Do you know the origins of those words? They aren't in the Constitution. The text of the first simply says Congress isn't going to make any laws about it. The origin of the phrase you keep using was a letter from Jefferson to a church, ensuring that the government would not interfere with them.
The government should not have any involvement in marriage.
There should be some legal union that any 2 (or more!) consenting adults can enter into that grants executorship and those sorts of legal rights. No tax breaks or any of that bull**** that discriminates against single people.
Then straight people, **** people, polygamists, incestuous people, whomever... Can have their own marriage ceremony sanctioned by any religion or tribe or anything but the federal government.
You're overcooking the hyperbole again. Getting or not getting a tax break isn't treating people as second cl**** citizens. Single people aren't second cl**** citizens.
Conservatives need to smarten up on this issue though. Lower taxes and less government control of your property is a conservative position. (It is a bit amusing though that some of the most strident supporters are the same people pushing for the elimination of the marriage tax credit.) Instead, they get so busy worrying about protecting marriage they forget to offer an alternative. The reason is simple--many believe homosexuality is a sin. Marriage has traditionally been a religious union. Allowing ****s to marry then becomes a direct ****ault on their religious beliefs--that's why naming it something else can effectively make the case for passage.
There's not going to be a lot of flex from the religious community in the short term. Turn this from 'you're a bigot' to 'let's get equality and protect your beliefs at the same time' and you have a winning position. Religious people are tired of being called horrible things for their beliefs. Abortion is another example--if you're pro-life, you're accused of hating women (which, honestly is a colossally stupid accusation. There are tons of pro-life women and pro-life men such as myself that believe in and advocate daily for full equality.) It has nothing to do with women--it has to do with unborn kids. In the same way, **** marriage has nothing to do with ****s--it's about marriage.
Conservatives are too single minded because of the ****ault on religion in so many other areas. Liberals are too single minded because they think the right is a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathers. Those in power enjoy these positions, because it keeps them in power. Everyone taking a position that eliminates recognition of the problem for both sides and a solution that's effective in protecting all parties is a dupe of those pulling the strings.
Will the ****s be afforded the same privileges when they get married? Then they ARE(being treated like) second cl**** citizens.
Your comparison of single people to the **** population is not the same thing. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. What would be a more apt comparison for that is Single people = Other citizens of US under the age of 21 when it comes to drinking. Any individual has to cross that mark(of being 21 years of age/get married) to be eligible to enjoy that particular privilege. Be it Black, White, Asian or anyone for that matter but we all get to enjoy it.
But go ahead and keep claiming that its(Single population and ****s) one and the same thing. Heh.
bigotry according to Merriam Webster: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Unless we are also happy to accept Quran that says dont eat pork, so ban pork for everyone now. Geeta does one better, only vegetarian so ban all meat.
But for the sake of Jesus Christ, this definition of marriage is in the bible which has no bearing on a Jewish **** guy or a Buddhist **** guy or a Bahai. Just like the quote from Quran about not eating pork has absolutely no bearing on YOU. Can you really not see that?
We did something like that not very long ago.
If it was truly about marriage; more churches would ban divorced people from getting married in their church for the second, third, tenth time and keep them from communion.
The sister wives need to get thier legal marriage on.
I will say, cub is not a bigot, but he is on the wrong side of history here and is coming off as a bit of a segregation apologist in here.
Is still don't know how someone who bills them self as conservative is OK with the state government telling churches certain members can get married and certain members can get unioned, or whatever the verb would be.
Was Clinton on the wrong side of history when he got DADT through? Or was he helping advance **** rights? It depends on perspective I guess--this is the same.
You are talking about protecting the feelings of anti **** Christians, what about pro **** Christians like the UCC denomination? Do certain Christians deserve their feelings to be validated more than others?
Not really the same thing. I don't really have an opinion on don't ask don't tell because it is not a policy anymore. That issue has been settled.Was Clinton on the wrong side of history when he got DADT through? Or was he helping advance **** rights? It depends on perspective I guess--this is the same.
