ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 69
Member Since: 02/02/07
06/19/09 03:39 PM
Logan Darklighter wrote: I think Bluemage is perfectly on target on what should happen. I agree 100% and have made almost those exact same arguments before. I don't think the government should be involved at all in defining "marriage". I think civil unions for all in order to have the legal side of things be the same for everyone would be great.
Posts: 2033
Member Since: 05/18/06
06/19/09 06:39 PM
Registered User, Board Designer
Bluemage wrote: As for the fundamental advantage over same-sex marriage, the whole point is that it wouldn't get the religious right all up in arms about the "perversion of marriage"
Posts: 517
Member Since: 03/09/06
06/19/09 09:20 PM
Posts: 3643
Member Since: 09/23/02
06/19/09 11:22 PM
Registered User,Prereader
Posts: 1328
06/20/09 12:42 AM
06/20/09 02:54 AM
Posts: 24548
Member Since: 09/20/02
06/20/09 08:54 AM
Chief Screwball andLoon Wrangler
06/20/09 08:58 AM
Logan Darklighter wrote: Thing is - I've known people who are more rigidly conservative than me. Much more so on this topic. Religious types. Nice people, but by your lights, you'd think of them as "fundies" and "bigots". They are not.
(P.S. Government should FORCE equality? That sort of talk scares the crap out of me. I'm reminded of "Harrison Bergeron" whenever I hear shit like that.)
Posts: 1454
Member Since: 04/19/06
06/20/09 12:16 PM
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours. I've been writing a bit.
06/20/09 12:32 PM
06/20/09 01:06 PM
The Unitarian Church is currently willing to marry gay people. It is a church, a religious organization, and it is marrying gay people. Reckonizing them in its faith as married. So, now you want to make it so that they CAN'T be married, even if a religious faith wants to do so? That's fuckign vile, I'm sorry. Allowing anyone (gay or straight) to be married is a valuabel part of religious freedom because if you refuse to allow them to you are suppressing someone's faith. maybe not the faith of your mother (which is vile) but the faith of everybody, in every religion. because if you suppress the ability of one church to marry its parishoners you are repressing religious rights.
06/20/09 01:23 PM
Logan Darklighter wrote: Wait, wait, HUH??? I completely MISSED where your logic comes from, here. We're NOT saying we want to TAKE AWAY the right of any church to marry anyone it wants. If your hairy thunderer hammer god says you can marry each other, gay or straight, that should be FINE. In the civil unions argument, it's ONLY the strictly legalistic component that the government should be dealing with. The rights and privileges that strictly come from the government (visitation rights, who gets what when someone dies if they haven't already made a will, etc...) are the only thing that a civil union should cover. Other than that, you get any church at all that will marry you, and presto! You're married! It should be as simple as that! I don't get where you think we (those advocating civil unions for all) are trying to take that away.
Posts: 229
Member Since: 04/13/06
06/28/09 01:42 AM
Epsilon wrote: Logan Darklighter wrote: Wait, wait, HUH??? I completely MISSED where your logic comes from, here. We're NOT saying we want to TAKE AWAY the right of any church to marry anyone it wants. If your hairy thunderer hammer god says you can marry each other, gay or straight, that should be FINE. In the civil unions argument, it's ONLY the strictly legalistic component that the government should be dealing with. The rights and privileges that strictly come from the government (visitation rights, who gets what when someone dies if they haven't already made a will, etc...) are the only thing that a civil union should cover. Other than that, you get any church at all that will marry you, and presto! You're married! It should be as simple as that! I don't get where you think we (those advocating civil unions for all) are trying to take that away. It's a level of unneccesary redundancy. Why skip around the issue to protect the feelings of a bunch of bigots and assholes? The fact is that civil unions ARE marriages, in every single way that matters. Why go through all the trouble of changing all the laws when the solutions is about a thousand times simpler than that? If the bigots don't care that the Unitarians (or Wiccans or whoever) call their partners "married' why the hell shoudl they care that the government calls them "married"? The answer is because they do NOT care about the word. They care because they hate gay people, or support religions that hate gay people. Framing the debate in the "civil unions" manner plays into their hands. because they do not want civil unions, but by offering them they can create a "seperate but equal" status for Gays. Then you try to remove marriage from the law books and watch them howl and moan. Yeah, its not going to go over well. Then once they have their "civil unions" they will pass a bunch of laws to dick over gay people and not true married people, because that's what they fucking do. ------------------- Epsilon
06/29/09 09:18 PM
Share This