Civil Unions Part II [Archive]

Quaker

8th November 2006, 11:37 PM

I understand there is already a thread on gay marriage, but this is to discuss post election results in regards to gay marriage and actually more importantly civil unions.

What are the reasons if any for banning ANY legal recognition between two people?

Here is the wording from the proposals which passed:

Proposed amendment to South Carolina Constitution would specify that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists solely of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union would be recognized as valid or legal. The state would be prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.

Proposed amendment to South Dakota Constitution would define and recognize marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.

Proposed amendment to Virginia Constitution would define marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. It would also ban the future creation or recognition of "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage."

Proposed amendment to Wisconsin Constitution would define marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. It also states that "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Does anyone else not see this as blatant discrimination?

swiss miss

9th November 2006, 01:01 AM

i was simply going to write yes i agree this is totally discriminatory and then i had to delete it and have a good think about what this means about myself and society in general (so be warned, this could get a little heavy going!)

on the one hand you have to rejoice that the people in these states had the democratic right to vote on a subject such as this - and looking at it this way we have to accept that democracy has spoken. Everyone had the chance to vote without discrimination or persecution and the result was to make it law that same sex-marriages should not be allowed. Now whatever your personal view on this, people all over the world would be extactic for even having the chance to vote democratically and i think this is an important thing to consider.........

on the other hand if we had the democratic right to vote on subjects such as whether we could all drive faster or use currently banned drugs - democratically these things might be allowed becuase of public opinion. What we have to ask ourselves is: "is every citizen qualified to make a decision about which they dont understand the consequences?" Laws are passed for the good of everybody and sometimes these laws have to passed through bravery and against public opinion. Take the iraq war as another example - public opinion was such that the war shouldnt have occurred (at least in some places) but that was based on being against war rather than actually knowing whether ther were WMD at saddams disposal - as such were we qualified to be against the war - if there was WMD then i think governments would have been vindicated for going there. This is an example where government has to make a stand and go aginst public opinion and do what is right.....

so i hope at least some of you are still with me - the whole point about this rant is that on some occasions you should expect the government to make allowances and in my opinion there shouldnt have been the option for voting on this subject - i know this contradicts my first paragraph but i hope you have followed the rest of what i said in explaining why i feel this way.

apologies this is so long/controvertial

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 01:02 AM

I don't exactly see it as discrimination. You already know how I stand on gays, let alone gay marriage.

But putting my views aside I am not really surprised. You have to take in account religion as always. This country along with hundreds of others have religions that condemn same sex relations and unions. No matter how much liberal and new age bullshit the media puts out trying to say gays and gay marriage is right... religion will always win in the end. I mean how many Christians, true Christians alone live in the United States. Give it another 20 years maybe when all of the true Christians and other religious sects start to die off indefinitely. Maybe then things will change... but imo with this issue, not for the best. Hell I don't even believe in marriage AT ALL but I still have my opinions about it in our society.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 01:36 AM

I don't exactly see it as discrimination. And thats what I am trying to find out... why not?

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 01:41 AM

And thats what I am trying to find out... why not?

I see gays along the same "discrimination" lines as a pedophile. A registered sex offender isn't allowed to be within 10 miles of a school.... I guess you could call that discrimination no?

But ya see thats how I think with my opinions of gays strewed in. I'm sure someone else on these lovely liberal forums could tell you something else that you would want to hear.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 01:55 AM

I see gays along the same "discrimination" lines as a pedophile. A registered sex offender isn't allowed to be within 10 miles of a school.... I guess you could call that discrimination no? ummm not so much. Is it safe to allow a pedophile within 10 miles of a school? Now is it unsafe to allow two people to sign their names to a peice of paper giving them equal protection under the LAW as any straight couple?

I'm sure someone else on these lovely liberal forums could tell you something else that you would want to hear. What I want to hear is valid reasons against civil unions and all I am hearing is just non-sense.

Please enlighten me... anyone?

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 01:59 AM

ummm not so much. Is it safe to allow a pedophile within 10 miles of a school? Now is it unsafe to allow two people to sign their names to a peice of paper giving them equal protection under the LAW as any straight couple?

But I see gays as a danger to society too, as well as the obvious reasons pedophiles are....soooo thats why I use that analogy.

Beli

9th November 2006, 02:00 AM

But I see gays as a danger to society too, as well as the obvious reasons pedophiles are....soooo thats why I use that analogy.

soooo how do gay people hurt society?

Maija

9th November 2006, 02:07 AM

ummm not so much. Is it safe to allow a pedophile within 10 miles of a school? Now is it unsafe to allow two people to sign their names to a peice of paper giving them equal protection under the LAW as any straight couple?

What I want to hear is valid reasons against civil unions and all I am hearing is just non-sense.

Please enlighten me... anyone?

I agree with you Quaker. There is no need to eliminate Civil Unions.

I see it like this: Anyone should be entitled to a Civil Union. Marriage and weddings are RELIGOUS ceremonies that should be goverened by your church NOT legislature, just like Christmas or Easter celebrations.

A church should have the right to restirct gay marriage, per their particular beliefs. However, Civil Unions should be open to all.

Kloaked Spirit

9th November 2006, 02:08 AM

I see gays along the same "discrimination" lines as a pedophile. A registered sex offender isn't allowed to be within 10 miles of a school.... I guess you could call that discrimination no?

Pedophiles have already established a history of harming children. This is why they're not allowed around children. It's just like a permanent restraining order. What have Gays done that you've established a history of that would make it legally ok for them to not have a civil union? If a church wants to go ahead and say they won't recognize it under God, then fine. If they don't want to do the ceremonies, then fine. I have no problems with that.

Loopus

9th November 2006, 02:15 AM

I agree with you Quaker. There is no need to eliminate Civil Unions.

I see it like this: Anyone should be entitled to a Civil Union. Marriage and weddings are RELIGOUS ceremonies that should be goverened by your church NOT legislature, just like Christmas or Easter celebrations.

A church should have the right to restirct gay marriage, per their particular beliefs. However, Civil Unions should be open to all.

I agree with Maija. As a church going Catholic, I plan on getting married to my fiancee (hopefully next fall, but she's pushing for May) From a religious point of view, the Chuch has it's stance on gay marriage, it also has a stance of not persecuting anyone. I feel that it is wrong to deny any law abiding indiviual(s) full protection, or deny their happiness.

Civil Unions = Marriage, same thing, cut out the farce

Wutty

9th November 2006, 03:12 AM

Beli

9th November 2006, 03:23 AM

so how would the religious people get past these Bible verses?

If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.
[John 8:7]
Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be
judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]

personally, what one consensual adult does with another consensual adult behind closed bedroom (or whatever room) doesn't bother me at all. and if they hit on me, or my husband for that matter, a polite "no" usually does the trick.
i do feel that the civil union is a very good thing as far as legality issues go. i have heard of stories where one partner is dying and the family refuses to let the other partner visit the sick one since the partner has no rights.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 03:47 AM

I try not to be discrimitory but marriage should really remain male + female. Civil unions should be open to all.

But then you could argue about the numbers allowed to join civil union saying I want an open relationship?!?

Simple, taking it from a legal standpoint... marriage and/or a civil union is set up to ONLY work with two participants. There is not a system in place to work with the additional people, therefore there would be no way to include that with the current system.

Furyous

9th November 2006, 04:28 AM

As far as I'm concerned, this really is a religious issue. I personally don't have anything against gays. I worked as a bouncer at a bar that had a heavily gay clientele. They were always very polite to me, and many of them befriended me, even though I was this big tough straight guy. We all respected eachother, and it was alright.

Here's the thing. I think they started out going for the wrong thing. They started out calling them marriages, and that put fear into the hearts of many religious people. If they ever want to win this battle they are going to need a good spokesman who will make it clear to straight, religious Americans that what they seek is not the right to come in to your church and have big gay weddings, but rather to be afforded the protection that straight married people are given under marriage.

It's going to be a hard sell though. I grew up in a very fundemental church, and as far as those people are concerned, gay people are sub-human. Many fundementalists consider gays to be of a lower life form really. They think that what they are doing is openly denying christs teachings, and many of them view the gay marriage issue as an attack on on their own beliefs. I know this might not make perfect sense to everyone reading it, cuz I tend to ramble, but if American gays want to be given the same rights as straight married couples, I think they're going to have to find another way to market their idea. Stop referring to it as marriage, and find some way to make the idea of their unons palatable to the American christians.

As with any attempt to sell something to the public, when you fail, you've got to go back to the drawing board, and find a way to sell your idea/product to the your target audience. If they can find a way to prove that this is a money maker, for example, they'd have a lot easier time selling the idea.

Just one man's opinion....

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 04:39 AM

Of course it's religious. Call it what you will. In the eyes of religion in this country civil unions still means = marriage.

Thats why it still doesn't sell to a majority.

Furyous

9th November 2006, 04:45 AM

Of course it's religious. Call it what you will. In the eyes of religion in this country civil unions still means = marriage.

Thats why it still doesn't sell to a majority.

Exactly my point. They need to rethink the idea and come up with a different marketing strategy.
I think it would go through if they could find a way to make it less offensive to the "Right".

Exploding Sockpuppet

9th November 2006, 05:14 AM

I support gay marriage.
(as long as both chicks are hot.)

