Is banning same-sex marriage fair?

[Barb]

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

I dunno.

 

[Sherry]

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

 

[Againsheila]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

If you had asked me back when I was a senior in high school, I would have said absolutely they have the right to marriage. Once I had children, suddenly I didn't know everything anymore. I just don't know. When it came up on the ballot here, I didn't vote one way or the other.

Sweetie, as much as you love your kids, I gotta ask:
Would it be more important to you that they were happy, or socially accepted?

I think all parents want their kids to be happy. They all want grandchildren too. I won't have them. I just don't know anymore what's right or wrong about homosexual marriage. Funny how I'm not getting any smarter as I'm getting older. I was such a know it all in highschool, seems back then I knew everything. But when you are looking at your baby in his crib, you love that child so much, you want nothing but the best for him and I seriously doubt the best for him is another man instead of a wife and kids.

Oh and my oldest was not accepted in highschool, not because he was homosexual, but because he's different. Somehow, I don't think homosexuals have the corner of the market on being treated badly.

FYI, I get to see my great nephews tomorrow, the closest thing I'm ever gonna have to grandchildren. I bought gifts for them, Tonka trucks. I want to spoil them so they remember me, I haven't seen them in over a year.

 

[Immanuel]

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

I dunno.

Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.

Immie

 

[Barb]

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

I dunno.

Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.

Immie

I got you immie.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

I dunno.

Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.

Immie

Oh come on, Immie. We all feel clobbered in this.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

because they aren't being honest

Bull.

I agreed to the civil union legal term as long as its the same for gays or straights. We can have the churches confer the marriage title. I'll get both.

 

[dilloduck]

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

and have everyone call it marriage.

 

[AquaAthena]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

I don't feel any opposition to it. Live and let live? Who would they be hurting and I personally don't want this kind of power[to judge] over other's lives who are doing nothing to infringe upon mine....

 

[LuckyDan]

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

I dunno.

Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.

Immie

That's life on the fence, Immie.

Let me suggest, respectfully and sincerely, that you reconsider exactly how much homosexuals are truly mistreated under current marriage laws, and then ask yourself if any solution is really necessary.

The only sensible reply to the whole question of whether the definition of marriage should be changed... is laughter.

That we are actually debating the idea as if it had any merit is a victory for the leftist social engineers. They haven't steered us right yet.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

and have everyone call it marriage.

I'm ok with the legal title of civil unions for everyone, gay or straight as long as the rights are the same. The relgiious institutions can opt to marry whoever they wish. Some Churches and in my case, my Buddhist Center have no problem giving us the beautiful ceremony and title marriage.

 

[Barb]

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

and have everyone call it marriage.

No,
to have the STATE call it the same thing and convey the same rights as whatever the church calls it.

 

[Immanuel]

I dunno.

Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.

Immie

Oh come on, Immie. We all feel clobbered in this.

Well, I'd like to do some of the clobbering for a change. I'm black and blue all over.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

Are you "ALL" people? If not, you can't talk for "some" people.

Besides, I look at Sherry's statement and I see "some people" as people on both sides. There are some gay activists that I believe won't stop at a simple compromise. They will go after churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples, however, there are Religious Right idiots that won't give an inch the other way either.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I dunno.

Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.

Immie

That's life on the fence, Immie.

Let me suggest, respectfully and sincerely, that you reconsider exactly how much homosexuals are truly mistreated under current marriage laws, and then ask yourself if any solution is really necessary.

The only sensible reply to the whole question of whether the definition of marriage should be changed... is laughter.

That we are actually debating the idea as if it had any merit is a victory for the leftist social engineers. They haven't steered us right yet.

Well, from personal experience I can say this, homosexual couples are not treated fairly when it comes to health insurance. Many insurance companies and employers will not extend insurance benefits to unmarried, "significant others", some will not extend benefits to unmarried same sex "significant others".

That is just one problem that I do know of and have seen happen.

My religious beliefs aside, I do not think that the government should play a part in allowing those kinds of things to happen.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

Are you "ALL" people? If not, you can't talk for "some" people.

Besides, I look at Sherry's statement and I see "some people" as people on both sides. There are some gay activists that I believe won't stop at a simple compromise. They will go after churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples, however, there are Religious Right idiots that won't give an inch the other way either.

Immie

Ok I'll speak for myself. I want equal rights.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Well, I sure as hell wish someone would figure it out, because I'm tired of trying to stick up for the other side because I believe they have been mistreated and offering what I feel is a decent solution to the problem only to be clobbered by both sides.

Immie

Oh come on, Immie. We all feel clobbered in this.

Well, I'd like to do some of the clobbering for a change. I'm black and blue all over.

Immie

Oh you enjoyed dilloduck clobbering me.

 

[Againsheila]

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

Are you "ALL" people? If not, you can't talk for "some" people.

Besides, I look at Sherry's statement and I see "some people" as people on both sides. There are some gay activists that I believe won't stop at a simple compromise. They will go after churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples, however, there are Religious Right idiots that won't give an inch the other way either.

Immie

Ok I'll speak for myself. I want equal rights.

Define "equal".

 

[Immanuel]

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

Are you "ALL" people? If not, you can't talk for "some" people.

Besides, I look at Sherry's statement and I see "some people" as people on both sides. There are some gay activists that I believe won't stop at a simple compromise. They will go after churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples, however, there are Religious Right idiots that won't give an inch the other way either.

Immie

Ok I'll speak for myself. I want equal rights.

Works for me. You have already agreed to take credit for my compromise and claim victory. If it ends this issue, I'm glad to let you take the credit.

Immie