|
On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:04 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:50 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:47 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Marriage as always been only between a man and a woman throughout all of history. If I can provide you an example will you admit your definition is wrong? On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Remember when those black people were being oppressive and doing all those things. Good thing we didnt cave and give them equal rights. Otherwise everyone would want them. I addressed this, gay couples have the same benefits as married couples. ...except being able to marry. So you want to force the churches to do something that is a sin in their religion? What happened to freedom of religion? Nobody wants the churches to do anything. The issue is that the government is the one refusing to grant marriages, and the government shouldn't get to exclude people. The government grants the same benefits to gay couples as it does to straight couples. Try again. No, actually it doesn't. You keep stating this but its completely false. Only 8 states grant civil unions or domestic partnerships which similar rights to marriage, and 5 more grant some of the same rights. Since this thread is specifically on prop 8 in california, domestic partnership differs in the following ways: # Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together. # Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents. # California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record. # Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not. # There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. The only benefit there, that isn't the same is CalPERS. Fight for that, not to change the definition of marriage.
How do you expect people to take you seriously when you just quoted a post with 5 benefits same sex couples do not share and tried to say that the only different one is CalPERS. That's even only the government benefit differences and does not include differences in treatment instituted by individual organizations such as preventing or denying access to things like insurance or visitation rights.
|
On May 30 2009 10:19 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:16 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:09 Frits wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote:
Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand. What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race. You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen: On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 supporters who resort to violent acts. Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic. http://michellemalkin.com/?s=proposition 8 mobThere are at least 20+ incidents, across a variety of spectrum. Read at your behest. This is great, but it has nothing to do with whether gay marriage should be legalized. Get off it.
Why are you saying gay marriage if you believe marriage can be between gay couples? It's like me saying straight marriage. Its absurd.
|
On May 30 2009 10:22 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:04 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:59 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:50 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:47 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:43 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Marriage as always been only between a man and a woman throughout all of history. If I can provide you an example will you admit your definition is wrong? On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Remember when those black people were being oppressive and doing all those things. Good thing we didnt cave and give them equal rights. Otherwise everyone would want them. I addressed this, gay couples have the same benefits as married couples. ...except being able to marry. So you want to force the churches to do something that is a sin in their religion? What happened to freedom of religion? Nobody wants the churches to do anything. The issue is that the government is the one refusing to grant marriages, and the government shouldn't get to exclude people. The government grants the same benefits to gay couples as it does to straight couples. Try again. No, actually it doesn't. You keep stating this but its completely false. Only 8 states grant civil unions or domestic partnerships which similar rights to marriage, and 5 more grant some of the same rights. Since this thread is specifically on prop 8 in california, domestic partnership differs in the following ways: # Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together. # Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents. # California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record. # Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not. # There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. The only benefit there, that isn't the same is CalPERS. Fight for that, not to change the definition of marriage. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you just quoted a post with 5 benefits same sex couples do not share and tried to say that the only different one is CalPERS. That's even only the government benefit differences and does not include differences in treatment instituted by individual organizations such as preventing or denying access to things like insurance or visitation rights.
Because a benefit specifies economic derivation.
PS: Power of Attorney covers the latter part of your arguement, which you can get outside of a civil union and marriage.
|
On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals. No, they are not.
The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state.
So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals.
|
On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals. No, they are not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
You should be against prop 8 and let the churches decide whether or not they can ban marriage in their church.
|
On May 30 2009 10:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:19 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 10:16 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:09 Frits wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote:
Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand. What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race. You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen: On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 supporters who resort to violent acts. Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic. http://michellemalkin.com/?s=proposition 8 mobThere are at least 20+ incidents, across a variety of spectrum. Read at your behest. This is great, but it has nothing to do with whether gay marriage should be legalized. Get off it. Why are you saying gay marriage if you believe marriage can be between gay couples? It's like me saying straight marriage. Its absurd.
Im sorry is that really the best arguement you could come up with after everyone just disproved everything you said?
|
United States24767 Posts
On May 30 2009 10:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:19 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 10:16 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:09 Frits wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote:
Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand. What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race. You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen: On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 supporters who resort to violent acts. Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic. http://michellemalkin.com/?s=proposition 8 mobThere are at least 20+ incidents, across a variety of spectrum. Read at your behest. This is great, but it has nothing to do with whether gay marriage should be legalized. Get off it. Why are you saying gay marriage if you believe marriage can be between gay couples? It's like me saying straight marriage. Its absurd.
If you want to make the point that we either should change the way we speak about it or admit that we already have made up our minds and should take your stance, then sure you can make it. But don't randomly harass someone for using the term which has already been coined/accepted. It's irrelevant to the current state of your discussion.
I'm honestly disgusted by what I've read from you in this thread. I very rarely am this agitated, but I also tend to stay away from controversial issue threads so I might just not be desensitized enough.
|
On May 30 2009 10:16 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:09 Frits wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote:
Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand. What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race. You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen: On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 opposers who resort to violent acts. Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic. http://michellemalkin.com/?s=proposition 8 mobThere are at least 20+ incidents, across a variety of spectrum. Read at your behest.
How do 20+ incidents represent millions of people? How does this discredit anything I said? I am against prop 8, I am not assaulting anyone.
Also updated my post with my thoughts on the main subject to not get too offtopic here.
|
On May 30 2009 10:25 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals. No, they are not. The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state. So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals.
Marriage is not a right; I believe in Federalism. Therefore I am not against any tenants of libertarianism. Personally, if I had the choice I would abolish all state derived benefits associated with marriage and civil unions.
