[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Eh, never mind. No time for one of these debates.[/quote]
I understand not wanting to get involved, but if you have time, I’d appreciate your assessment of the legal aspects of the decision.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?..”
The most obvious reason is that throughout history and even today…some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against other humans have been because of another’s race and/or what their religious beliefs are.
Mufasa[/quote]
Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
[/quote]
Really? Who says religion is any more of a choice than sexual orientation? Some of our atheist members have delighted in the possibility of God Spots, and such. A sort of evolutionary survival mechanism us non-brights are still enslaved to.[/quote]
Want to prove to me how religion isn’t a choice? I have a Jewish mother and a Baptist father. What does that make me?
There are a lot of atheist bashers on this site.
We all seem to pick our religious poison or pleasure.
[/quote]
That proved what, exactly? I guess the parents of a just of out of the closet gay son are surprised to find out that at least one of them must be gay?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?..”
The most obvious reason is that throughout history and even today…some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against other humans have been because of another’s race and/or what their religious beliefs are.
Mufasa[/quote]
Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
[/quote]
Really? Who says religion is any more of a choice than sexual orientation? Some of our atheist members have delighted in the possibility of God Spots, and such. A sort of evolutionary survival mechanism us non-brights are still enslaved to.[/quote]
Want to prove to me how religion isn’t a choice? I have a Jewish mother and a Baptist father. What does that make me?
There are a lot of atheist bashers on this site.
We all seem to pick our religious poison or pleasure.
[/quote]
That proved what, exactly? I guess the parents of a just of out of the closet gay son are surprised to find out that one of them must be gay?[/quote]
no. Perhaps I misread your post, but it read that religion wasn’t a choice.
I demonstrated how I was a child of two very different religions which would leave me with no clear cut predisposed religious aspect. My father chose to be Baptist, my mother chose to be Jewish. Both are hetero, not a choice.
religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
Do you agree with that? If not, why don’t you?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I demonstrated how I was a child of two very different religions which would leave me with no clear cut predisposed religious aspect. My father chose to be Baptist, my mother chose to be Jewish. Both are hetero, not a choice.
religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
Do you agree with that? If not, why don’t you?
[/quote]
Who says you don’t have a religious prediposition? Maybe you’re living it. Your objection is going to be that you should have been…what, predisposed to at least one of the specific faiths of your parents? You might consider how this applies to a homosexual who has not one, but two, hetero parents. Or, do you suspect both parents are gays living in denial?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I demonstrated how I was a child of two very different religions which would leave me with no clear cut predisposed religious aspect. My father chose to be Baptist, my mother chose to be Jewish. Both are hetero, not a choice.
religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
Do you agree with that? If not, why don’t you?
[/quote]
Who says you don’t have a religious prediposition? Maybe you’re living it. Your objection is going to be that you should have been…what, predisposed to at least one of the specific faiths of your parents? You might consider how this applies to a homosexual with two hetero parents. [/quote]
Well see I don’t agree with your assessment. I suppose that is the argument for folks who don’t believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I very much believe religion is a choice.
But if that is the case, then both should be protected, or neither should be protected.
What I do believe is that no one should be denied a right to a union that is recognized by the government that passes along benefits to that union to the exclusion of others.
If that means providing homosexual couples with an “equal but separate” civil union, I would suggest that no one be allowed a recognized religious marriage by the government. All couples must enter into a civil union and if they then wish to have a religious ceremony, then do so.
A “religious predisposition”???
I really hope this gets expanded on.
I’m ALL ears.
Mufasa
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What I do believe is that no one should be denied a right to a union that is recognized by the government that passes along benefits to that union to the exclusion of others.
[/quote]
I doubt you actually mean it. If you do, it indicates a desire to destroy the institution completely. To be precise, to hollow out it’s definition and meaning so thoroughly, that it means nothing. And meaning nothing, has no purpose in being regarded by the state, not anymoreso than a relationship between drinking buddies.
But, let’s test your resolve. Do you want polyamorous, sexual or not, associations of all shapes and sizes to be recognized by the state? The only criteria being that consenting adults must be involved.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What I do believe is that no one should be denied a right to a union that is recognized by the government that passes along benefits to that union to the exclusion of others.
[/quote]
I doubt you actually mean it. If you do mean, it indicates a desire to destroy the institution completley. Let’s test your resolve to your. Do you want polyamorous, sexual or not, associations of all shapes and sizes to be recognized by the state? The only criteria being that consenting adults must be involved.[/quote]
You must not have read my post where I said I don’t care if multiple consenting adults want to enter into a marriage.
I don’t think you know me well enough to judge what I mean.
I am very much for the rights of gays to have a fully recognized civil union.
It makes me sad that churches will not offer them an equal marriage.
But religion is a choice.
