Language, princess.
Hey asshole, there are direct financial benefits associated with marriage that have nothing to do with religion. Religion should not dictate who is able to receive those benefits. Marriage isn't just terminology for a type of relationship. It's not just a facebook relationship status.
I'm kind surprised that you are going this route. He suggested something that started that as far as the government is concerned it is identical. The only difference between the two is that some private ins ution that doesn't really matter won't recognize it.so a "separate but equal" type of marriage? Hmmm, that sounds familiar.
Of course, the Jim Crow Laws were also Christian ideas.
It would only work if civil union and marriage were defined to be pure aliases of each other; e.g., if it's written in the law that any changes made to one must also apply in the same way to the other. Otherwise the civil union will have rights systematically eroded away and the definitions will be guaranteed to diverge.
What exactly did he say that is phobic?
of course. It is a travesty that this is even an issue, but as far as trying to get religion to recognize it, that is between the couple and their chosen religion
that a gay man or woman isn't worth enough in his book to be able to marry the consenting adult that they love, just like everyone else.
(though he did later clarify this a bit)
Certain segments of Christianity should not get to define what marriage is. And the 'Greeks did not have the marriage of love that we have today' bit was pretty bad.
If you derive your definition of what marriage is supposed to be primarily from Paul and the Levite priests in the Bible and not from any other authority then thats not good enough to dictate what the US government decides is to be the standard for marriage for all of its citizens.
If you have this notion that its 'unnatural,' get over it. They like to do that so let them.
Side note, but St. Paul took a rather dim view of marriage, viewing it as legalized carnality and wickedness.
Is not at all the same thing.
Agree that the US government has no business dictating marriage customs whatsoever.
Really.so a "separate but equal" type of marriage? Hmmm, that sounds familiar.
Of course, the Jim Crow Laws were also Christian ideas.
Please show me where it is in the New Testament.
Jim Crow Law advocates said the same thing as this^. "Their schools and restrooms will be identical!"
Separate but equal was slogan Jim Crow advocates used and it's the same slogan "Civil Union" advocates live by.
Anti-gay marriage people are dominionists. In their mind, whats derived from Paul and the Levite priests should be law in this country. That's why historically Christians supported slavery.
DoK: are you speaking from experience? Where are you getting this overgeneralized assertion? abolitionists were christians. Also the founding fathers who put "all men are created equal" put that their because that came from their religion, who were all christians. John Adams was a huge Christian and always was against slavery.
Oh thats right, your professor told you.
Different. This was a governmental organization creating separate (but allegedly equal) ins utions for people based on some difference. That ended with the government using the same ins ution for these different people. I am advocating that, as far as the government is concerned, they should use the same ins ution (marriage) for all people. You are adding an orange to the apple basket by saying the government should go furtherby forcing religious ins utions to recognize them.
Where did I say religious ins utions need to recognize them?
I'm supporting the same thing you are, gays being recognized as a married couple by the government just like straight people. Not a civilly unified couple, a married couple. This is another example of you trying to argue with me while agreeing with me because you're butthurt by something I said
We need to go the route of France: you MUST be married in a secular civil ceremony for it to be legal, and you can chose to go the religious route afterward if you want, for ceremonial purposes, but it has no legal standing. That recognizes the world as it really is: marriage is a secular, legal ins ution. That also takes the wind out of the "they'll force religions to marry gays if it's legal" sails. Very few gays would want to go through a strictly ceremonial union provided by an ins ution that despises them.
Who's saying religious ins utions should have to recognize them? He's just saying that governmental ins utions should recognize them, if I'm not mistaken.
i was speaking of the condemnations of sexual behavior in Leviticus and in Romans which is where the discrimination derives from. i realize they are not the same thing.
i can go with that. i would much rather everyone have to get a civil union and eliminate the notion of marriage altogether.
getting married is for pussies anyway, i'm sure it once used to be good for past generations but in today's new generation all we want is the next new shiny toy, these sort of things never last and you're wasting your time pretending otherwise imho. marriage has turned into the biggest scam against the male gender, next to cir cision.
In a perfect world, but good luck ever getting that legislated when there are tax incentives for married people. The church would let the gays shampoo each others' crotches out in the streets before they'd give up that perk.
Who's butt hurt, I thought you were arguing with what I was proposing since you quoted me and insinuated that what I said was just like those that argued for separate but equal and just assumed you wanted something more than to have perfectly identical rights for all groups. I will own that. Just a suggestion though, if you agree just agree. You can even do the ever popular "+ 1" or any of many other options.Where did I say religious ins utions need to recognize them?
I'm supporting the same thing you are, gays being recognized as a married couple by the government just like straight people. Not a civilly unified couple, a married couple. This is another example of you trying to argue with me while agreeing with me because you're butthurt by something I said
Fine by me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
