billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 23, 2011 18:36:18 GMT -5
Why not have church services called civil union blessings? That way we get rid of the term marriage and everyone is equal with civul union..
Why do we need two terms for the exact same thing? And here is my answer from when you asked it yesterday: Why not have church services called civil union blessings? ... The answer to that is that no one has a right to "have church services called" anything other than what any individual church wants it to be called. What we Americans do have a right to is to have our government issue certificates with whatever we decide is the label we wish to have printed on it. I have no problem with that label being "civil unions". If you want a "Marriage Certificate" there are plenty available for you to print or buy.
|
|
Tigerwife3
New Member
Joined: May 18, 2011 12:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 45
|
Post by Tigerwife3 on Jul 23, 2011 18:47:39 GMT -5
Have your union blessed by your church AFTER you ar united in marriage in a civil marriage ceremony.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 23, 2011 19:18:01 GMT -5
"It isn't the same. " Yes, it is. Frankly, I think all of it should be called "marriage" since that is what it is. You can call it whatever you want. It is qualitatively different in many respects. You can rename a dog and call it a cat or whatever. That doesn't change the fundamental nature of what it is. As for gay unions, i really don't care one way or the other. if society wants to honor a civil union of some type and recognize it, so be it. And, i don't care what 2 adults do or don't do. And, i am sure stable, committed relationships are better for society all around. But, you cannot fundamentally change the nature of what something is just because you want to deam it so. I haven't said anything in reply to your posts until now because I recognize that you are entitled to your OPINION. that said, how is a gay couple qualitatively different from a straight couple? do you mean to imply that their coupling is inferior to a straight couple? I mean, we have such fine examples of straight couples that we should hold up on high and model our own relationships after - like Britney Spears and her husband of 2 days....what was his name? or Eminem and Kim....wasn't he always speaking highly of her in his song lyrics? ooh, or how about Rush Limbaugh and all his lovely ex-wives. can you explain to me how anyone else's marriage has any effect whatsoever on yours? the genders involved are irrelevant. how does anyone else's relationship have any impact on your own, that you feel the need to decry it?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 23, 2011 19:27:20 GMT -5
"It is qualitatively different in many respects. "
Name one.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 23, 2011 19:40:25 GMT -5
I, too, would like to see the "qualitative differences" defined, Snerdley.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:35:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2011 20:06:17 GMT -5
"It isn't the same. "
Yes, it is. Frankly, I think all of it should be called "marriage" since that is what it is.
Sorry but it isn't the same thing as in legally recognized & with all the legal rights that come with marriage.
Like I posted a page back: Our friend got married in a church wedding. Without the paperwork from a government agency, the government doesn't recognize that as marriage.
Why do I get the feeling that those using the argument "a church wedding is good enough" are actually thinking: 1. If you can find a church that will marry you & 2. It's kind of a fake "official" wedding but then you aren't "really" a person so it will do.
The fact remains that gays don't get equal treatment in this country & close enough isn't good enough. Everyone should have the same rights.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 23, 2011 21:55:05 GMT -5
"Sorry but it isn't the same thing as in legally recognized & with all the legal rights that come with marriage."
I know that. I was speaking not from a legal standpoint, but from a relationship standpoint.
|
|
ungenteel
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by ungenteel on Jul 23, 2011 23:44:19 GMT -5
<<Marriage is simply NOT a govt institution but an institution ordained by God. It wasn't a creation of the State. >>
Curious how thumpers don't even geddit when they are thumping
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 24, 2011 0:03:04 GMT -5
It's a de facto right since marriage contains all the properties of a right. The privilege of marriage is available to anyone (excluding age requirements), and the government has no mechanism in place for revoking a marriage license. Marriages can be terminated by the partners involved, but the government cannot and does not revoke a marriage license when laws are broken.
In other words, if a husband beats the tar out of his wife, the government cannot revoke a marriage license as a part of the punishment for domestic violence. In fact, even animals receive a better deal since cruelty to animal charges often include a lifetime ban on owning pets. If only the government could place a lifetime ban on spouse abusers getting re-married.
