 Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 9554 Posts
|
Saturday, December 24, 2011 3:13:56 PM
My opinion, get the government completely out of the marriage/civil-union/friends with tax benefits/incest business altogether. Call them all civil unions for tax and legal purposes [..]
Your opinion contradicts itself and is therefore invalid.
If you think there should be any "tax and legal purposes", then you think that the government should be in, not out. |
|
ryanwi
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
66 Posts
|
Saturday, December 24, 2011 9:03:13 AM
Of course, if the bible doesn't agree with conservatives they can just change it...
http://bit.ly/3evLmk
(Conservapedia's Conservative Bible Project) |
|
 OldGumbieCat
Female, 18-29, Southern US
19 Posts
|
Saturday, December 24, 2011 8:39:24 AM
Ok, this is awesome. I know they're lowering themselves to the hateful level of the Christian right but in this case it's completely deserved and far more effective IMO. If people like Amy could understand kindness then they'd be a different kind of "Christian" in the first place, not a bigot who uses the bible to justify their bigotry! BTW Amy, there's far more said against adultery AND gluttony (ahem) in the Bible than there is against homosexuals.....
|
|
ryanwi
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
66 Posts
|
Saturday, December 24, 2011 8:39:03 AM
... they want. *Character counter is a liar. |
|
ryanwi
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
66 Posts
|
Saturday, December 24, 2011 8:37:49 AM
It could be for religious reasons. Or it could be simple f-ing common sense. Here, let me look up the word "marriage" in my dictionary:
Marriage (n) "the state of being united with a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual or contractual relationship recognized by law"
So it looks like athiests can get "married" but 2 dudes or 2 chicks can't. No religion involved at all. Just common word definitions.
Reality is I don't particularly give a horse testicle what they call it. Doesn't bother me in the least. But to say that there is absolutely no secular argument is idiotic.
My opinion, get the government completely out of the marriage/civil-union/friends with tax benefits/incest business altogether. Call them all civil unions for tax and legal purposes and let the people or churches or wiccan circles or gay communes or athiest clubs or whoever else needs a group identity call them whatever the f |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9554 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 4:13:34 PM
I've just noticed that a previous post of mine fell prey to the invisible character-eating monster that lives in IAB's server.
"it's the quickest way to get both th" should read:
It's the quickest way to get both the rights and the word.
Here in the UK, we have civil marriages (heterosexual only) and civil partnerships (homosexual only), purely as a pragmatic political move to get homosexual marriages into law as quickly as possible with as little fuss as possible (it worked very well). They're legally defined as being exactly the same in every respect and it's normal to call them both "marriage" anyway. So even people who care about getting the word "marriage" far more than they care about the legal rights (a position I really don't understand at all) should at least consider that route, because it works. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9554 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 4:04:26 PM
Even atheists can get legally married, so obviously it has nothing to do with religion.
I'd be prepared to bet that the people who oppose homosexual marriage also oppose atheist marriage and would outlaw it if they could.
There's simply no non-religious reason the government can't just call a gay marriage a gay marriage.
Religion and politics aren't seperate, though. So a religious reason is also a political one. It shouldn't be, but it is. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9554 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 4:02:32 PM
It's funny, most of what the gay marriage controversy is about is just semantics.
True, but it does have some very real effects.
There's no point to "civil unions" for gays anymore than there's a point to have "civil unions" for atheists.
I think the easiest way is to have *all* government recognition of formalised personal relationships labelled "civil unions" (or "civil partnerships", as they're called here). Put all the legal rights and responsibilities in there, everyone gets equal treatment under the law and the contentious word "marriage" is avoided.
But it's better to have the same legal status with different official names than different legal status. People who accept homosexual marriages call them that anyway, regardless of the official term, and people who don't won't call them marriages even if the government forms do, so it's the quickest way to get both th |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9554 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 3:53:16 PM
Wtf does this have to do with PETA?
I thought that it was obvious that maddux32 was drawing a comparison between the methods used by PETA and the methods used by LGBTetc advocacy groups.