Beli

9th November 2006, 05:51 AM

Of course it's religious. Call it what you will. In the eyes of religion in this country civil unions still means = marriage.

Thats why it still doesn't sell to a majority.

how can you calling hating someone religious? i was still under the impression that God loved everyone the same no matter what. so that means that He loves gay people just as much as He loves everyone else right?
this has always been confusing to me when someone uses religion as an excuse hate someone
so no gay people should be going to church then either?

Loopus

9th November 2006, 06:00 AM

course not BTH, they're all Priests :hidey:

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 06:33 AM

how can you calling hating someone religious? i was still under the impression that God loved everyone the same no matter what. so that means that He loves gay people just as much as He loves everyone else right?
this has always been confusing to me when someone uses religion as an excuse hate someone
so no gay people should be going to church then either?

Not sure where your getting at but whatever.

1. I'm not religious in the least.
2. Yes I hate gay people.
3. No, "God loves everyone" is what parents tell their children growing up, in depth reading of the bible and understanding of Christianity shows that this is far from absolute truth.
4. If there are gays going to church they are a walking contradiction and are really fucked up more than them just being gay.

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 06:46 AM

screw the fags they want to stick dicks up each others asses let them do it in the pricvacy of there homes they dont deserve any rights for being vile disgusting filth.

Nickything

9th November 2006, 06:50 AM

You hate gay people? Please explain why.

I don't understand how you can make such a sweeping statement. or is it that you find what gay men might or might not get up to in bed, in the privacy of their own homes repulsive? that of course would be your right but then it would be less ignorant to say " i hate the idea of two men having anal sex" rather than claiming to hate every gay person.

I find the ignorance of such a stance unbelievable.

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 06:57 AM

well descripotion of marriage is between a woman and a man. its the basis of the whole family that s why married people have certain rightw. why should we give 2 sword fighters rights they cant procreate. if they want rights then marry a woman

swiss miss

9th November 2006, 07:10 AM

Not sure where your getting at but whatever.

1. I'm not religious in the least.
2. Yes I hate gay people.
3. No, "God loves everyone" is what parents tell their children growing up, in depth reading of the bible and understanding of Christianity shows that this is far from absolute truth.
4. If there are gays going to church they are a walking contradiction and are really fucked up more than them just being gay.

so every person that has had sex outside of marriage (sorry mum but its true :hidey: ) is a walking contradiction, every catholic boy who has masturbated, anybody that has ever stolen anything, disobeyed their parents, had an affair with a married person (there is still something to be proud of mum as i have not done this one yet (y) ) etc etc, if there is anybody left in church without some sort of contradiction then i would be immensely surprised - are any of these sins worse than being gay?? it troubles me to think that church goes can be so selective in what they decide is a sin not worthy of gods forgiveness, which is not to say i think gay people should be asking for forgiveness for being gay i just mean who is anyone to say that a gay person cant be religious unless they have never committed a sin in their life, and lets face it there cant truly be anyone who hasnt.......

Quaker

9th November 2006, 07:32 AM

Of course it's religious. Please elaborate how a legal contract is religious. Call it what you will. In the eyes of religion in this country civil unions still means = marriage. So in essence religion has a monopoly on love?

Thats why it still doesn't sell to a majority. Civil rights should NOT have to be "sold" to anyone. EVERYONE deserves them whether being black, muslim, gay or whatever. Simple as that.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 07:34 AM

screw the fags they want to stick dicks up each others asses let them do it in the pricvacy of there homes they dont deserve any rights for being vile disgusting filth.

well descripotion of marriage is between a woman and a man. its the basis of the whole family that s why married people have certain rightw. why should we give 2 sword fighters rights they cant procreate. if they want rights then marry a woman

TUNG get a fucking life and grow your ass up.... good lord.

Your not even worth a more detailed response... unless you really want your ass owned?

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 07:41 AM

Actually tung probably is making more sense than anyone. I have tried to refrain from such "harsh" language to the gays in this thread however.

First off Tung is right marriage between a man and a woman IS the entire family structure. Two gays raising infants to grow up in that skewed world makes me sick. In other words, you don't have to be religious to know that the family structure was designed to be a helluva lot different than 2 gays.

But you know all this talk of "rights" with civil unions and shit. It's a buncha bullshit. Hell I guess if I go live and hang out with my best friend for most my life we should attempt to have a "civil union" just so I could get benefits. Give me a fucking break.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 07:52 AM

Actually tung probably is making more sense than anyone. Sad to say I had a tad bit of respect for you.... I have tried to refrain from such "harsh" language to the gays in this thread however. KAF please let it all out, because frankly everything else your saying is making no sense... maybe you'll be able to spread your message of hate a little bit better with "harsh" language.

First off Tung is right marriage between a man and a woman IS the entire family structure. Two gays raising infants to grow up in that skewed world makes me sick. In other words, you don't have to be religious to know that the family structure was designed to be a helluva lot different than 2 gays. What is the family structure RIGHT THIS INSTANT? Not "what it was designed for", but what is it?

What "skewed world"? Do gays live in a different planet?

secondly... were done talking out of our asses... If your raising a claim against same sex adoptions then back it up with something other than your ignorance.

But you know all this talk of "rights" with civil unions and shit. It's a buncha bullshit. Really? Are you going to ever provide any reasons for any of this or just more hateful rhetoric to back up your ignorance? Hell I guess if I go live and hang out with my best friend for most my life we should attempt to have a "civil union" just so I could get benefits. Give me a fucking break. I'm sure if you spend 80+ years with your "best friend" you'd want to be able to visit him in the hospital during his last days wouldn't you? Or are you contempt with having say his.... sister say no to you because she has some silly grudge?

Still waiting for you to post ONE reasons as to why YOU think civil unions should not happen....

Furyous

9th November 2006, 08:00 AM

Quaker

9th November 2006, 08:15 AM

Just as an FYI.... Gay adoption is technically already allowed. Florida is the only state with any law against it.

In most other states, one partner adopts the child.. so in essence its a single parent adoption, but both parents are involved.

And just as an addition there are tons of studies out on the effects of such adoptions on childern and even some long-term studies.

You left your fears rather general... mind elaborating just a tad?

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 10:20 AM

You want to hear some "harsh language" Quaker? alright I'll give you some. If I had the mental and physical capability I would slaughter gays by the millions till I could find no more. Then after I kill them, I would chop them up and feed their remains to cattle; because that is how low they are, their sub human degenerate psychopaths that have done nothing but poison the modern society since day 1.

Round 2

IF you or anyone else cannot see whats wrong with gay marriage and gay adoption you need to have your brain scanned. It is wrong from a religious standpoint, moral.. oh and from a standpoint that if I had to make a list of what the most terrible things a human can stoop to, turning gay and gays adopting innocent, unscarred children would be right at the top of the list. And I really cannot give you any more reasoning that that. Obviously the majority still believe that last part or else over half the world would still not be condemning it and in some countries killing over it.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 11:30 AM

You want to hear some "harsh language" Quaker? alright I'll give you some. If I had the mental and physical capability I would slaughter gays by the millions till I could find no more. Then after I kill them, I would chop them up and feed their remains to cattle; because that is how low they are, their sub human degenerate psychopaths that have done nothing but poison the modern society since day 1.

OH KAF..... You crack me up... good one (Y)

Oh the irony... eh?

Remember way way way back when you posted that thread about how your world would be run and I said If I knew who the hell you really were i'd report your ass to some pschy ER asap? yea that applies here again.

Oh and you can start your "slaughtering" with me.... just gimme a time and place to meet ;)

Quaker

9th November 2006, 11:40 AM

Round 2 Boy O Boy have I got my hopes up for this one....

IF you or anyone else cannot see whats wrong with gay marriage and gay adoption you need to have your brain scanned. Yes, your right Kaf we need to get our brain scanned? because obviously it would make much more sense to give kids to people hating psycho's like you than to a loving family... It is wrong from a religious standpoint, moral.. You seem to throw in religion A LOT for someone who says he couldn't care less about religion. Religion is not a factor when it comes to adoption... nor is the sexuality of a person... oh and from a standpoint that if I had to make a list of what the most terrible things a human can stoop to, turning gay (KAF I didn't know you were Bi... wow what a self hating bastage...) and gays adopting innocent, unscarred children would be right at the top of the list. Well you would be a good judge on how low humans can go.... so you're getting closer... now just provide something other than your psycho ramblings to back yourself up. And I really cannot give you any more reasoning that that. Than WHAT? Obviously the majority still believe that last part or else over half the world would still not be condemning it and in some countries killing over it. And you seem to be happy about it.... what a surprise.

KAF remember sinnocent? Why is it again you felt you were above him?

Kloaked Spirit

9th November 2006, 11:40 AM

First off Tung is right marriage between a man and a woman IS the entire family structure. Two gays raising infants to grow up in that skewed world makes me sick. In other words, you don't have to be religious to know that the family structure was designed to be a helluva lot different than 2 gays.

How so? What makes the "man + woman" relationship so special that they are automatically more qualified to raise a child? Whether you actually care to believe it or not, the concept of modern marraiges where it's one woman and one man who love each other is - quite simply - a genuinely new concept of humanity.