Drivers licences can, and are , revoked if a driver breaks certain laws, and that is the hallmark of a privilege - it can be revoked. When was the last time you've ever heard of the government revoking a marriage license as a punishment?
If marriage looks like a right, walks like a right, and quacks like a right, it's a right.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 24, 2011 7:37:22 GMT -5
And, the notion that we have to accept your definition just because you decide to doesn't mean we should. which is why we keep seeing states removing restrictions. well said, Snerdley.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 24, 2011 8:07:26 GMT -5
I just watched the first marriage between two same sex couple in NY...senior , senior couple..female, and was thinking, with out really knowing the story... but thinking how many years have they been together..what they had to experience as a couple with their families, friends..strangers , as they have been together..and how neat it is that finally after all these years..they can live out what is left of their lives as a legal couple, with all the rights that that means as well as showing their careing, love for each other as a couple, and how their decision to do this , legally, how little it affects me , so what is the big deal about this.
No , it's not my thing..but for me to be involved , why? Just does not compute..and it's about time this is behind us.
Of course, the above, IMHO ...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 24, 2011 8:16:06 GMT -5
DO you know what happened 160 years ago this fall... Back in 1850?
California became a state. The people had no electricity. The state had no money. Almost everyone spoke Spanish. There were gunfights in the streets.
So basically nothing has changed except then the women had real bods and the men didn't hold hands. That, my friends, is the history lesson for today ..............
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,647
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 24, 2011 8:35:05 GMT -5
dezi, I just saw the same thing on my local news broadcast. couples that had been together for years and years, finally able to have their commitment recognized. beautiful!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 24, 2011 8:53:40 GMT -5
dezi, I just saw the same thing on my local news broadcast. couples that had been together for years and years, finally able to have their commitment recognized. beautiful! And in a related story, Oxygen network announced a new reality show based in New York, "Gay Divorce Court".
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 24, 2011 9:07:39 GMT -5
"So basically nothing has changed except then the women had real bods and the men didn't hold hands. "
and for those who do hold hands, how does that affect me, why should I be concerned, why is it any of my business, or for anyones business when one thinks about it?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 24, 2011 9:11:47 GMT -5
DO you know what happened 160 years ago this fall... Back in 1850? California became a state. The people had no electricity. The state had no money. Almost everyone spoke Spanish. There were gunfights in the streets. So basically nothing has changed except then the women had real bods and the men didn't hold hands. That, my friends, is the history lesson for today .............. The men didn't hold hands in public.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:35:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2011 12:50:32 GMT -5
The curious thing is, why are gays fighting so hard to have government in their bedrooms to sanction them? It really is ironic.I'm guessing but I bet there are still states with laws that prohibit same sex, sex. I would also say that the government telling you who you can't go to bed with is as intrusive as them telling you who you can go to bed with. Lastly the tear jerkier. Two males (or females) who have been together for 30 years. One in the hospital with a condition that is possibly treatable. This person is unconscious. They are not married. Who gets to make the decision as to go ahead with the operation, the partner or a nephew that hasn't been in contact with this person in 15 years? Why the nephew, of course because the couple aren't related. Now of course you can "fix" this situation (before the fact) with a whole lot of legal papers covering every possible thing that can happen or you can allow them to get married (which would automatically give them those "rights"). It seems to me that if the religious people here don't want to give gays the right to get married, then the least they can volunteer to do is to pay for all the legal work involved in making them "semi" equal. Oh & of course they should be made to pray to God every night to accept them into heaven when they die in case they are wrong about Gods feeling about gays & they are forcing them to have sex out of wedlock. After all God didn't write the bible, man did & history has shown they they change & delete things as they see fit.