Not a comparison between the twos sets of advocates. A comparison between the methods they use for their advocacy.
I'm surprised at the level of incomprehension and (from other posters, not necessarily you) knee-jerk unsubstantiated accusations against maddux32. Which rather supports his point - the responses he's getting are extremely PETA-like, especially the irrational and completely unconnected raving from I-IS-BORED. |
|
 LazyMe484
Male, 18-29, Canada
10503 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 2:45:39 PM
Hypocrisy should be punishable by public tazing. |
|
 SarahofBorg
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
3529 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 1:35:25 PM
It's funny, most of what the gay marriage controversy is about is just semantics. There's no point to "civil unions" for gays anymore than there's a point to have "civil unions" for atheists. Even atheists can get legally married, so obviously it has nothing to do with religion. There's simply no non-religious reason the government can't just call a gay marriage a gay marriage. |
|
 robosnitz
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
2752 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 9:57:23 AM
Damn gays. |
|
 Viking864
Male, 40-49, Southern US
817 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 9:25:55 AM
Koch is an idiot for what she did as well has her stance, but that was pretty classless. |
|
 jtrebowski
Male, 40-49, Southern US
3057 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 7:17:36 AM
Doesn't the bible say something about how she should be stoned to death now? |
|
 xCYBERDYNEx
Male, 18-29, Southern US
4798 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 6:21:37 AM
@Vimto, "Who said the Americans don't get sarcasm?"
Good question because that's a pretty f*cking retarded statement. |
|
 MattPrince
Male, 40-49, Europe
2221 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 4:22:47 AM
@vimto, they certainy have, a nailing for a nailing... |
|
 Vimto
Male, 40-49, Europe
1989 Posts
|
Friday, December 23, 2011 3:23:07 AM
Who said the Americans don't get sarcasm? Certainly the gay community have nailed it. |
|
 jkfld
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
135 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 11:55:43 PM
Somebody open a window before the smoke alarm goes off, because that bitch just got burned. |
|
 I-IS-BORED
Male, 18-29, Canada
2432 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:48:59 PM
@LillianDulci
nobody said the trash spewed from maddux32's mouth had to make sense |
|
 LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2696 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:44:18 PM
Wtf does this have to do with PETA? |
|
I-IS-BORED
Male, 18-29, Canada
2432 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:21:04 PM
"Nothing against the Gays, but you're turning into PETA. Would you stop it?"
Nothing against the Blacks, but you're turning into PETA. Would you stop it?
Nothing against the Women, but you're turning into PETA. Would you stop it?
Nothing against the Children, but you're turning into PETA. Would you stop it?
Nothing against the Common Folk, but you're turning into PETA. Would you stop it?
Ya, that sentence is definitely not hate speech or offensive and totally DOESN'T compare fighting for gay rights to fighting for animal rights (and thus call gays animals) |
|
I-IS-BORED
Male, 18-29, Canada
2432 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:16:11 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that a woman hearing "Ms Koch?" everyday is eventually going to hear "Ms, Koch?" |
|
 SilverThread
Male, 30-39, Western US
3360 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:50:03 PM
Pure Poetry. |
|
 Draculya
Male, 30-39, Asia
6328 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:24:52 PM
Religious people can define ceremonial marriages within their own religion as they want, but we shouldn't try to restrict the definition of civil union or common-law civil union because it denies important legal rights and protections to those that have a need and a right to expect it.
The concept of a legal civil union relates to the status of two people living in a what is equivalent to a state of matrimony. The ability to reproduce is not a prerequisite for such a union, or divorce would be compulsory at menopause.
This is a fundamental human right and is simply beyond the moral jurisdiction of religion. |
|
 Batmanners
Male, 18-29, Canada
4012 Posts
|
Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:24:08 PM
""Nothing against the Gays, but you're turning into PETA. Would you stop it?"
PETA fights for the "rights" of animals, the LBGT community is trying to have equal rights (they want to be able to get married...I don't know how else they are persecuted outside of high school otherwise) |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}