Prop 8?

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When you attempt to use your personal morality to outlaw the actions of others, you are acting out of fear of the results of others' actions, Mcg. You just don't want to admit that in your heart you are scared of the fags, because part of your persona depends on feeling superior to them.

My statement remains correct. Neither you nor any other supporter of discrimination - which is to say, bigots - have explained what your rationale is for denying rights to others, and is not based on fear. You certainly have had the chance to do so.

Cycloptichorn

This is why your argument falls apart. I am not using my personal morality to outlaw anything. You keep banging away with your "bigot" as though you might shame me, or others, into suddenly realizing I am wrong about my opinion. Like anyone here actually cares what someone on an anonymous internet forum actually thinks.

I have stated plenty of times on these fora that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuals deserve to have the same coupling rights as anyone else through a government sanctioned civil union. However, I balk at calling it a marriage as that has religious implications and I see no reason to force others to recognize a homosexual union as a marriage.

You keep blathering on about fear and bigots though. It does nothing to help the homosexual community achieve their goals though. All it does is piss off the voters who get to make the decisions en masse. Keep calling them bigots and watch the results. Nothing polarizes people better then insulting them and at this time, they have the majority opinion. I am sure you don't care though, after all, they are just bigots.

You're right, Bigot; I don't care if I am pissing you off or polarizing you. See, we are going to stomp right over your forehead, no matter what you think. You don't really have another option. It's never okay to be a bigot and your feelings aren't a factor in the equation at all.

You state,

Quote:

However, I balk at calling it a marriage as that has religious implications and I see no reason to force others to recognize a homosexual union as a marriage.

What are the religious implications? What do you fear the result would be if we did call them that? You really don't understand what Fear is, at all, do you?

What specifically would the negative effects of allowing gay marriage be, and why do you wish to avoid them?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I have stated plenty of times on these fora that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuals deserve to have the same coupling rights as anyone else through a government sanctioned civil union. However, I balk at calling it a marriage as that has religious implications and I see no reason to force others to recognize a homosexual union as a marriage.

Wait. Force others to recognize the marriage? Gays don't care if others recognize their marriage, only that the state does.

Are you married? Am I forced to recognize your marriage? Respect it? No. Hell, I can even condemn it, but you can do it and enjoy it, and I remain uneffected by it.

Saying that you think the LGBT community deserves the same coupling rights then denying them recognition by the state is hypocritical. You are arguing for parallel institutions, and there exists no need for such a thing here.

You don't own marriage.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Wait. Force others to recognize the marriage? Gays don't care if others recognize their marriage, only that the state does.

Are you married? Am I forced to recognize your marriage? Respect it? No. Hell, I can even condemn it, but you can do it and enjoy it, and I remain uneffected by it.

Saying that you think the LGBT community deserves the same coupling rights then denying them recognition by the state is hypocritical. You are arguing for parallel institutions, and there exists no need for such a thing here.

You don't own marriage.

T
K
O

You have a hard time with the whole reading thing, huh?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why so many people fear gay marriage is a mystery without good answers.

Why do you think we fear it? We disagree with it.

No, you don't. You fear it. If you disagreed with it, you wouldn't care what other people do with THEIR lives - instead, you fear what it will do to YOUR life. This is the entire underlying reason for your and others' bigotry.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I guess you're a greater expert on my motivations then I am. Of course.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Not interested in answering my questions?

Answer to what you argue for and if you claim otherwise defend it.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Marriage is a civil and legal institution. A church marriage is only legally recognized because the state says it is. If you don't get the license and the blood test if your state still requires it, you're not legally married no matter what your church may do. You can also get married totally without any religious component. So using possible religious implications as a reason to bar gay marriage is completely irrelevant.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I have stated plenty of times on these fora that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuals deserve to have the same coupling rights as anyone else through a government sanctioned civil union. However, I balk at calling it a marriage as that has religious implications and I see no reason to force others to recognize a homosexual union as a marriage.

If calling a same sex civil union "marriage" has religious implications, then the same is certainly true for any state sanctioned union. For example, state sanctioned marriages currently "force" many Christians to recognize unions as a "marriage" even though their religion rejects it for various reasons. Many denominations don't recognize divorce and remarriage, yet the state forces them to accept this by calling a union between partners who have had a divorce in the past a "marriage".

2 Replies

@old europe,

Sorry OE. McG can't be held to a logical standard like that. That's different. You MUST have a reading problem.

T
K
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I have stated plenty of times on these fora that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuals deserve to have the same coupling rights as anyone else through a government sanctioned civil union. However, I balk at calling it a marriage as that has religious implications and I see no reason to force others to recognize a homosexual union as a marriage.

Herr Diest and Old Europe disagree.

The solution is simple. Let the Supreme Court decide--yes, even with Sotormoyure on the Bench.

The Supreme Court is well aware of the fact that the large majority of states either have constitutions which PRESCRIBE that only a man and a woman can be said to be married--or that ban homosexual marriages.

But, I am eager to see what our Courageous President will say. I do hope that he will come out four square for FULL MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS.

Because he is a doubletalking flim flam artist, he will not do so. He knows how to read the polls.

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

Because he is a doubletalking flim flam artist, he will not do so. He knows how to read the polls.

That could explain a few "flip-flops" as they were called when McCain changed his mind.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why so many people fear gay marriage is a mystery without good answers.

Why do you think we fear it? We disagree with it.

No, you don't. You fear it. If you disagreed with it, you wouldn't care what other people do with THEIR lives - instead, you fear what it will do to YOUR life. This is the entire underlying reason for your and others' bigotry.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I guess you're a greater expert on my motivations then I am. Of course.