Think about how history has gone. Ancient Greeks/Romans/Civilizations of that time relished in men having many male "lovers" and may not actually be involved with a woman until very late in life, well beyond a family age. In midevil times, men and women certainly didn't marry out of love. They married for land and/or protection. Dowries were the norm, not the exception (and they still are in many parts of the world.) Polygamy has been around since mankind began as well. You don't stop to think about this. You just live in the fantasy world that everyone should have families like the Cleavers and that's the way life works.

But you know all this talk of "rights" with civil unions and shit. It's a buncha bullshit. Hell I guess if I go live and hang out with my best friend for most my life we should attempt to have a "civil union" just so I could get benefits. Give me a fucking break.

You could. At least because you two have a friendship, it'd be on a lot more solid ground than most marraiges. If you need examples of this, than just read the above response. Things like this still happen constantly. Do you really think men and women don't marry out of conveinence? You're sorely mistaken.

Edit:
You want to hear some "harsh language" Quaker? alright I'll give you some. If I had the mental and physical capability I would slaughter gays by the millions till I could find no more. Then after I kill them, I would chop them up and feed their remains to cattle; because that is how low they are, their sub human degenerate psychopaths that have done nothing but poison the modern society since day 1.
P.S. This isn't the old forum. I'm not going to tolerate your hate speech as long as I did back then. If you wish to live in the land of nazism where Hitler reigns supreme and the Aryan nation is best for everyone, take your ass to stormfront.

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 12:44 PM

actually where does giving people the same rights as everyone else end. i agree with equal rights according to race gender and religion. but why should a someones seuxaly preference be rights? you really cant change your race or gender so of course they should have equal rights and religion should have equal rights cause it should be a non factor in considring a marriage anyway.
if somone choses to have a gay lover fine let then realize there is consequences like not being able to get married.marriage should be fore making a family and no matter what you say a gay couple can not really have a family structure.

also since its a preference should everyone with a preference be given the same rights?

what if i prefer to abuse women or kids?
what if i prefer to marry a 14 year old?
what if i prefer to bomb buildings?

should i have equal rights cuase that is my preference or belief?

and quaker dont you even think you can own me son i could verbally demolish you without even thinking

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 12:49 PM

Think about how history has gone. Ancient Greeks/Romans/Civilizations of that time relished in men having many male "lovers" and may not actually be involved with a woman until very late in life, well beyond a family age. In midevil times, men and women certainly didn't marry out of love. They married for land and/or protection. Dowries were the norm, not the exception (and they still are in many parts of the world.) Polygamy has been around since mankind began as well. You don't stop to think about this. You just live in the fantasy world that everyone should have families like the Cleavers and that's the way life works.

.

i understand your point there ks yes they did have gay lovers but they married women. whether it was 1 women or 50 marriage has always ben between men and women. its only recently with the elen degenrouses and rosie odnonnels spouting off at the mouth bout gay rights that this has become an issue. ohh and sorry bout the double post

the squid of despair

9th November 2006, 12:49 PM

so every person that has had sex outside of marriage (sorry mum but its true :hidey: ) is a walking contradiction, every catholic boy who has masturbated, anybody that has ever stolen anything, disobeyed their parents, had an affair with a married person (there is still something to be proud of mum as i have not done this one yet (y) ) etc etc, if there is anybody left in church without some sort of contradiction then i would be immensely surprised - are any of these sins worse than being gay?? it troubles me to think that church goes can be so selective in what they decide is a sin not worthy of gods forgiveness, which is not to say i think gay people should be asking for forgiveness for being gay i just mean who is anyone to say that a gay person cant be religious unless they have never committed a sin in their life, and lets face it there cant truly be anyone who hasnt.......

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Read the bible if you're going to quote it. Understand what you're trying to say.

Second, I wanted to argue this from a point with out religion. Nature is clear in the facts of life regarding procreation, positives/negatives etc... We all know and are taught that opposites attract, assuming science is right. Male animal/humans need the opposite sex to continue the life cycle. Men were not created/evolved to have sex with men to continue the life cycle.

Now what is the point of the civil union? I've heard people saying "Why not? It's just a piece of paper?" Well then I ask you, why? If it's just a piece of paper to everyone, why bother with it? The answer I think; gays feel left out because they chose an alternate lifestyle. Gays want the benifits of marriage. They would also get the tragedy of divorce. I know I'm just leaving myself open for you here Quaker, but can you tell me why they should be allowed to? I have some better examples of discrimination (minus my pedofile one, damn you KAF).

Oh and you can start your "slaughtering" with me.... just gimme a time and place to meet ;)

Hey just saw this. I'm in Cali too you know, maybe we can get together on this ;)

**THIS MESSAGE WAS NOT PROOF READ!!!!**

Jimmy James

9th November 2006, 02:09 PM

Kloaked Spirit

9th November 2006, 02:24 PM

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Read the bible if you're going to quote it. Understand what you're trying to say.

Second, I wanted to argue this from a point with out religion. Nature is clear in the facts of life regarding procreation, positives/negatives etc... We all know and are taught that opposites attract, assuming science is right. Male animal/humans need the opposite sex to continue the life cycle. Men were not created/evolved to have sex with men to continue the life cycle.

Now what is the point of the civil union? I've heard people saying "Why not? It's just a piece of paper?" Well then I ask you, why? If it's just a piece of paper to everyone, why bother with it? The answer I think; gays feel left out because they chose an alternate lifestyle. Gays want the benifits of marriage. They would also get the tragedy of divorce. I know I'm just leaving myself open for you here Quaker, but can you tell me why they should be allowed to? I have some better examples of discrimination (minus my pedofile one, damn you KAF).

Hey just saw this. I'm in Cali too you know, maybe we can get together on this ;)

**THIS MESSAGE WAS NOT PROOF READ!!!!**

1 - It's a piece of paper with plenty of legal and tax benefits for those that get to sign it. That's why this "paper" is really important beyond just the concepts of love and togetherness. Why do you believe these legal and tax benefits should not be given to a group of people who have not committed legal wrong doings against society? I could better understand this if you wanted to ban felons from being married (since they've already lost civil rights.)

2 - So if I read this right, your argument is that biologically this goes against the human nature to procreate, and that's why we shouldn't allow civil unions? When it comes to procreation, it is true that biologically we would want to seek females. However, we're also one of a few species that uses sex for means outside of procreation. We're also a species that is able to adopt the young of other parents of the same species. Therefore this essential and instinctive drive to further the bloodline for the betterment of the species is greatly reduced. You have to be able to factor these hedonistic tendencies and other means of species raising and longevity. Finally, none of your argument specifically has to do with marraige/civil unions of any one given the fact that we'd have these biological instincts with or without that institution. It's not as if the caveman pronounced each other as husband and wife before God.

3- Maybe you should thank KAF for using the pedophile example first because that pedophile comparison was just awful.

i understand your point there ks yes they did have gay lovers but they married women. whether it was 1 women or 50 marriage has always ben between men and women. its only recently with the elen degenrouses and rosie odnonnels spouting off at the mouth bout gay rights that this has become an issue. ohh and sorry bout the double post

Don't worry about double posting. In cases like the ones you did, it's ok. I know that marraige has always been between man and woman. However, the reason why I brought up all of that history was due to the concepts against gay civil unions which involve the "modern family" or "the way a family should be." People tend to bring up these because they believe what is best for the child and what is best family environment is the "1 mom, 1 dad" environment. History shows us that this sort of thinking is heavily flawed, because the "1 mom, 1 dad" tended to come from circumstances that would be unfavorable to creating a great family environment. Also, any major study as to the impact on this kid shows that the most likely side effect of having gay parents is the bigotry they'll face from homophobes. Loving/Good parents tend to be loving/good parents regardless of sexual orientation.

Kloaked Spirit

9th November 2006, 02:41 PM

Double posting:

actually where does giving people the same rights as everyone else end. i agree with equal rights according to race gender and religion. but why should a someones seuxaly preference be rights? you really cant change your race or gender so of course they should have equal rights and religion should have equal rights cause it should be a non factor in considring a marriage anyway.
if somone choses to have a gay lover fine let then realize there is consequences like not being able to get married.marriage should be fore making a family and no matter what you say a gay couple can not really have a family structure.

Actually giving all United States citizens the same rights should be fine provided they aren't harming other people or breaking the current laws of society. That's why we extend the rights to immigrants that become citizens.

Plus, I'd be fine with the Church not wanting to recognize the gay marriage. I'd be fine with them not wanting to perform the ceremonies either. That choice should remain with the church. That's why the argument being presented is about civil unions. Those do not involve the Church.

also since its a preference should everyone with a preference be given the same rights?

what if i prefer to abuse women or kids?

- Well, right now you'd be committing an illegal act and you're harming other members of society. As a convicted criminal you would tend to lose your rights.

what if i prefer to marry a 14 year old?

- You can legally do this as long as you have the concent of the parents. I know two people that in their 20's that have actually done this. If you wish to do this without the consent of the parents, you will have to live in a state where the age of consent is 14, or try to lobby for an age change on the age of consent. The problem with the "right" to do it does not rest on you, but on the child's ability (or lack thereof) to make such a critical choice. Whether you agree with this thinking or not would be left up to a different thread.

what if i prefer to bomb buildings?

- Once again, you're harming other people and society. Notice that it is legal to do this in a controlled demolition environment, and that doing such work is a fairly lucrative industry.

should i have equal rights cuase that is my preference or belief?

