Civil Unions: A Step Foward

And one on which nearly everyone agrees by the way. No one gives much of damn about civil unions. what people get incensed about is when you start trying to redefine their religioius institutions that people get upset and rightfully so.
 
And one on which nearly everyone agrees by the way. No one gives much of damn about civil unions. what people get incensed about is when you start trying to redefine their religioius institutions that people get upset and rightfully so.

Who's trying to define "religious institutions"?

Marriage is a right granted by the STATE. So what are you talking about?
 
And one on which nearly everyone agrees by the way. No one gives much of damn about civil unions. what people get incensed about is when you start trying to redefine their religioius institutions that people get upset and rightfully so.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion, and until the gay people wanted it there was little to do with anything but legal rights. Marriage is just a civil union with a different name. Separate the two completely and there would never have been an issue in the first place, but because of the religious wingnuts wanting control of everything there is an issue.
 
And one on which nearly everyone agrees by the way. No one gives much of damn about civil unions. what people get incensed about is when you start trying to redefine their religioius institutions that people get upset and rightfully so.

I can understand a religion choosing not to marry gays and those getting upset when groups try to force it on them ... that's their prerogative ... as long as they recognize that there is no religion requirement to get married by the state and that gay couples married by the state are granted the same benefits and rights as straight couples.
 
Marriage is a religious institution recognized by the state and has been seen as such for several thousand years. You don't like it tough. Your vain attempts to get everyone else to parrot your lines reminds me of an old Joke. It is Britain 1970, A ninety year old man is preparing to leave London for Australia permanently. A young reporter asks him why? He says.

Well son in my youth we hung gays, when I was in my twenties we just jailed them. By the time i was fifty we just ignored them now they're getting married. Me I'm leaving before they make it mandatory.

No unbiased survey since Kinsey has ever found gays to be even half as much of the population as Kinsey did. The majority are willing to accept civil settle for that. Please. You refuse to do so and you risk turning the clock back a century. Gay marriage initiatives have fallen by huge majorities in every state they've been tried. Even in ultra liberal California. You keep trying to ram this down peoples throats and you'll eventually produce a backlash of historic proportions. And I really rather not see that happen. The idiot Phelps is only the first sign of that coming backlash right now he is a marginal fringe nut. You risk making him and others like him something much more.
 
And one on which nearly everyone agrees by the way. No one gives much of damn about civil unions. what people get incensed about is when you start trying to redefine their religioius institutions that people get upset and rightfully so.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion, and until the gay people wanted it there was little to do with anything but legal rights. Marriage is just a civil union with a different name. Separate the two completely and there would never have been an issue in the first place, but because of the religious wingnuts wanting control of everything there is an issue.

Well, there are religious wingnuts and also gay wingnuts. Polls have shown for years that the majority of Americans supported civil unions but opposed same sex marriages, yet gay activists pursued the unpopular issue of same sex marriage in the courts instead of campaigning for civil unions in state legislatures when polls showed they would have won in most states. Since, as you point out, civil unions can be the same as marriage in everything but name, the fact that gay activists chose to go after same sex marriage in the courts rather than go after civil unions in the legislatures shows same sex marriage is as much of an ideological issue for them as it is for people who oppose it on religious grounds.
 
Marriage is a religious institution recognized by the state and has been seen as such for several thousand years. You don't like it tough. Your vain attempts to get everyone else to parrot your lines reminds me of an old Joke. It is Britain 1970, A ninety year old man is preparing to leave London for Australia permanently. A young reporter asks him why? He says.

Well son in my youth we hung gays, when I was in my twenties we just jailed them. By the time i was fifty we just ignored them now they're getting married. Me I'm leaving before they make it mandatory.

No unbiased survey since Kinsey has ever found gays to be even half as much of the population as Kinsey did. The majority are willing to accept civil settle for that. Please. You refuse to do so and you risk turning the clock back a century. Gay marriage initiatives have fallen by huge majorities in every state they've been tried. Even in ultra liberal California. You keep trying to ram this down peoples throats and you'll eventually produce a backlash of historic proportions. And I really rather not see that happen. The idiot Phelps is only the first sign of that coming backlash right now he is a marginal fringe nut. You risk making him and others like him something much more.

Your logic is both twisted and biased.

Religion does not have ownership on marriage despite what you may think. Marriages are recognized by the state, not religion is what is up for debate here. Nobody is trying to force Christianity or whatever religion has brain washed you to recognize Gay Marriage. By the way, ever hear of a little thing called seperation of church and state? Technically, the state should not follow the church's laws on this and rather base a decision off it's own merits but it doesn't obviously.