If you are wondering, do not even think to throw in minors as sexual partners or throw about pedophilia or you will really just showcase yourself.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
All couples must enter into a civil union and if they then wish to have a religious ceremony, then do so.
[/quote]
Well, there you go. By the way, ‘couples?’ Please, let’s not use stereotypical language.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What I do believe is that no one should be denied a right to a union that is recognized by the government that passes along benefits to that union to the exclusion of others.
[/quote]
I doubt you actually mean it. If you do mean, it indicates a desire to destroy the institution completley. Let’s test your resolve to your. Do you want polyamorous, sexual or not, associations of all shapes and sizes to be recognized by the state? The only criteria being that consenting adults must be involved.[/quote]
You must not have read my post where I said I don’t care if multiple consenting adults want to enter into a marriage.
[/quote]
Who would have thought it…Folks say that I bring a slippery slope argument. However, when pressed, what do most (if not all) of our pro-gay marriage folk seem to have in common? That would be an even more ‘progressive’ ideal, extending beyond gay marriage. But no, really, no slippery slope ahead.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
All couples must enter into a civil union and if they then wish to have a religious ceremony, then do so.
[/quote]
Well, there you go. By the way, ‘couples?’ Please, let’s not use stereotypical language.[/quote]
Now now, do not denigrate a common place phrase.
I am completely open to saying the mouthful of “all of those who wish to enjoin themselves in a civil union.”
The government should not be regulating relationships.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What I do believe is that no one should be denied a right to a union that is recognized by the government that passes along benefits to that union to the exclusion of others.
[/quote]
I doubt you actually mean it. If you do mean, it indicates a desire to destroy the institution completley. Let’s test your resolve to your. Do you want polyamorous, sexual or not, associations of all shapes and sizes to be recognized by the state? The only criteria being that consenting adults must be involved.[/quote]
You must not have read my post where I said I don’t care if multiple consenting adults want to enter into a marriage.
[/quote]
Who would have thought it…Folks say that I bring a slippery slope argument. However, when pressed, what do most (if not all) of our pro-gay marriage folk seem to have in common? That would be an even more ‘progressive’ ideal, extending beyond gay marriage. But no, really, no slippery slope ahead.[/quote]
Why does anyone else have the right to have say in what legal, consenting adults have to say in regards to their relationships?
If said commitments are not drawing upon public resources, are not felonious, then why do others have a say in the matter?
Do you see that the all the “baby mama” and “baby daddy” thing are often polyamorous? And they get government aid as “daddy” goes about making babies with no direct legal entanglements? This is often times a deliberate choice so that they will receive aid.
So if this is not your choice, that relationships shall be benefited by the government than make it equal in all its faces.
Anything less is discriminatory.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
The government should not be regulating relationships.
[/quote]
I thought you were for civil unions?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
The government should not be regulating relationships.
[/quote]
I thought you were for civil unions?[/quote]
I am, are you thinking you are being clever with semantics?
I have been very clear, don’t try to be coy.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
The government should not be regulating relationships.
[/quote]
I thought you were for civil unions?[/quote]
I am, are you thinking you are being clever with semantics?
I have been very clear, don’t try to be coy.
[/quote]
Will your civil unions be recognized in any way by the government. A way that would be different from the relationship of two drinking buddies?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
The government should not be regulating relationships.
[/quote]
I thought you were for civil unions?[/quote]
I am, are you thinking you are being clever with semantics?
I have been very clear, don’t try to be coy.
[/quote]
Will your civil unions be recognized in any way by the government. A way that would be different from the relationship of two drinking buddies? [/quote]
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
If you can’t get your head around it, just say you are ignorant and unable to be rational when discussing homosexual relationships.
I have a hard time getting my head around polygamy, but… apparently it works for some.
It also seems to imply that you have never heard of a marriage of convenience.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
[/quote]
Love? Now you’re discerning between types of relationships? Now it’s suddenly your business?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
[/quote]
Love? Now you’re discerning between types of relationships? Now it’s suddenly your business?[/quote]
oh no… not at all. Are you implying that everyone who has entered into the current state of marriage is in love?
Because that is what the government is doing if that is what you are saying.
What is your criteria for a marriage? If you are saying procreation then anyone who can’t have children should be banned.
Again, you are playing the sophomoric semantics game.
Can a network of non-sexually involved friends, seeking their pleasures outside of the group, get one of these civil unions? Or, is their bedroom behavior–or, with each other, the lack of it–suddenly our business?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
[/quote]
Love? Now you’re discerning between types of relationships? Now it’s suddenly your business?[/quote]
out of my whole post you choose to nit pick on a work, shows you really have no actual reasoning for this issue.
Just say it is your personal opinion because there isn’t anyway you can back up a “no on gay marriage” with facts.