You can believe what you want. You can believe that 8 year old girls are sexually capable of anything. You can believe that all asians are really aliens in disguise and it is your duty to decapitate them all. However, it's when you cross the line between belief and illegal action that you run the risk of losing your rights...

Well, that is unless you're gay. Then you're just fucked.

Beli

9th November 2006, 03:47 PM

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Read the bible if you're going to quote it. Understand what you're trying to say.
uhm i was the one who quoted the Bible not Swiss Miss. and yes i have and do read it. what is your point? i can find no evidence in the entire Bible that makes any reference in regards to being gay a sin.

Second, I wanted to argue this from a point with out religion. Nature is clear in the facts of life regarding procreation, positives/negatives etc... We all know and are taught that opposites attract, assuming science is right. Male animal/humans need the opposite sex to continue the life cycle. Men were not created/evolved to have sex with men to continue the life cycle.
well if you being nature into it then you open up a whole new line for me. why do male dogs hump other male dogs? very common in cattle too. male and female cattle very often will mount on the same sex.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 03:49 PM

Second, I wanted to argue this from a point with out religion. Nature is clear in the facts of life regarding procreation, positives/negatives etc... We all know and are taught that opposites attract, assuming science is right. Male animal/humans need the opposite sex to continue the life cycle. Men were not created/evolved to have sex with men to continue the life cycle. But at the same time keep in mind that homosexuality does occur naturally in nature.

Now lets apply everthing you've stated to the "real world". Are you worried about the human race ending from allowing same sex unions? (marriages as well... but thats later :D)

Now what is the point of the civil union? I've heard people saying "Why not? It's just a piece of paper?" Well then I ask you, why? If it's just a piece of paper to everyone, why bother with it? The answer I think; gays feel left out because they chose an alternate lifestyle. Gays want the benifits of marriage. They would also get the tragedy of divorce. I know I'm just leaving myself open for you here Quaker, but can you tell me why they should be allowed to? KS pretty much answered it, but here is a post from a different forum that pretty much sums it up:

I have lost faith in the human race! And our electoral system.

HB 751 passes with a large margin.

This little amendment that I had posted on here over a year ago and was told by oh so many here, that people are too smart to vote for that.

Well it has passed and now our wills, our medical directives and our power of attorneys are NOW INVALID!!!!!!!! THEY ARE AS WORTHLESS AS THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITEN ON!

I have never HATED a place so very much in my life! MY HOME! The place I have lived for 20 some odd years has now made me, someone born and raised in the GOOD O' US of A has now had his rights to appoint who I see fit to speak on my behalf taken AWAY from me!

Now I will have NO right to see the man I have been with for 14 fucking years in the hospital, nor he me.

There are so many areas in our lives that are now affected by this backwards retarded amendment to our lovely red neck hick of a state.

Congratulation Virginia, you have just proven how ignorant you are. Hey why you all are at why not bring back slavery!

Leave whatever comments you want, I'm pissed and have a migraine and I'm going to bed now because I will be busy either contacting a lawyer to find out what limited rights I have left or leaving this fuckwad of a backwoods state.

Why should I be chased from our home...

I almost feel like crying! Not only has this state said that they HATE me and my partner, they feel the need to take what little rights we had left. Their collective hate and lack of any common sense or education has shown us that not only live and work in this state but those across the country and the world how bigoted and back words and ignorant they really are. I have no hope for a future now! Not in this state. They(the people of VA) have taken away my right to appoint the person I have been with for 14 years as my go to guy if anything were to happen to me. I have been told because I am gay we(the people of VA) hate you and want you and those whom love you to suffer just because we HATE you and wish you were no more. They voted out of fear and hatred and not with an educated view. Most more and likely never stopped to ask themselves what if I were on the other side of this, would I want this passed. What if I were told I could not see my husband or wife simply because we were not related by blood. How would I feel if I weren't allow to will my worldly possessions to the one I love simple because we are not related by blood. The list goes on and on...
It is funny because if this were turned around and written to disallow African Americans to marry or marry into interracial marriages, it would never had passed. Oh WAIT that did happen. All the same rhetoric was thrown out but it was overturned because others had enough common sense to see how illogical it truly was. But then again I was not born African American I was born gay. Though some okay A LOT think I chose to be gay they are so very wrong. I would never choose to be hated simply because of who I am.
I am so very tired of fighting others for my rights

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 03:51 PM

Silly Quaker I wouldn't want to kill you. See you may hate me and what I say but thats just cause your misguided and was how you were raised to think..that goes for everyone who thinks gay are okay, I can't kelp you were brainwashed all your life by people of influence.. or simply have watched too much CNN.

KAF remember sinnocent? Why is it again you felt you were above him?

Well lets see sinocent was a screwed up individual.. a Neo Nazi. I read everything you did and dissagreed with 90% of it. Bottom line is that I am not a racist in the least, and everyone who knows me knows that I HATE racism with a passion, I was even suspended twice in high school because I kicked a few students asses for flashing their racist views and comments in front of me. Hell I even rejected the hottest girl in school my senior year because she made an off hand remark that was racist.. and I remembered it. My friends and family know how I stand on the issue of gays and many more things.. they don't call me psycho for it though.. just very "conservative" about issues is what they would say. They know my intentions, whether they agree with my ways or not is good. The thing is however, they don't think I'm loony for it because of 2 things.. they aren't gay..and because they know that being gay is NOT NATURAL for us humans and it never has. Penis and Vagina anyone? mutual attraction to the opposite sex anyone?And I am here to tell you now that I genuinely believe gays are a poison to our society and are extremely screwed up in the head; not because I want something to hate or discriminate against.. not because I want to go against the majority.. because I genuinely feel that way.

You seem to throw in religion A LOT for someone who says he couldn't care less about religion. Religion is not a factor when it comes to adoption... nor is the sexuality of a person...

I throw in religion a lot Quaker because religion has been apart of our civilization since day 1 and has been a moral support for many cultures. If you want to know how to live a model life then look no further than the bible. It may be religious based and from 2K years ago but it is neigh right about every moral issue you can throw at it... including gays. (says gays are wrong btw zomg)

Yes, your right Kaf we need to get our brain scanned? because obviously it would make much more sense to give kids to people hating psycho's like you than to a loving family...

See thats funny because at least I would guarantee that if I raised a child from birth I would not fail him and he would not turn up gay. I would rather him be taught to hate gays.. know that drugs and alcohol are bad, abusing animals are bad etc etc etc than to think something as awful as homosexuality is fine and dandy in todays modern society.

P.S. This isn't the old forum. I'm not going to tolerate your hate speech as long as I did back then. If you wish to live in the land of nazism where Hitler reigns supreme and the Aryan nation is best for everyone, take your ass to stormfront.

Please KS don't think you can threaten me with that shit. Because you know as well as I do that what I have said is my opinion on the matter. Call it hate whatever it is NOT directed hate to anyone on these forums or anyone who disagrees with me. Sinnocent remember him? now that dude did threaten people on these forums and made personal vile hate speech to people through PM's. I am doing nothing of the sort.

let me help you find the first one, I dare you to come knock on my door

Unfortunately I don't have the time. I would love to chat and get to know you personally but that is a bit too far for me. Oh and yes another thing. I have met and talked with gay people quite in depth. I acted like I was cool with them being gay blah blah and got to know them personally... and at the end of the day I came to the same conclusion and my resolve on the issue did not change. It's like talking to a fucking neo Nazi to be honest. They'll try to spout off all sorts of bullshit to support their lifestyle and why they do and think what they do.

now just provide something other than your psycho ramblings to back yourself up.

You want me to provide something.. to you? Your mind is already made up about this issue and will not change, just like mine will not. I could go through specific instances to quote from that would condemn homosexuality but then again it would just be more hate speech to you I'm guessing.

So I will just say these few simple lines to support what I believe and why:

Man = Penis.. Woman = Vagina
X Chromosome Y Chromosome
Mutual Attraction from Opposite Sex
Procreation
Kids need a stable family structure to grow up in, gays
cannot provide this in a quality way one man and one woman can, proven fact. It may even harm them growing up in their teenage years than not.

Now that is the 5 reasons I believe the way I do on gays. Anyone who cannot comprehend that simple logic I simply will never understand, I just don't see how society could have got so messed up on this topic.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 03:53 PM

and quaker dont you even think you can own me son i could verbally demolish you without even thinking You mean to say you've been thinking this entire time? Holy Hell!!

Beli

9th November 2006, 04:25 PM

Quaker

9th November 2006, 04:37 PM

Silly Quaker I wouldn't want to kill you. Didn't you say you'd kill all gays ;).... little slow on the uptake there are we? See you may hate me and what I say but thats just cause your misguided and was how you were raised to think.. that goes for everyone who thinks gay are okay, I can't kelp you were brainwashed all your life by people of influence.. or simply have watched too much CNN. LOL Kaf to keep it very very simple I had a STRICT Muslim upbringing and was in NO way liberal as you seem to assume. Do keep in mind that Islam is probably the LEAST accepting of all religions right now of homosexuality... so if your assuming my views are because of my upbringing your kindly mistaken.

And I am here to tell you now that I genuinely believe gays are a poison to our society How so?