Oh, you pretend that people are - in general and you in specific - good, at critically self-examining the underlying causes of their behaviors and actions? That they are willing to point out their moral and ethical failings to others, instead of making excuses to avoid them?

Upon what evidence do you base this opinion? See, I ask, because this does not match what I and many others have observed in life.

Circling back around: neither you nor any other has described a non-fear based reason to oppose gay marriage.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Tell me Cyclo--what exactly takes place in a homosexual relationship which is a cause for such obvious concern. Is it the way they make the beds or wash the pots or arrange the plantpots on the patio.

It must be a big deal for the Cal. SC to be giving it all this attention on the wages they are on.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Tell me Cyclo--what exactly takes place in a homosexual relationship which is a cause for such obvious concern. Is it the way they make the beds or wash the pots or arrange the plantpots on the patio.

It must be a big deal for the Cal. SC to be giving it all this attention on the wages they are on.

I don't understand your question.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

What do they do that is such a cause of consternation and vast expense? It's an easy enough question.

A 60 year old ex-military man once asked me in a pub what lesbians actually do.

I answered him to the best of my knowledge. He was flabbergasted. He was shocked that I had a vague idea.

Do you not know?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Are you dense?

What kind of answer are you looking for. What do hetrosexual people do? Give us an example of what you consider would be worth such a "vast expense."

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Heterosexual men shag women and heterosexual women get shagged by men. There is also what is known in the trade as "foreplay" such as a tranfer of cash or benefits in kind and listening to tales of woe.

They don't dicuss that in the Cal. SC do they?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

His vast expanse is between his left ear and his right. Anyone could stick an 8" dildo through it and he would not notice it.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

This is what I said.

McGentrix wrote:

I have stated plenty of times on these fora that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuals deserve to have the same coupling rights as anyone else through a government sanctioned civil union.

This is what you said.

Diest TKO wrote:

Saying that you think the LGBT community deserves the same coupling rights then denying them recognition by the state is hypocritical. You are arguing for parallel institutions, and there exists no need for such a thing here.

Now, use your reading skills and tell me where I support "denying them recognition by the state". Show me where the hypocritical part is genius.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I have stated plenty of times on these fora that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuals deserve to have the same coupling rights as anyone else through a government sanctioned civil union. However, I balk at calling it a marriage as that has religious implications and I see no reason to force others to recognize a homosexual union as a marriage.

If calling a same sex civil union "marriage" has religious implications, then the same is certainly true for any state sanctioned union. For example, state sanctioned marriages currently "force" many Christians to recognize unions as a "marriage" even though their religion rejects it for various reasons. Many denominations don't recognize divorce and remarriage, yet the state forces them to accept this by calling a union between partners who have had a divorce in the past a "marriage".

No, "marriage", in and of itself, denotes a religious implication. In no way does a civil union "force" anyone to recognize anything beyond legal implications. Should a Christian be in a law enforcement career, then yes, they would need to obey the law. That does not imply that they need to go home and still be "forced" to acknowledge that though.

You seem to be under some odd sense of what is "forced" upon anyone.

Should a church be required to wed anyone because the law says it is legal? Would you be willing to see a civil action brought forth against a community church because a homosexual couple desires to have their "wedding" in a church because they are of the faith? That's where it's heading. It's ridiculous if you ask me. You are forcing a group of people to practice something that goes against their very core beliefs. I am sure Cyc will barge in calling them bigots, but they are not. They are just people that disagree with you.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

No, "marriage", in and of itself, denotes a religious implication. In no way does a civil union "force" anyone to recognize anything beyond legal implications. Should a Christian be in a law enforcement career, then yes, they would need to obey the law. That does not imply that they need to go home and still be "forced" to acknowledge that though.

You seem to be under some odd sense of what is "forced" upon anyone.

Well, I probably didn't word that very well. I understand that you're saying that the term "marriage" has a religious connotation. What I was trying to say was: if using the term "marriage" for a state sanctioned same sex union would force people to recognize such a union as a marriage, even against what their religious beliefs would tell them, then the same thing is certainly also true when using the term "marriage" for a a state sanctioned union between partners of opposite sex.

For example, following your argument, civil marriage as currently defined would force Catholics to recognize any union between a man and a woman - even if both of them have been married before - as a marriage. This is clearly a violation of their religious beliefs, where a marriage is a sacrament that cannot be dissolved (except in very rare cases, when the Pope personally, under Petrine Privilege, dissolves a marriage to facilitate remarriage).

McGentrix wrote:

Should a church be required to wed anyone because the law says it is legal?

I don't think so. Currently, Catholic churches won't marry a couple when one of the partners has been divorced, as the church doesn't recognize divorce. According to Canon Law, the partner is still married to his first spouse. In fact, "marriage", as defined by the church, has the explicit goal of procreation, and the church could even refuse to marry a couple that does not appear to be committed to that goal.

I would think the same thing would be true if same sex civil unions became the law and would be called "marriage". I don't see any kind of repercussion for what kind of union a church would have to recognize or could refuse to recognize.

McGentrix wrote:

Would you be willing to see a civil action brought forth against a community church because a homosexual couple desires to have their "wedding" in a church because they are of the faith?

I don't see this as desirable, but I also have a hard time even imagining such a case. "Marriage", as currently defined by the state, violates the definition of that term in quite a number of denominations. Has there ever been a civil action brought forth against a church because of that?

McGentrix wrote:

That's where it's heading. It's ridiculous if you ask me.

Well, I agree, that would certainly be ridiculous. I just don't see this happening.

McGentrix wrote:

You are forcing a group of people to practice something that goes against their very core beliefs.

Well, that's already happening then.

I guess if you really want to avoid that, the only solution is to quit using the term "marriage" for any kind of state sanctioned union.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know