Not feelings--religious belief. A marriage is performed by an actual minister (or rabbi, imam, priest, etc) and it consists of a man and woman. Civil unions encomp**** ceremonies performed by judges, e-preachers, etc and include **** or straight relationships.
According to Quran where, marriage is a union between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman.
According to Buddhism where, homosexuality isn't a sin and is for following laws of the land when it comes to marriage. So if they were to allow ****s to marry, they would be all for it.
According to Hinduism where, homosexuality isn't a sin either and they believe in a life more transcendant than the current one so do not care if they do get married.
Now tell me why ONLY ONE of these views are more important than the other?
Are Christians who accept homosexual marriage, Christians in your view cub?
I will say though I don't think that what makes us Christians is what we accept from others, but rather what we expect from ourselves.
Would you condemn that behavior or p**** it off as tradition and beliefs or oppose it? If you were an Indian, my guess is you would be the one front in line holding the torch trying to follow that tradition regardless of how painful it maybe for the victim at hand because to you it is as important as Diwali.
All you're doing is trying to hide your bigotry behind a thin veil that you call tradition, religion and beliefs. We see you though, quite clearly too.
It's interesting you lament my supposed bigotry while espousing your loathing for Christianity isn't it?
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
It appears I am not the one that fits the definition. I have shown no lack of tolerance of any differing opinions, nor have I been insulting to anyone that holds a different belief than my own. Can you say as much?
Civil unions do nothing you are alleging. Additionally, I've in no way made a claim that one is better than another--simply that the union is different. I've likened this to other groups and how the government recognizes them.
Hesus Cristo!!! Going in circles again????
Cub: Lets call them Civil Unions
Me: No we cant because it isn't equality
Cub: We cant call them 'marriage' because (ONLY) according to Christianity its between a man and a woman. And we have to respect these beliefs (even if they treat **** Americans as second cl**** citizens.)
Me: Not relevant as its not for the Christians to define it, not only for **** Christians but **** Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bahais, Agnostics or anyone really.
Cub: This country is based on Judeo-Christian values so this has to be taken into account and as a result it should reflect that in this country's policies.
Me: Thats bigotry. Wrong. This is a Secular country, no one cares or should care what bible thinks of anything when it comes to policy. Sorry!
Cub: Lets call them Civil Unions. As it is a different kind of a union. So Civil Union?
And now, Me: It isn't different(just because the bible says so). Its a union of two people/human beings/souls and since we call that marriage, it should be called marriage. Not union, not a partnership, not a joint venture, nothing of that sort. Because to short them from any privileges that we have or to call it anything other than marriage will not only be a disservice to them, their families, kids and anyone related to them but also a grand failure on our part as a community, people and country in general.
Last edited by URNotserious; 02-26-2013 at 12:48 AM.
Your last paragraph is pure opinion. Telling churches that they will accept and sanction a union that they believe goes against some of the core tenets of their religion is doing exactly what you are alleging I am doing.
You are 100% right on one point though. We are going in circles. Your position towards the people that oppose **** marriage is 'f em. They're bigots.' My position is protection of both parties. Your position seems to be that it's bigotry to call a cap a hat because it has a brim all the way around it instead of just in the front.
One last time:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
There is absolutely nothing in my position that can be construed as complete or even partial intolerance of ****s. There is no intolerance of an opinion saying ****s should be married. I am simply offering a differing opinion because I see a lot of problems stemming from the Feds telling states they are going to accept **** marriage--having a different opinion isn't bigotry. You do a disservice to your argument (and yourself) by repeatedly accusing me of bigotry. It seems you are doing the same thing that happens on the abortion debate though--as I've responded to BB on several occasions: it's not about ****s, it's about marriage, and the protection of the religion tied to that union.
We can agree to disagree though. F'em won't work. If SCOTUS takes it up, they will probably kick it to the states. We'll see though.
So do you pro **** marriage people care if Church X says they won't marry **** couples, as long as Oklahoma/USA recognizes **** marriages as true marriages same as everyone else?
I think that's the side I'd lean on. It's not my place to determine who can and can't marry.. but It's also not my place to tell you who you have to marry either.
Just this dude's opinion though.