I throw in religion a lot Quaker because religion has been apart of our civilization since day 1 and has been a moral support for many cultures. If you want to know how to live a model life then look no further than the bible. It may be religious based and from 2K years ago but it is neigh right about every moral issue you can throw at it... including gays. (says gays are wrong btw zomg) Are no-fault divorces also allowed according to the bible?

See thats funny because at least I would guarantee that if I raised a child from birth I would not fail him and he would not turn up gay. I would rather him be taught to hate.... You failed him already... save yourself the trouble and stick to jerkin off....

Oh and yes another thing. I have met and talked with gay people quite in depth. I acted like I was cool with them being gay blah blah and got to know them personally... and at the end of the day I came to the same conclusion and my resolve on the issue did not change. It's like talking to a fucking neo Nazi to be honest. They'll try to spout off all sorts of bullshit to support their lifestyle and why they do and think what they do. Says quite a lot about you.

You want me to provide something.. to you? Your mind is already made up about this issue and will not change, just like mine will not. You do realize you have to present your side first right.... just simply stating something is "gross" or "trust me i know" doesn't cut it.

I could go through specific instances to quote from that would condemn homosexuality but then again it would just be more hate speech to you I'm guessing. Not at all, go right ahead... don't let me hold you back. Just keep in mind this discussion is NOT about whether being gay is right or not... its about what right anyone has to deny someone a Civil Union. So please do relate your "arguments" back towards that topic.

So I will just say these few simple lines to support what I believe and why:

Man = Penis.. Woman = Vagina
X Chromosome Y Chromosome
Mutual Attraction from Opposite Sex
Procreation Sex ed really paid off for you eh? Now lets swoop back around and put this in the context of Civil Unions.

Why are those things needed for a Civil Union?

Kids need a stable family structure to grow up in, gays cannot provide this in a quality way one man and one woman can, proven fact. It may even harm them growing up in thier teenage years than not. Go do a tad bit more research and you'll see there is no negative long-term effect on kids adopted into same sex households.

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 04:41 PM

i still don't understand why what someone does inside thier bedrooms makes anyone hate them. and as far as adoption goes, i will conceed that if i was choosing the placement i would go for a straight couple first if they were the more stable choice. however, i wouldn't deny a child the love of a family if the family so happened to be 2 people of the same sex.
i think that one problem that people seem to have in regards to gays, is the promiscuity (sp). which would maybe somewhat less if there was a legal binding?

so i have to ask you KAF Elite, do you think that what happened to Matthew Shepard is ok? do you support that?
and are you talking to me in your sig??? lol

No I would not condone what happened to Matthew Shepard, because I do not believe in torture in the least. But let my reiterate IF I could have the choice of killing gays it would not be out of a simple hate crime, but out of the necessity of preserving the human culture that is dying every day because of the growing number of these people and the spreading of their lies.

And as for my sig.. My nickname in RL is Colonel/Colonel Sanders. Everyone calls me Colonel.

Quaker

9th November 2006, 04:45 PM

No I would not condone what happened to Matthew Shepard, because I do not believe in torture in the least. But let my reiterate IF I could have the choice of killing gays it would not be out of a simple hate crime, but out of the necessity of preserving the human culture that is dying every day because of the growing number of these people and the spreading of their lies. Forget silly hate crimes.... full blown out genocide is better eh?

Beli

9th November 2006, 04:49 PM

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 04:54 PM

Didn't you say you'd kill all gays .... little slow on the uptake there are we?

haha and what thats supposed to mean your gay? Like I could care at this point. Would explain a lot though.

Are no-fault divorces also allowed according to the bible?

It's very specific of when a divorce should be allowed. But in short no it is not. I don't see how that has any relevance however. Like I've said before I do not believe in marriage anyways.

You failed him already

Have I now? Thats interesting because I would think any decent parent would teach their kids that rapists and child molesters are wrong and their actions SHOULD be frowned upon with extreme hate.

Why are those things needed for a Civil Union?

Okay back on the real topic.... they are needed because Civil Union still = Marriage in the United States. A lot of Americans still believe this. They give Civil Unions and the special benefits to married couples because it is needed for a marriage in the modern world. I fail too see how 2 butt fuckers expressing themselves need such benefits. Aside from the already simple reasons I've stated... that gays should have no "special" rights..emphasis there on special.

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 04:57 PM

Forget silly hate crimes.... full blown out genocide is better eh?

Genocide is pretty much the term for killing off a race, civilization or religious followers. In my view mass killing of gays would not be this genocide.. it would be the same as executing a child molester in my book.

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 05:03 PM

can i pose a related question? do you (anyone step in) think that people are born gay or do they decide to be?
and do you think that more people are gay now because it is semi trendy? by this i mean Queer Eye, Will and Grace, and other shows. i wonder if people try the gay lifestyle just to fit in somewhere.

Nobody is born gay. Just like nobody is born a Trans.

We have TWO and only TWO genders for a reason. We are ALL born with either one penis or one vagina. And we are ALL born with an inherit attraction to the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is the result of poor upbringing..modern culture brainwashing..and like you said a desperate attempt by confused individuals to "fit in". Hell if they want to do that so badly they can go to jail and suck dick there as far as I'm concerned.

Jimmy James

9th November 2006, 05:05 PM

Beli

9th November 2006, 05:07 PM

Nobody is born gay. Just like nobody is born a Trans.

We have TWO and only TWO genders for a reason. We are ALL born with either one penis or one vagina. And we are ALL born with an inherit attraction to the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is the result of poor upbringing..modern culture brainwashing..and like you said a desperate attempt by confused individuals to "fit in". Hell if they want to do that so badly they can go to jail and suck dick there as far as I'm concerned.
what about women who have been sexually abused raped and beaten by men and then turn to dating women? does trauma factor in at all? i ask because a friend of mine is gay and was dating men until some very serious abuse at the hands of man. she is currently in a female/female realtionship and has been for the last 16 years. only been with the one girl. i care for her a lot and would be really sad if someone killed her.

Jimmy James

9th November 2006, 05:13 PM

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 05:16 PM

Ah you see TD.. that is where you are wrong. I may say I want to kill all gays if I could without being punished but I know I cannot. So I tolerate them as well as I tolerate a lot of things I am unhappy with in this world.

If you and I met the first thing I would do is not punch you (though I'm sure you would me) I would look upon you with pity and all I would see is a lost human being that is so far from anything naturally human that when I look at him all I see is dirt... so after that I would just walk away.

I may hate your kind yes but you have little to fear from my opinion of you. Especially over the internet.

So in short I am not threatening you, all my talk of killing gays is ALL hypothetical. Just like I wish that rapists and child molesters got immediate execution. If I was conveying threats I would verbally say to you if you came anywhere near me I would break your arm and castrate you, then kill ya. But I am not in a realistic sense, key word being realistic so again please read.

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 05:20 PM

what about women who have been sexually abused raped and beaten by men and then turn to dating women? does trauma factor in at all? i ask because a friend of mine is gay and was dating men until some very serious abuse at the hands of man. she is currently in a female/female realtionship and has been for the last 16 years. only been with the one girl. i care for her a lot and would be really sad if someone killed her.

Well that is somewhat different imo. It's their inability to cope with their situation and find help. Either from a psychologist or taking support from their family and friends.

I need not remind you I hope that women can be just as abusive as men, so her changing her sexual preferences means nothing because it doesn't solve her problems of being in abusive relationships. She could find that "16 year happiness" with a man just as well. Maybe she just was just not perceptive enough to choose her men carefully and who she choose to get close to, as far as men go.

Davecat

9th November 2006, 05:20 PM

K.A.F... would i be right in assuming your the same KAF that spent at least 5/6 pages in the old forum backpeddling over your comments about wanting to kill gays, trying to make out at every turn that your comments were mis-understood ?

Here you are now stating that you want to kill them all again ?

NOT being from the U.S. i dont know the full ramifications of by-laws like this being passed etc. However I dont feel that information is necessary to know that the arguments against a 'civil union' are fundamentally flawed.

Firstly... forget marrige - Marrige has nothing to do with this thread. I'm correct firstly in assuming that same sex 'civil unions' are allowed to happen ? (again note : NOT marrige).

If that is the case then it boils down to nothing other than simple discrimination - Allowing a M+F couple to take part in a legal contract entitling each other to benefits afforded to married couples without ANY link to religeon etc. but then stating that a gay couple are not entitled to the same contract is absurd. Trying to justify that this is NOT discrimination is an excersise in futility. There is no logical argument for this.

On the same token - under the way my understanding of laws over there work - I personally believe that the 'legal rights' granted to anyone due to marrige should be anulled and any 'legal' bindings should take the form of a contract free from religious connotations.

Tung... Stop bringing marrige into a thread it dosent belong, OR try and justify your reasoning for bringing it here please ;)

Again K.A.F, your reasoning that you are above sinnocent is that he made personal comments and threats to people via pm...
You are now making personal threats to every single member of this forum that is gay / bi, you are indicating that given the opportunity (your having the 'mental & physical' capability to do so) you would kill each and every one of them - PLEASE try and tell me thats not personal ?

/rant

Colonel Sanders

9th November 2006, 05:31 PM

K.A.F... would i be right in assuming your the same KAF that spent at least 5/6 pages in the old forum backpeddling over your comments about wanting to kill gays, trying to make out at every turn that your comments were mis-understood ?