In her book Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, Nancy F. Cott explains at length how deeply intertwined marriage and public government have been in America. From the beginning marriage has been treated not as a religious institution, but as a private contract with public implications:

Although the details of marital practice varied widely among Revolutionary-era Americans, there was a broadly shared understanding of the essentials of the institution. The most important was the unity of husband and wife. The "sublime and refined...principle of union" joining the two was the "most important consequence of marriage," according to James Wilson, a preeminent statesman and legal philosopher.

The consent of both was also essential. "The agreement of both parties, the essence of every rational contract, is indispensably required," Wilson said in lectures delivered in 1792. He saw mutual consent as the hallmark of marriage — more basic than cohabitation.

Everyone spoke of the marriage contract. Yet as a contract it was unique, for the parties did not set their own terms. The man and woman consented to marry, but public authorities set the terms of the marriage, so that it brought predictable rewards and duties. Once the union was formed, its obligations were fixed in common law. Husband and wife each assumed a new legal status as well as a new status in their community. That means neither could break the terms set without offending the larger community, the law, and the state, as much as offending the partner.
Early Americans' understanding of marriage was closely tied to their understanding of the state: both were seen as institutions which free individuals entered into voluntarily and thus could also exit voluntarily. The basis of marriage was not religion, but the wishes of free, consenting adults.

Notice what was in that entire part right there wingnut? The basis of marriage was the wishes of free, consenting adults; nothing about religion even back then. So do us all a favor, take your religion that has brainwashed you into taking the rights away from others for no good reason and take a walk.

Oh and P.S.: Go fuck yourself especially with everything you said after "No unbiased survey". With that twisted logic, people like MLK. Jr should of have never done anything like the Civil Rights Movement due to the risks or Women like Susan B. Anthony should of never had fought for woman rights.

In fact, I shall go ahead and quote her right now.

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences."
- Susan B. Anthony
 
Last edited:
Doesn't change the fact that at best 2 percent of the population is gay.

Fact?

I don't think this is about gays trying to recruit more gays. It seems to me that it's about two consenting adults having equal rights.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
Marriage is a civil contract. That is why divorces do not happen in church. If religions want the word "marriage" back, then the states should issue civil union licenses to everyone, gay or straight.
 
Marriage is a religious institution recognized by the state and has been seen as such for several thousand years. You don't like it tough. Your vain attempts to get everyone else to parrot your lines reminds me of an old Joke. It is Britain 1970, A ninety year old man is preparing to leave London for Australia permanently. A young reporter asks him why? He says.

Well son in my youth we hung gays, when I was in my twenties we just jailed them. By the time i was fifty we just ignored them now they're getting married. Me I'm leaving before they make it mandatory.

No unbiased survey since Kinsey has ever found gays to be even half as much of the population as Kinsey did. The majority are willing to accept civil settle for that. Please. You refuse to do so and you risk turning the clock back a century. Gay marriage initiatives have fallen by huge majorities in every state they've been tried. Even in ultra liberal California. You keep trying to ram this down peoples throats and you'll eventually produce a backlash of historic proportions. And I really rather not see that happen. The idiot Phelps is only the first sign of that coming backlash right now he is a marginal fringe nut. You risk making him and others like him something much more.

Actually, that's not even close to accurate. The right to marry is granted by the STATE. Ever hear the expression "by the power vested in me by the State of.....". It's purpose was to distribute PROPERTY.

I don't care who churches marry. The State can marry anyone it chooses so long as they don't D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-E.

Cool, huh?
 
Civil unions continue to be 'marriage light'. They do not have the same legal benefits as married couples do. They are limited to state rights, whereas a married couple is married anywhere and everywhere else in the country and the world.
 
I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?
 
I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

That's a good point. And then there's polygamy. And people will say, oh of course they won't allow any of that because that's not right... uh huh.
 
I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

That's a good point. And then there's polygamy. And people will say, oh of course they won't allow any of that because that's not right... uh huh.


Don't think so, I know a little of people that are pro gay marriage that see no problem with polygamy either. Provided everyone involved is a consenting adult, not coerced into the situation. As for relatives marrying each other, I don't find it likely that people will be advocating for the laws currently preventing that to be overturned. They are on the books because of the genetic defects that are likely to occur in the offspring of people that closely related.
 

Forum List

Back
Top