The abolition of the state, is called anarchy. You're an anarchist, not a libertarian.
|
On May 30 2009 10:27 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:25 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals. No, they are not. The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state. So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals. Marriage is not a right; I believe in Federalism. Therefore I am not against any tenants of libertarianism. Personally, if I had the choice I would abolish all state derived benefits associated with marriage and civil unions. The abolition of the state, is called anarchy. You're an anarchist, not a libertarian.
You're right, I am. Guess what, anarchy is nothing more than an extreme form of libertarianism.
|
On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage."
My thoughts as well.
|
United States43799 Posts
On May 30 2009 10:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:19 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 10:16 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:09 Frits wrote:On May 30 2009 09:57 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:54 Diomedes wrote:
Wait, Aegraen is calling those who want to lift bans on gay marriage oppressive like the gestapo? WTF? I thought he meant the other way around?
WTF
Ban me if he isn't a troll. Nope, not at all. I'm calling those who employ coercive, violent, and strongarm tactics as comparable to exactly what the Gestapo did. The majority of anti prop 8, supported these, and employed these tactics once they lost, and even beforehand. What a retarded analogy, the contexts are so different it's not even funny. People against prop 8 who act in outrage do so because they want equal rights, not because they think they are the master race. You're one to talk by the way, this is probably the most manipulative argument I have ever seen: On May 30 2009 09:39 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, anti-prop 8 supporters are oppressive. Vandalizing property, threatening peoples lives, assault and battery, runs the gamut. Reminds me of the gestapo. Calling up businesses and threatening them with violence, etc. This is all documented immensely, and if you want me to link for you, I'll gladly do that. Ad hominem, stereotyping, hasty generalization, scare tactics, in the current context I'd call your methods as detestable as the prop 8 supporters who resort to violent acts. Not to mention you openly support torture, you comparing someone with the gestapo is incredibly ironic. http://michellemalkin.com/?s=proposition 8 mobThere are at least 20+ incidents, across a variety of spectrum. Read at your behest. This is great, but it has nothing to do with whether gay marriage should be legalized. Get off it. Why are you saying gay marriage if you believe marriage can be between gay couples? It's like me saying straight marriage. Its absurd.
Because marriage is already legal in some contexts, he wishes it to be widened to the context of gays. Just saying "whether marriage should be legalized" would create confusion because of this. His meaning was clear, his wording correct, your point, ridiculous. Perhaps the stupidest thing you've said yet which given your history is actually really impressive.
|
On May 30 2009 10:30 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage." My thoughts as well.
This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back.
|
On May 30 2009 10:25 DM20 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals. No, they are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibertarianismYou should be against prop 8 and let the churches decide whether or not they can ban marriage in their church.
I am not lock and step with every tenant of libertarianism. For example, I am not an anarchist. Secondly, I also share the views of conservatism, that being strong military, federalism, and abiding by the US Constitution (means absolving 99% of Federal Government institutions, this can be parlayed to libertarianism also), non-interventionism, etc.
I am for prop 8 because using the government to force religions to accept the definition that is proposed, and to socially force others to share your views is not a governmental function.
There is no rights being infringed upon, its purely use of government to try and change social acceptance, period. If you're for this, then how is that being a libertarian?
|
United States12607 Posts
|
On May 30 2009 10:29 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:27 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:25 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals. No, they are not. The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state. So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals. Marriage is not a right; I believe in Federalism. Therefore I am not against any tenants of libertarianism. Personally, if I had the choice I would abolish all state derived benefits associated with marriage and civil unions. The abolition of the state, is called anarchy. You're an anarchist, not a libertarian. You're right, I am. Guess what, anarchy is nothing more than an extreme form of libertarianism.
You're belief that without a state that you have maximum freedom and personal liberty is in reality, the opposite. Without some structure, you have no liberty or freedom, because anyone can come and take from you and kill you. There is no laws, to prevent this.
Anyways off topic.
|
On May 30 2009 10:32 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:25 DM20 wrote:On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.
So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad. Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative. You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals. No, they are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibertarianismYou should be against prop 8 and let the churches decide whether or not they can ban marriage in their church. I am not lock and step with every tenant of libertarianism. For example, I am not an anarchist. Secondly, I also share the views of conservatism, that being strong military, federalism, and abiding by the US Constitution (means absolving 99% of Federal Government institutions, this can be parlayed to libertarianism also), non-interventionism, etc. I am for prop 8 because using the government to force religions to accept the definition that is proposed, and to socially force others to share your views is not a governmental function. There is no rights being infringed upon, its purely use of government to try and change social acceptance, period. If you're for this, then how is that being a libertarian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
+ Show Spoiler +The proponents argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that gays would "redefine marriage for everyone else."
Prop 8 was to undo the legalization of gay marriage, so you have it backwards, its the church forcing their views onto everyone else.
|
On May 30 2009 10:32 DM20 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:30 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage." My thoughts as well. This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back.
Buses are a public service. The church is not. The state should have no (real) say as to what a church does, and the church should have no say in what the state does.
|
On May 30 2009 10:38 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:32 DM20 wrote:On May 30 2009 10:30 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage." My thoughts as well. This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back. Buses are a public service. The church is not. The state should have no (real) say as to what a church does, and the church should have no say in what the state does.
somehow I doubt a church is going to marry gay people....I also doubt that the majority of gay couples will want to get married in a church.
|
On May 30 2009 10:38 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 10:32 DM20 wrote:On May 30 2009 10:30 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.
Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage." My thoughts as well. This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back. Buses are a public service. The church is not. The state should have no (real) say as to what a church does, and the church should have no say in what the state does.
Yes so the way it was, gays could get married if they found a church to marry them, the choice to marry even with heterosexual couples is up to the church, if you can't find a church you do it at a courthouse.
Prop 8 made it illegal for gays to marry even at court houses. Telling a gay person they can get married but not calling it marriage is even more insulting than saying they can't
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