Yeah well when you are right yer right. I retracted my comments on the old forum because I was trying to argue a completely different point. It was pretty much futile but I did it anyways. Well I am saying it again now and am not retracting it.

married couples without ANY link to religion

I have always found that amusing. Marriage IS religion. You cannot get married in most cases without saying vows that are coming directly from the Bible. Also in most cases you cannot get married without stepping foot in a church or prayer room, let alone not see any type of religious material in the room. Marriage = religion I am sorry to say.

And as far as personal threats, read what i typed to TD above.

Davecat

9th November 2006, 05:54 PM

Please dont quote me out of context in the hope you can twist it into an argument...

married couples without ANY link to religion

I have always found that amusing. Marriage IS religion. You cannot get married in most cases without saying vows that are coming directly from the Bible. Also in most cases you cannot get married without stepping foot in a church or prayer room, let alone not see any type of religious material in the room. Marriage = religion I am sorry to say.

I Never said marrige IS religeon...

I'll quote again the information I posted and break it down for ya...

Firstly... forget marrige - Marrige has nothing to do with this thread. I'm correct firstly in assuming that same sex 'civil unions' are allowed to happen ? (again note : NOT marrige).

If that is the case then it boils down to nothing other than simple discrimination - Allowing a M+F couple to take part in a legal contract entitling each other to benefits afforded to married couples without ANY link to religeon etc. but then stating that a gay couple are not entitled to the same contract is absurd. Trying to justify that this is NOT discrimination is an excersise in futility. There is no logical argument for this.

On the same token - under the way my understanding of laws over there work - I personally believe that the 'legal rights' granted to anyone due to marrige should be anulled and any 'legal' bindings should take the form of a contract free from religious connotations.

Religion and Law need to be seperate for the law to remain objectionable.

Forgive me if i was overly confident in my ability to convey that marrige has no place in this thread, 'ONLY' the legal benifits associated with it (these benefits are also afforded to 'm+f civil unions'). <- has that cleared it up for ya ?

And as far is a snippet of infas personal threats, read what i typed to TD above.

what you typed to td was b.s. :|

You are now making personal threats to every single member of this forum that is gay / bi, you are indicating that given the opportunity (your having the 'mental & physical' capability to do so) you would kill each and every one of them - PLEASE try and tell me thats not personal ?

that is a threat - you have indicated that should the opportunity arise whereby you can kill a gay and get away with it - you will - gay people have been identified as a target and intent to murder admitted providing 'circumstances are favourable'...

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 08:32 PM

Double posting:

Actually giving all United States citizens the same rights should be fine provided they aren't harming other people or breaking the current laws of society. That's why we extend the rights to immigrants that become citizens.

Plus, I'd be fine with the Church not wanting to recognize the gay marriage. I'd be fine with them not wanting to perform the ceremonies either. That choice should remain with the church. That's why the argument being presented is about civil unions. Those do not involve the Church.

- Well, right now you'd be committing an illegal act and you're harming other members of society. As a convicted criminal you would tend to lose your rights.

- You can legally do this as long as you have the concent of the parents. I know two people that in their 20's that have actually done this. If you wish to do this without the consent of the parents, you will have to live in a state where the age of consent is 14, or try to lobby for an age change on the age of consent. The problem with the "right" to do it does not rest on you, but on the child's ability (or lack thereof) to make such a critical choice. Whether you agree with this thinking or not would be left up to a different thread.

- Once again, you're harming other people and society. Notice that it is legal to do this in a controlled demolition environment, and that doing such work is a fairly lucrative industry.

You can believe what you want. You can believe that 8 year old girls are sexually capable of anything. You can believe that all asians are really aliens in disguise and it is your duty to decapitate them all. However, it's when you cross the line between belief and illegal action that you run the risk of losing your rights...

Well, that is unless you're gay. Then you're just fucked.

well i did a little search and actually sodomy is illegal in 32 states. so actually gays are breaking laws doing this--well so are alot of straight couples but thats besides the point. i saw somewhere someone made a point bout homosexuality in nature and dogs humpiung others dogs legs. yes i agree that homosexuality happens on all levels of the evolutinary ladder, but all these animals that do it dont mate for life or mate at all. human beings are the only ones where you have same sexes wanting to be joined for life.

another thing that bothers is me is that gays seem to have to flaunt there sexual preference in front of everyone.

for example : gay pride parades--why is this necessary?
i dont have parades announcing im straight

why do gay guys have to talk like a women ? there is no biologial or physical reason that even if your gay that you must talk with a lisp and say you go girl all the time---to me this is comparable with wiggerism

and actually to me gays seem to want more rights then the average person does i could respect the gays wantiing to have there marriages or whatever if they were also worried bout other groups civil rights.. find me a gay that is also fighting for the rights of the poor person- or racial rights - or religious rights-or for gender equality and i would be tempted to respect them a little more.
toi me it seems that most gays are self centered and only worried bout THERE specific rights which to me makes them selfish and self centered.

also in response to your gays can raise children in loving environment..true they can but you also said most would be ridiculed for having gay parents--i agree why should you knowingly subject a child to this?

ok i have a difffent question the other examples i made were bad since they were illegal activities

if i wwanted to marry a dog or cow should i be givien full marriage rights then?
it actually isnt hurting anyone if i do so should this be allowed.

the whole thing boils down to why give legal rights to people that are basically comminting illegal acts in a lot of states even so it is basically an unenforceable law

Davecat

9th November 2006, 08:46 PM

Tung mate - is the only gay person you've ever come across julian clary ?

Gay people arent all queens mate... i cant stand 'camp' people but meh you get plenty of straight'uns too.

Beli

9th November 2006, 09:32 PM

if i wwanted to marry a dog or cow should i be givien full marriage rights then?
it actually isnt hurting anyone if i do so should this be allowed.
well if the dog is consenting...... so that really can't be argued

and i really hope that if anyone is against gays, then you had better not be watching girl on girl porn. because that is a gay sexual act.

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 09:47 PM

nope not watching it

Jimmy James

9th November 2006, 10:27 PM

well i did a little search and actually sodomy is illegal in 32 states. so actually gays are breaking laws doing this--well so are alot of straight couples but thats besides the point.

actually, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court rules that laws against sodomy is in fact discrimination against gay men, and they over turned the decision, those making all existing laws unconstitutional.

another thing that bothers is me is that gays seem to have to flaunt there sexual preference in front of everyone.

very few gay men are campy. that's a stereotype

for example : gay pride parades--why is this necessary?
i dont have parades announcing im straight

no, there isn't a straight parade, but there's a peurto-rican day parade, st. patrick's day parade, philippine independence day parade, and many others that are generally targeted towards a specific group of people.

if i wwanted to marry a dog or cow should i be givien full marriage rights then?
it actually isnt hurting anyone if i do so should this be allowed.

the difference is the animal can't consent to the marriage. if you can get a dog or a cow to say "I Do", then by all means, go marry a dog.

a better argument for you're standpoint would be polygamy, which I also have nothing against. if that's what people want to do, then who cares, as long as they're alo consenting to it. in fact, the bible even says it's okay, so why is there laws against that?

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 10:37 PM

no, there isn't a straight parade, but there's a peurto-rican day parade, st. patrick's day parade, philippine independence day parade, and many others that are generally targeted towards a specific group of people.

yes but you cant change the fact that your irish philipino or puerto rican.
gay is a choice not a race. no matter what the gay population say gay isnt genetic or heriditary. gay is a choice you chose to be gay you dont choose to be a race or a sex.
i choose to smoke cigerettes but they are taking all my rights away.
why should we be giving rights to other groups cause of there choices?

as i stated before allpeople should have equal rights in respect to race and gender those are things you cant specifially change?

and i can get a parrot to say i do so should i be given full marriage rights ?

Loopus

9th November 2006, 10:43 PM

FYI, BJ's and anal sex are both considered sodomy. I personally have no objection to gay people having the same leagal rights... declaring of beneficiaries, Power of Attorney, passing on property, and even tax protection that straight couples do... Hell, I even think they should have Common-Law unions. I do believe that when it comes to religious recognition, that marriage = Man + Woman. And in regards to divorce, Jesus, when asked about divorce said that yes, the laws of Moses allow for it, but only because mankind is weak. In the eyes of God, according to Jesus, if a Man, or Woman, should divorce their spouse and lay with another, it is adultery, and a sin in the eyes of God. I also believe the book of Leviticus speaks of homosexual acts as sins in the eyes of God, but Jesus said that the second greatest commandment was to "love thy neighbor as thyself" It is NOT our job to judge others, and therefore I see no reason to deny any human being their rights, except in situations where those rights would harm others (or animals) For the record, yes I am straight (not married yet, but my girl is trying to change that), and yes I have some friends that are gay. we sould all respect each others life "choices" or "programming" or "sexual orientation" what ever you want to call it, it may be something that is not for you, or something that you find repulsive, but that doesn't mean that they should lose their inalienable rights as Americans that all men (and women) are created equal.

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 10:46 PM

yes all men and women are created equal--not all men and men are created equal

nuff said

Kloaked Spirit

9th November 2006, 10:58 PM

Please KS don't think you can threaten me with that shit. Because you know as well as I do that what I have said is my opinion on the matter. Call it hate whatever it is NOT directed hate to anyone on these forums or anyone who disagrees with me. Sinnocent remember him? now that dude did threaten people on these forums and made personal vile hate speech to people through PM's. I am doing nothing of the sort.

