasn't arguing the slippery slope, simply that the Gay community are no more denied marriage than any other part of the community.

	Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those are private institutions. They can follow whatever policies they please. They are not governmental institutions.

Last time I looked all institutions are subject to the law including the discrimination act. They can't discriminate on race or gender etc but are given dispensation for their religious requirements.

[Ravendicon]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wasn't arguing the slippery slope, simply that the Gay community are no more denied marriage than any other part of the community.

It's an argument born of the same idea as the slippery slope. Lumping in gay people with the incestuous, bigamous, pedophilic and even zoophillic in order to marginalize them.

Basically, the exact same purpose as the OP's original post.