|
|
998fbird
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 6, 2011 17:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 138
|
Post by 998fbird on Jul 24, 2011 13:26:14 GMT -5
I have many family members from several generations who are gay and it isn't a choice. How it happens I don't know, and truly don't really care. All I know is that I thank Old Tex and Chiver for expressing the same sentiments I hold regarding the fact that LGBT Americans are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, to work, to marry, and to serve in the military, etc. And here is a little story for those of you who think that you have a right to comment about someone else's sexual orientation: I was in a thrift store with my son who is gay and out and another patron actually asked me if my son was gay. When I said yes, she then asked me if I minded. Let me tell you what I told her, "I don't mind that my son is gay, I mind that so many other people mind that my son is gay." So why don't all of you who give a damn about other peoples private business invest that energy in making sure you're on the right path and my son will mind his business and leave you alone. It is because of you and your self rightous attitudes that I have to worry about my son's safety, because your attitudes make it ok for people to think they have the right to attack and hurt my son because he is different from you. Remember that every LGBT person you disrespect is someone's family.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:35:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2011 13:36:43 GMT -5
All I know is that I thank Old Tex and Chiver for expressing the same sentiments I hold regarding the fact that LGBT Americans are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, to work, to marry, and to serve in the military, etc.
998fbird, I didn't do it because I am pro gay or a nice guy, etc. The truth is that I'm a greedy, conservative old bastard that really doesn't care about others (except me & mine). I am smart enough to know that if the government (any government) has the ability to deny someone their rights they will use that ability to screw someone over sooner or later. (And God knows that there is enough evidence out there of our government overstepping their bounds & trampling on people rights). If you don't stand up & say "NO" in a loud clear voice then sooner or later they will use that ability to screw you over. Now I don't mind fighting for my rights nor even dieing in the fight for them. It just seems easier to fight the system before they come after you.
I am constantly shocked that even religious conservatives don't seem to see that point (about individual rights) & support gay's rights. I'm guessing that they can't connect with that old saying about not saying anything when they came after your neighbor & so there was no one to say something when they came after you.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 24, 2011 14:10:22 GMT -5
I said it's a de facto right. It may not be defined as such, but marriage operates with the same parameters as rights do. In other words, the government treats marriage as a right even if it is not defined as such.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 25, 2011 12:17:34 GMT -5
The "right" in question isn't marriage. As you accurately point out, no such right exists. A right that does exist is equal treatment under the law. I think your stated preference for our civil government to allow all to register their civil union satisfies that right of equal treatment wonderfully. I'd like to point out that as long as the individuals in question are over the age of consent, there already is equal treatment under the law. Every man can marry one unrelated woman. Every woman can legally marry one unrelated man.The law needs to change to allow any one person to legally marry one other unrelated person regardless of sex.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 25, 2011 12:34:13 GMT -5
a libertarian would say "to each is own" and a tea party-er, might lean towards gov't control in some areas like this one.
i like "to each his own", and gov't should stay out of any area where physical protection is not a need.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 25, 2011 12:52:06 GMT -5
De facto translates to [essentially] in effect or "has the same effect as...." Nevertheless, de facto doesn't mean, "the same thing." Also, "right" does not mean "ought to have" or "wouldn't that be nice." We should distinguish between "rights" as in, "I have a right to...." and inalienable or unalienable rights which do not vary with circumstances. A contract, for example, may give you, "the right to sue" if the other party of the contract does not fulfill his [its] obligations. That is, the kind of right which applies under certain circumstances depending on some prior agreement is not the kind of right we're talking about when we talk about "rights" in the abstract. When we talk about rights in constitutional terms they are restricted to the rights enumerated in the Constitution or which can be reasonably derived from the Constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:35:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2011 13:40:34 GMT -5
Six wasted pages. That's what his issue has generated. I say wasted because your a rational American you believe in equal rights for everyone. What are the arguments against equal rights? They boil down to I'm religious & believe in what I've been taught & a whole bunch of carping & nit picking about terms. Well, marriage means this or equal rights means that. Those type arguments are used when you don't have a leg to stand on & either know it or were taught them probably through church.
Really sad. Sad in that people are still bigots in this day & age.
|
|
humok
Established Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 9:33:39 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by humok on Jul 25, 2011 18:33:06 GMT -5
Sodomy is illegal in my state so if they were married should we arrest them after big brother looks at them through their TV and catches them in the act?.....too much time spent in this country about issues that should not be issues.
|
|