That's nothing remotely consistant of a threat. You continue to spout messages of genocide and hate when they have absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand and I'll discontinue your ability to post. You can be anti gay civil unions without having to make statements like the one you did.

Genocide is pretty much the term for killing off a race, civilization or religious followers. In my view mass killing of gays would not be this genocide.. it would be the same as executing a child molester in my book.

Well, just because you believe it isn't genocide doesn't make it so.

gen‧o‧cide /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jen-uh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1940–45; < Gk géno(s) race + -cide]

—Related forms
gen‧o‧cid‧al, adjective

Gays definitely count as a cultrual group. Plus, how do you think homosexual community obtained the symbol of the pink triangle?

well i did a little search and actually sodomy is illegal in 32 states. so actually gays are breaking laws doing this--well so are alot of straight couples but thats besides the point. i saw somewhere someone made a point bout homosexuality in nature and dogs humpiung others dogs legs. yes i agree that homosexuality happens on all levels of the evolutinary ladder, but all these animals that do it dont mate for life or mate at all. human beings are the only ones where you have same sexes wanting to be joined for life.

Sodomy isn't the same thing as anal sex. Sodomy can have a wide range of offenses. For example, Kentucky does make Sodomy illegal. However, Sodomy consists of having sexual relations with a child under the age of 15. So therefore even heterosexual sex qualifies as sodomy. In some cases, sodomy is just any sexual position that isn't missionary. Therefore equating sodomy with anal sex isn't justified.

another thing that bothers is me is that gays seem to have to flaunt there sexual preference in front of everyone.

for example : gay pride parades--why is this necessary?
i dont have parades announcing im straight

However you could if you wanted to. The KKK certainly have parades flaunting their white superiority. Greenpeace and PETA have parades and protests up and down streets to save dogs from a local animal shelter that they'll kill off anyway. All you need to do is go to town hall and fill out the paperwork. Just because you don't wish to do it doesn't mean you don't have the rights to do it.

why do gay guys have to talk like a women ? there is no biologial or physical reason that even if your gay that you must talk with a lisp and say you go girl all the time---to me this is comparable with wiggerism

Well, not all gay guys talk like women to begin with. Plenty of gay men have the same interests and voice tones as straight men. Sometimes the reason why gay men act feminine is they actually believe they're a female trapped in a man's body, or they just prefer to be more feminine than society thinks is "the norm." However, are you saying you'd be ok in not allowing civil unions or marriages to "wiggers" or anyone else that doesn't act like what society declares to be normal? If not, what did any of this have to do with the discussion at hand?

and actually to me gays seem to want more rights then the average person does i could respect the gays wantiing to have there marriages or whatever if they were also worried bout other groups civil rights.. find me a gay that is also fighting for the rights of the poor person- or racial rights - or religious rights-or for gender equality and i would be tempted to respect them a little more.

toi me it seems that most gays are self centered and only worried bout THERE specific rights which to me makes them selfish and self centered.

I would be against it if they tried to obtain "special rights." However, I'm failing to see how a civil union qualifies in this situation. This is certainly not a special right.

also in response to your gays can raise children in loving environment..true they can but you also said most would be ridiculed for having gay parents--i agree why should you knowingly subject a child to this?

Your argument here is that gays shouldn't have children so you can continue to be a bigot? How about we just make it so black people can't have children so I can be racist? This is the exact same thing.

ok i have a difffent question the other examples i made were bad since they were illegal activities

if i wwanted to marry a dog or cow should i be givien full marriage rights then?
it actually isnt hurting anyone if i do so should this be allowed.

Well there's a few things wrong with this example too:

- "Animal Cruelty." It'd be hard not to justify any sort of civil union between you and an animal that wouldn't cause a relationship which violates these laws.
- Animals don't have the rights of humans, and cannot be held to the same societal laws and contracts that we can go through.
- If you were to push all that aside, I'd be supportive of a civil union. I've already stated that the concept of religious ceremonies and acceptance of the relationship in the eyes of God can be up to the Church, just like it can be for gay people.

Kloaked Spirit

9th November 2006, 11:00 PM

yes all men and women are created equal--not all men and men are created equal

nuff said

You do realize the people that made this believed "men" should be confined to white male property owners, right? Plus, it's still just "all men are created equal" and not "all men and women are created equal." We've just changed the interpretation of that line since it was made.

Loopus

9th November 2006, 11:03 PM

You do realize the people that made this believed "men" should be confined to white male property owners, right? Plus, it's still just "all men are created equal" and not "all men and women are created equal." We've just changed the interpretation of that line since it was made.

hence the (and women) KS

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

9th November 2006, 11:06 PM

well gays have everyright that any other person has . they have the right to life liverty and the pursiut of happiness as an american..why must they be given benefits saved for married people?

to me a civil unions should be like ok we togheter they just using that to not use the word marriage they are trying to make a civil union basically the same as marriage just without the name cause marriage is definaed as a union between man and woman

so to me they are just basically making this up and as soon as they get the civil union passed then they want the to have the rights to actually get marriaed and use the term married

Colonel Sanders

10th November 2006, 12:41 AM

Right now gays have just as much liberty as the next person, at least in America.

And honestly they should be thankful for even that. They are gay, which means they "prefer" a different lifestyle. If they can get away with that in this culture goodie for them.

But they should not be asking for rights to get married in this country when this country was founded on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a sacred religious ceremony.

It's really that simple and civil unions still mean marriage to much of the U.S.

They should just be happy that they can live out their lives without persecution, there is no need to encroach on political and religious matters that is very controversial to their way of life. If you ask me it brings in more negative feedback to them than not.

Quaker

10th November 2006, 01:23 AM

another thing that bothers is me is that gays seem to have to flaunt there sexual preference in front of everyone.

for example : gay pride parades--why is this necessary?
i dont have parades announcing im straight

why do gay guys have to talk like a women ? there is no biologial or physical reason that even if your gay that you must talk with a lisp and say you go girl all the time---to me this is comparable with wiggerism

and actually to me gays seem to want more rights then the average person does i could respect the gays wantiing to have there marriages or whatever if they were also worried bout other groups civil rights.. find me a gay that is also fighting for the rights of the poor person- or racial rights - or religious rights-or for gender equality and i would be tempted to respect them a little more.
toi me it seems that most gays are self centered and only worried bout THERE specific rights which to me makes them selfish and self centered. Now for the sake of keeping this as simple as possible.... what in your above rant justifys not allowing civil unions?

also in response to your gays can raise children in loving environment..true they can but you also said most would be ridiculed for having gay parents--i agree why should you knowingly subject a child to this? Any more than one should knowingly say place a white child in a black family or a black child in a white family? Do you think those kids will not be ridiculed and picked on by their peers? There's a foreinger client we have right now that is constantly teased by her peers for looking different and having different body features than a typical american. Does that mean her adoption should have been prevented?

So instead of getting at the problem and educating people to accept things that are different from them you'd rather follow the whole "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist" idealogy?

Is it really okay to oppress an entire population of people just simply because you find something "gross" and don't "think" its "good"?

I personally think its a damn shame for anyone to own a gun while having small kids in a household... does that mean i should be able to force it on you just because i have the power to do so? or is it your CONSTITUTIONAL right to have said weapon? Just as it is my right to be treated as equal as the next couple.

if i wwanted to marry a dog or cow should i be givien full marriage rights then?
it actually isnt hurting anyone if i do so should this be allowed. Get the cow to consent and be of sound mind and age and your all set.

the whole thing boils down to why give legal rights to people that are basically comminting illegal acts in a lot of states even so it is basically an unenforceable law And yet you still fail to realize the sillyness of your post?

As you posted in the beginning these laws are also in effect towards straight people, yet straight people are able to sidetrack em so how all of a sudden are you preaching that it should apply to gay people?

You keep preaching about "no one gets special rights", but just above you made a clear discriminatory remark as to "its illegal for gays to do something but ignore the fact that straights can also do it". You can't have it both ways.

Quaker

10th November 2006, 01:37 AM

well gays have everyright that any other person has If your husband/wife got sick and was in the hospital... by default of being married /united you'd be able to visit her. Any gay person could easily be denied such a right... Now how is this equal? they have the right to life liverty and the pursiut of happiness as an american You mean to say as long as they don't admit that they are gay? So essentially deny who you are and you have the "right to live a happy life"... Sorry not such a happy life. why must they be given benefits saved for married people? Who says its saved for married people? Its saved for people that wish to live their lives out together which qulifys everyone, not just hetros. Again as I asked Kaf and he so nicely ignored... Does marriage have a monopoly on love? Does religion have a monopoly on love?

to me a civil unions should be like ok we togheter they just using that to not use the word marriage they are trying to make a civil union basically the same as marriage just without the name cause marriage is definaed as a union between man and woman I have taken this post to the old gay marriage thread and replied there since it would be nice to keep the focus of this one only on civil unions.

so to me they are just basically making this up and as soon as they get the civil union passed then they want the to have the rights to actually get marriaed and use the term married You bet your arse... Taking it one step at a time... because guess what... "seperate but equal" doesn't fly and will not ever fly

Quaker

10th November 2006, 01:49 AM

Right now gays have just as much liberty as the next person, at least in America. You mean just as much as the next gay person... right?

