When you start giving LEGAL advantages to a class of people and DENYING said advantages to another class of people it is flat out discrimination. I feel that “marriage” should be the province of religion/church. Those that feel strongly about their religious beliefs should go ahead and get “married” in the church. And the church should ABSOLUTELY NOT allow same sex couples to marry - that would be in violation of their beliefs. But at the same time, when two people fall in love and want to share their lives together and SOME of them get advantages and OTHERS don’t there is a problem.
“Civil marriages” between TWO PEOPLE - regardless of sexual orientation - should be allowed so that a significant portion of our population, albeit the “minority”, gets the same dignity, legal benefits/status and respect that the “majority” enjoys. While churches and religious organization are free to marry or NOT marry whoever they want.
Why is that so hard to fucking understand?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
When you start giving LEGAL advantages to a class of people and DENYING said advantages to another class of people it is flat out discrimination. I feel that “marriage” should be the province of religion/church. Those that feel strongly about their religious beliefs should go ahead and get “married” in the church. And the church should ABSOLUTELY NOT allow same sex couples to marry - that would be in violation of their beliefs. But at the same time, when two people fall in love and want to share their lives together and SOME of them get advantages and OTHERS don’t there is a problem.
“Civil marriages” between TWO PEOPLE - regardless of sexual orientation - should be allowed so that a significant portion of our population, albeit the “minority”, gets the same dignity, legal benefits/status and respect that the “majority” enjoys. While churches and religious organization are free to marry or NOT marry whoever they want.
Why is that so hard to fucking understand?[/quote]
I for one am not arguing against same sex unions…I only pointed out that it opens the door for the legal ARGUMENT for other forms of unions.
That’s all.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
When you start giving LEGAL advantages to a class of people and DENYING said advantages to another class of people it is flat out discrimination. I feel that “marriage” should be the province of religion/church. Those that feel strongly about their religious beliefs should go ahead and get “married” in the church. And the church should ABSOLUTELY NOT allow same sex couples to marry - that would be in violation of their beliefs. But at the same time, when two people fall in love and want to share their lives together and SOME of them get advantages and OTHERS don’t there is a problem.
“Civil marriages” between TWO PEOPLE - regardless of sexual orientation - should be allowed so that a significant portion of our population, albeit the “minority”, gets the same dignity, legal benefits/status and respect that the “majority” enjoys. While churches and religious organization are free to marry or NOT marry whoever they want.
Why is that so hard to fucking understand?[/quote]
What exactly are they being denied? I’m not sure dignity, status and respect are just something you can pass a law for. A marriage is a label given to a man and a woman just as a man is the label given to me. Is it discriminating that the state won’t recognize me as a woman based on the fact that I am a man?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
When you start giving LEGAL advantages to a class of people and DENYING said advantages to another class of people it is flat out discrimination. I feel that “marriage” should be the province of religion/church. Those that feel strongly about their religious beliefs should go ahead and get “married” in the church. And the church should ABSOLUTELY NOT allow same sex couples to marry - that would be in violation of their beliefs. But at the same time, when two people fall in love and want to share their lives together and SOME of them get advantages and OTHERS don’t there is a problem.
“Civil marriages” between TWO PEOPLE - regardless of sexual orientation - should be allowed so that a significant portion of our population, albeit the “minority”, gets the same dignity, legal benefits/status and respect that the “majority” enjoys. While churches and religious organization are free to marry or NOT marry whoever they want.
Why is that so hard to fucking understand?[/quote]
What exactly are they being denied? I’m not sure dignity, status and respect are just something you can pass a law for. A marriage is a label given to a man and a woman just as a man is the label given to me. Is it discriminating that the state won’t recognize me as a woman based on the fact that I am a man?[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is asking to be recognized as a different gender (not yet anyway, but that has nothing to do with this topic). They are asking that their RELATIONSHIP be respected and given the same LEGAL rights and responsibilities.
For example: When I get hit by a bus, my WIFE of 30 years can give the order to pull the plug and legally inherit all of my money. If a fag get’s hit by a bus, his next of kin has the right to pull the plug and inherit all his money NOT his “partner” of thirty years. His next of kin may not have spoken to him and called him a disgusting queer when he came out, but LEGALLY, they get the legal right to his money and ultimately his life and his “partner” get’s put out in the cold.
That’s bullshit. YOU might not give a fuck, but there’s plenty of people that are happily together for decades and just want the same rights that you and your wife simply take for granted.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I don’t think anyone is asking to be recognized as a different gender (not yet anyway, but that has nothing to do with this topic). They are asking that their RELATIONSHIP be respected and given the same LEGAL rights and responsibilities.
[/quote]
“not yet anyway”
This thread topic is about a slippery slope so I think that does qualify as on topic.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If a fag get’s hit by a bus, his next of kin has the right to pull the plug and inherit all his money NOT his “partner” of thirty years. His next of kin may not have spoken to him and called him a disgusting queer when he came out, but LEGALLY, they get the legal right to his money and ultimately his life and his “partner” get’s put out in the cold.
[/quote]
I’m sure many anti-gay marriage folks including the religious wouldn’t have a problem fixing that particular situation. Question for them, leaving marriage out what is your response to the above? If they are watching this thread.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I don’t think anyone is asking to be recognized as a different gender (not yet anyway, but that has nothing to do with this topic). They are asking that their RELATIONSHIP be respected and given the same LEGAL rights and responsibilities.
[/quote]
“not yet anyway”
This thread topic is about a slippery slope so I think that does qualify as on topic.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If a fag get’s hit by a bus, his next of kin has the right to pull the plug and inherit all his money NOT his “partner” of thirty years. His next of kin may not have spoken to him and called him a disgusting queer when he came out, but LEGALLY, they get the legal right to his money and ultimately his life and his “partner” get’s put out in the cold.
[/quote]
I’m sure many anti-gay marriage folks including the religious wouldn’t have a problem fixing that particular situation. Question for them, leaving marriage out what is your response to the above? If they are watching this thread.[/quote]
About people wanting to be recognized as different genders? I think it’s bullshit. If you’ve got a dick, you’re a dude. Plain and simple. You should use the Men’s room - regardless of your “gender identity”. That’s kinda black and white for me.
The thing with the marriage is that married people get all kinds of legal advantages. Since some people are not “straight”, they are denied access to those advantages. That’s wrong in my book. I don’t care what two consenting adults do. Some people view it as a “sin”. Those people can keep that shit to themselves and not legislate their religion on to other people. All I’m arguing for is a level playing field.
I’d also be just as happy if “marriages” were stripped of all legal advantages and reduced to contracts. Then everyone could just have a contract with whomever they wanted. I’d be perfectly fine with that too. But the way it is, just ain’t fair - and that’s un-American.