It is not happening now...Originally Posted by URNotserious
Find a church that will marry a **** couple...every benefit is equal with or without a church wedding....no discrimination...
|
|
It is not happening now...
Find a church that will marry a **** couple...every benefit is equal with or without a church wedding....no discrimination...
So you agree that your post here:
was inaccurate?
As they CANNOT both get the same license and hence getting a ceremony in a church means nothing really.
Not inaccurate...just poorly stated...it is what I would like to see happen...not what is happening....
And that's EXACTLY what we want. Hope you see, not making it complicated, just right.
And with that, my participation in this thread comes to an end. When we come to a point where our discourse reaches a level that if someone doesn't toe your line, they are the Gestapo (and you can type that without even a hint of the irony involved,) there is no need for further discussion--at least from me. Before making a post like this in the future, one should consider the words of Kirk Lazarus.
Again, that is great and all, but it doesn't mean that the Church of Christ or whatever religion has to morally accept it as a marriage.
You really are making it more difficult than it has to be, but not as simple as you want it to be(if that makes sense).
You have 2 issues. You want to infringe on the Baptist's(or whatever religion) and make them accept the term marriage= 2 consenting adults and you want equal protection.
What you should be arguing for is 1)freedom of religion to decide how one's religion defines marriage within their congregation and 2)equal legal protection for all couples. Traditionally, what we have called marriage really needs to be called civil unions or something like that. Churches, judges, mosques, etc can perform civil unions and it becomes a binding legal contract between consenting adults and the state. Then on top of that if you want a moral contract with your partner or church or whatever, you have a marriage. Heck, it could be a moral contract between 2 **** people saying vows to one another to say they are married.
In order to preserve one's religious freedom, you really need to change the legal term(and all the rights and protections) from marriage to something else like a civil union and allow churches to decide what they call a religious marriage.
I know this is semantics, but it is how you go about getting equal protection and preserving the right to religious freedom.
I'll join y****
Gestapo Cub? LOL....I don't think that will stick.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
Please cub, your side calls Obama a **** (and I get called one daily without a second thought by kc or ks), but the one time you get compared, as a bureaucrat who wants to legislate what kind of relationship people have, you eject from the discussion?
I like you a ton, more than anyone on this ****ing board, but grow a pair. Your views can evolve to match ours and you can still remain a "budget hawk".
I don't recall CUB ever calling Obama a ****. And even if he did; doesn't excuse Un from calling Cub "gestapo" simply because they disagree.
It isn't because cub disagrees. It is because he wants to tell my church, that believes in Jesus Christ and yada yada yada, can have some religious ceremonies recognized as union, while others are marriages.
The most I recall from a **** discussion with cub is the classic, NATIONAL SOCIALIST line, without any more discussion.
Again, I dont want Church of Christ or any other denomination to morally accept it. They can still consider it blasphemy just like they consider a non christian to be a sinner and bound for hell. Nothing anyone says or does can change that, nor does anyone here wants to. I dont even want them to marry a couple if they dont want to. All I want is for the state to either call ALL unions Civil unions OR Marriage. No ifs, ands or buts.
So I look at that this way, they're(Baptists or **** marriage opposers) infringing on every other religion as of now by keeping it to their definition. As a nation and an individual I'd rather err while being inclusionary(Pro **** marriage) than exclusionary(Anti **** marriage). Many religions including Islam and Christianity are notorious for not seeing women on the same level as men, but we as a nation look beyond that and extend the same rights to women that we do to men, dont we? Are we trampling on some religious rights? Sure. Is it worth it? You tell me.
Again, could not agree more(especially the bolded part). Keep it consistent for all involved and we wouldn't have this disagreement.
So when I said, lets call all unions to be Civil Unions hetero or ****, this is exactly what I meant. Consistently call it a Civil Union, Domestic partnership, Joint Venture or Hooking up for all couples involved and we have equality. Do what it takes to achieve that equality, this has been the crux of my argument.
Good luck on getting religious zealots to agree to this. This is exactly what they do not want.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
Cub can make his own argument; but let's leave the name calling out of it. We like to think we are better than "his side" so why use the same juvenile tactics? From what I can tell, he's on the "side" of **** marriage, just not right now. While I disagree with his incremental approach, he's on the right track. Why run him off and push him to back away from even that?
As far as I know, I'm the only one with "skin in the game" on this topic, so if you an URN can't be civil, I would prefer you not support my rights.
The following users like this post: McRib
It isnt that he disagrees with me. Its the topic of discussion, had he disagreed with me on the state of OU football he wouldn't be called that. He being a majority wants to trample on the rights of a minority toeing the (intolerant)religious freedom line while at the same time walking all over the religious rights of others. The ONLY reason you BBS cannot marry your partner is because Cub's bible says it has to be between a man and a woman.
Even though a person carrying a Dhamma, Tanakh, Gita, Gurugranthsahib says its OK. No, we have to follow the rules set by the book that Cub carries.
Yeah, fits the bill of Gestapo for me.
I didn't call cub a ****, I just pointed out that I am frequently called one by people on his "side."
Also, I know you are ****, and I know you lean left, and I like you a lot. But when my christian religion is trumped by someone else's Christianity, and people I sit with in Sunday school are told they can't get married, I tend to speak up. I am not trying to run cub off, I am trying to evolve his views before he "joins the circus" as he phrased it.
I thought I said I would prefer his way, because then the Courts can smack him down and say separate but equal is not equal.
But he doesn't really disagree. The only thing we are squabbling on is the timing. I think his argument is flawed and I think you are basically saying that if his church doesn't want to marry **** couples; that is fine which defeats the argument that his church's beliefs are being trampled. To some extent we all want everyone to follow the rules set by our beliefs, otherwise we wouldn't be so passionate about this or any other topic in the dome.
Gestapo - "A police organization that employs terroristic methods to control a populace." I would hardly call Cub's; or anyone's; tactics on this board terroristic and obviously they haven't done much good at controlling.
So; you get called a ****; grow a pair. Is it wrong; yes. Is it unfair; yes. But beat them by turning the other cheek and refusing to stoop to their level. The discourse in Washington and throughout the country is out of control because each side points at the other says "but they called me a name first".
I think it's great that you two want us ****s to have the ability to make the same relationship mistakes that you straights do. I think it's great that you are so passionate about this topic, but to be honest; you can change more minds sharing that passion with your neighbors, friends, co-workers and family members than you can trying to change minds here. Keep the passion but turn off the rhetoric; it's conduct unbecoming to the cause.
The following users like this post: okie52
Fair enough, though I will remind the group that I have not been hostile to anyone in this thread. I pointed out that I am called one daily and don't eject from most threads.
And again, in the day of casual comparisons to ****sm, I don't think URN (good nick) has been either, beyond the one overt post. Just passion eeking through the inner webs.
But I will not accept separate but equal as a good compromise on equality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