And honestly they should be thankful for even that. What not being "slaughtered by the millions"?

But they should not be asking for rights to get married in this country when this country was founded on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a sacred religious ceremony. This country was also founded on a hell of alot of other things.... slavery ring a bell? Or how about the oppression of women?

Again all of what your stating is fine and dandy... but how does any of it relate to getting a CIVIL union? Meaning a legal document? Meaning from a governmental institution which seperates religion from state?

It's really that simple and civil unions still mean marriage to much of the U.S. And again how does ignorance prove that Civil Unions should not be granted? Just because you don't like something is not a valid reason for why it should be banned.

You have mentioned dozens of times over that it will "harm society" I am still waiting for you to back up that or any of your other claims in regards to Civil Unions.

They should just be happy that they can live out their lives without persecution Without persecution HAHA!! Go do a tad bit of research on gay hate crimes to see how true that really is. there is no need to encroach on political and religious matters that is very controversial to their way of life. Another form of civil rights was just as "controversial" a couple of decades ago, should those people have also have hid under a rock and been thankful that they were still atleast alive? If you ask me it brings in more negative feedback to them than not. Trust me gay people out of most groups are probably best fit to deal with "negative feedback"... bring it on :).

We are ALL born with either one penis or one vagina. ummm no actually do a simple google search on hermepherdites. People are born all the time with neither genitilia and doctors most of the time add female genitilia since it is the simplest to do. Also there are cases in which people are born with both.

Homosexuality is the result of poor upbringing..modern culture brainwashing..and like you said a desperate attempt by confused individuals to "fit in". Hell if they want to do that so badly they can go to jail and suck dick there as far as I'm concerned. So are you saying Haggard the recent leader of all those churches, close aid to the president had a "poor upbringing" and was "brainwashed" to be gay?

Oh and your "fit in" line just made me spit out my drink... How does one coming out as gay help them "fit in"? Please do enlighten me onto that

hmmm can't seem to keep your points straight (no pun intended mwahahah) can you?

Quaker

10th November 2006, 02:01 AM

gay is a choice not a race. no matter what the gay population say gay isnt genetic or heriditary. gay is a choice you chose to be gay you dont choose to be a race or a sex.
i choose to smoke cigerettes but they are taking all my rights away.
why should we be giving rights to other groups cause of there choices? And based on what are you making this assumptions?

Lets do something that I can see is quite foreign to you.... why don't we do some research? The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round....

From the American Psychologica Association:

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

as i stated before allpeople should have equal rights in respect to race and gender those are things you cant specifially change? (Just for sake of simplicity ignoring our above lesson plan...) Why?

and i can get a parrot to say i do so should i be given full marriage rights ? And you can also show that said parrot has the mental ability to make such a decision?

Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream

10th November 2006, 02:15 AM

yes a human can choose to be gay or straight its quit easy.. i choose to be straight and has nothing to do with all that bs mumbo jumbo infactual evidence that was probably done buy some gay scientist.
its is nature that male and female should be together. thats why the sexual organs were made thusly the penis for insertion into vagina. the anus was made for the removal of fecal matter not for another penis to be inserted into.
its just friggin common sence man

and your right quaker a parrot doesnt have the cognitive reasoning to make a descision but a human does and if you use your brain you will see that man and women were biologically made to be together

Quaker

10th November 2006, 02:29 AM

yes a human can choose to be gay or straight its quit easy.. i choose to be straight No you choose to act out what comes natural to you... just by your constant disgust towards gay sex, it shows quite clearly that you never considered being gay. and has nothing to do with all that bs mumbo jumbo infactual evidence that was probably done buy some gay scientist. Yes yes... Nice way of defending your stance... am I really surprised.... You have to wonder why there isn't anything to support your view... maybe because your just flat out wrong?
its is nature that male and female should be together. thats why the sexual organs were made thusly the penis for insertion into vagina. the anus was made for the removal of fecal matter not for another penis to be inserted into.
its just friggin common sence man Lets apply your above rant to real life now shall we? Are you worried abou the human race ending from "non-babymaking" sex? If not then again for the tenth time how does anything posted affect the right of a couple to get a CIVIL union?

and your right quaker a parrot doesnt have the cognitive reasoning to make a descision but a human does and if you use your brain you will see that man and women were biologically made to be together No no your giving man and women too much credit... the ONLY thing the dick and cunt analogy shows is that you insert A into B. It does not equate to life-long relationship.

Or are you implying sex is the fundemental principal of a Civil Union?

Colonel Sanders

10th November 2006, 03:42 AM

That stupid article you posted is the same one you posted in arguing to me on the old forums.

It's well..stupid

And yes quaker everyone not being born with either one sexual organs or the other..... umm I am not considering birth defects here alright? fucking idiot thats the dumbest thing I have heard come from you.

No you choose to act out what comes natural to you

Do you know why he does and every other straight person? yeah you see thats because it is NATURAL just like you said, get a clue

You mean just as much as the next gay person... right?

Yeah I do.. gays are not a race and they are not being oppressed by the MASSES. They are a different way of living and I guess in some cases you could say culture. They are a foreign, very minute culture living in todays modern world. They do not fit in with the rest of us. This is repeat history. Of course they will be scorned upon by people. However at least the U.S. has learned from it's past mistakes...because I see no laws persecuting gays.

Kloaked Spirit

10th November 2006, 12:40 PM

That stupid article you posted is the same one you posted in arguing to me on the old forums.

It's well..stupid

Amazing argument. Do you have anything to actually back this up? Otherwise, this was a complete waste of typing.

And yes quaker everyone not being born with either one sexual organs or the other..... umm I am not considering birth defects here alright? fucking idiot thats the dumbest thing I have heard come from you.

Wait a minute. All he did was call you out on this completely pointless statement.

We are ALL born with either one penis or one vagina.

It seems that you were the one that was not considering birth defects. Don't make blanket statements and then attack the person that shows how useless they are. Besides, you have still failed to come back to the point of this topic. How does this apply to why or why not gay people should be allowed a civil union? In fact, many gay people are born with one penis or one vagina, just like most humans. Therefore this random line of arguing has no real point, does it?

Do you know why he does and every other straight person? yeah you see thats because it is NATURAL just like you said, get a clue

Actually it's not natural for every other straight person. You should really learn to stop using such generalizations. Plenty of people that are straight have thought or considered having homosexual affairs. The "bi-curious" are the most common examples. Hell, if we are still in anything like the time of the Kinsey reports a half century ago, about one-third of all men have had some form of sexual experience with another man. Yet we certainly don't have a nation where one-third of the men are gay.

Yeah I do.. gays are not a race and they are not being oppressed by the MASSES. They are a different way of living and I guess in some cases you could say culture. They are a foreign, very minute culture living in todays modern world. They do not fit in with the rest of us. This is repeat history. Of course they will be scorned upon by people. However at least the U.S. has learned from it's past mistakes...because I see no laws persecuting gays.

Congratulations, you've managed to repeat the phrase "they're a minority" about 6 times in one paragraph. Then you completely ignored the common grounds on why other minorities should get these priviledges and not gays. You also ignored the concepts of laws being made to discriminate gays and the concept of gay hate crimes. However, what you failed to do was get to the point about why this should stop them from having a civil union?

Oh wait, I see it. It's in that last sentence when you say you see no laws persecuting them (despite the fact that there are laws which allow discrimination based on sexual preference.) I guess for you this is a good "close enough" situation?

Colonel Sanders

10th November 2006, 02:29 PM

Jimmy James

10th November 2006, 04:04 PM

Kat

10th November 2006, 09:57 PM

Like what laws.. the military? And of course the one we are arguing about, civil unions.

You keep saying I don't have anything good to say when it comes to gays not being allowed civil-unions. Well guess what you will always say that no matter what I say cause it's what you believe..so what is the point? I have said I don't believe gays should be allowed civil unions because it is still considered marriage to most of the country; if and when a day comes that the majority feel this is not the case I would have no problem allowing gays civil unions., but more acurately it's not that I would not have a problem..just that I will digress from having any opinions on the matter That is how I stand on the subject.

I thought one of your arguements about gay marriage was that married people considered marriage to be a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and that the ceronmany and the term itself was important and should be reserved for that and not applied to gay people.

Now you're saying that most people see marriage as analogous to a simple legal document. Sorry, I know people were trying to keep the marriage issue seperate from the civil union argument, but there seems to be a contradiction here. Either marriage is important and therefore (not according to me, but to some) should be kept exclusive, in which case there's a point to civil unions; or marriage is the same as the legal document (or as you put it, the legal document is the same as marriage, which is the same thing) in which case why are we arguing about this?

KAF, you think (from what I can make out) that gay people shouldn't have the same legal position as other people simply because they are gay. There's no way to argue you out of that, because it's not a logically founded belief; like most (all?) hatred it's entirely irrational. There's also therefore no way for you to logically justify it, which is why this thread is going round in circles. Of course there's also no way for other people to logically explain the reasons behind why we believe that people should be treated equally - it's just a basic premis from which people are arguing.

Have fun everyone - I don't think I've got the energy to get much more involved in another one of these threads!