Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

[bodecea]

Not to derail your thoughts, but that is what I was was attempting to say a few days ago in my disagreement with CL regarding lawsuits. It is a progression. Steps had to be taken. Homosexuals granted the right to marry in MA and CA could not simply jump in to court and demand their right to be married in the church of their choosing. They have to take the necessary steps to get to a point where they can win.

That does not mean that I think they should or should not win in court. It means that I think they have to take their time. What is that saying? "Rome wasn't built in a day"?

Immie

So, how is that "progression" of interracial and interfaith couples jumping into court to demand their right to be married in the church of their choosing doing?

I honestly don't know. I am not following the issues.

Well, if interracial couples and interfaith couples were ABLE to legally force churches who reject them into marrying, there would be case history. There is not. And you know that too...but feel free to play the "ignorance game."

I get the impression that you think I am wrong,

Very astute of you.

but the funny thing is that I am agreeing with you. What my statement means is that the gay community knows that it will not win in court under today's environment. They are smart enough to know that this is going to take time.

Just because interracial and interfaith couples may not have won complete acceptance today does not mean that the gay community should just give up? Maybe I'm confused about what you are trying to say here.

Immie

That churches HAVE THE RIGHT to reject ANYONE they do not wish to marry. Period. End of Subject. Why some people want to pretend that gays can suddenly change that when interracial couples, interfaith couples, and other faith couples have NEVER succeeded in doing that....well, fear mongering does work for the feeble minded, I hear.

 

[Sunni Man]

So MOST people have become more civilized about how they treat people who happen to be gay in their families, in their work place, in their neighborhood, etc.

Since I do the hiring at the corporation where I work.

We have NO homos in the work place.

That you know of...and you think they're gonna tell YOU?


That you know of...and you think they're gonna tell YOU?

And as far as I know. NO sodomites in our neighborhood.

No luck in spotting them in your nightly forays peeking in neighbors' windows yet?

Yet we are civilized people and strive to treat all "normal" people fairly and with compassion.

Some are more civilized than others.

Bodecea, why turn this debate/discussion into a personal attack on me???

Can't we just debate/discuss the issues without the personal animosity?

 

[Immanuel]

So, how is that "progression" of interracial and interfaith couples jumping into court to demand their right to be married in the church of their choosing doing?

I honestly don't know. I am not following the issues.

Well, if interracial couples and interfaith couples were ABLE to legally force churches who reject them into marrying, there would be case history. There is not. And you know that too...but feel free to play the "ignorance game."

You must not be following along very well, because I have repeatedly stated that no one will (under today's climate) be able to force a church to marry a couple. I have stated that repeatedly.

What I have been repeatedly saying is that these couples are fighting for their rights. Just as minorities have had to fight for their own rights, these couples are striving for the right to marry in the church of their choosing.

Is that really that difficult to understand?

Whether or not they win is something we willh have to wait and see about.

but the funny thing is that I am agreeing with you. What my statement means is that the gay community knows that it will not win in court under today's environment. They are smart enough to know that this is going to take time.

Just because interracial and interfaith couples may not have won complete acceptance today does not mean that the gay community should just give up? Maybe I'm confused about what you are trying to say here.

That churches HAVE THE RIGHT to reject ANYONE they do not wish to marry. Period. End of Subject. Why some people want to pretend that gays can suddenly change that when interracial couples, interfaith couples, and other faith couples have NEVER succeeded in doing that....well, fear mongering does work for the feeble minded, I hear.

Today they do... but tomorrow?

I have never once stated that they could suddenly change anything and there has been no fear coming from my statements at all. The gay community has to continue to strive for equality, if they don't then true equality will never be won. I never once condemned the community's efforts.

I stated earlier that I believe that the church needs to review its stance in this manner. Either they believe that God offers his grace to everyone, gays included or they don't believe that. Plain and simple.

Now is that so difficult to understand?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

One more thing Bodecea, I am on the record here in this thread and many others over the last several years as to my belief that the government should get out of the marriage business completely and state marriages should be civil unions and apply to not only the homosexual community, but the straight community as well. That the religiuos rite of marriage should remain the realm of the church AND that any church that chose to marry homosexual couples should be allowed to do so.

And you and I have discussed that very fact several times.

I can understand why CurveLight would be unaware of my stance and have a problem with what I say, but since you and I have discussed this before, I fail to understand why you are taking issue with what I have said here.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

One more thing Bodecea, I am on the record here in this thread and many others over the last several years as to my belief that the government should get out of the marriage business completely and state marriages should be civil unions and apply to not only the homosexual community, but the straight community as well. That the religiuos rite of marriage should remain the realm of the church AND that any church that chose to marry homosexual couples should be allowed to do so.

And you and I have discussed that very fact several times.

I can understand why CurveLight would be unaware of my stance and have a problem with what I say, but since you and I have discussed this before, I fail to understand why you are taking issue with what I have said here.

Immie

Your rhetoric bounces across several lines blurring your position. If you are going to claim some gay activists will not rest until they can force all churches to marry gays then you need to be extremely clear and not leave room for misunderstandings. It would also be helpful to cite evidence and if you can't then that is a good sign the fringe groups you are referencing are so inconsequential it is a moot point and should be left alone. I would suggest doing a consistency check for how you frame responses but hey, as many have graciously pointed out, I'm a fucktard moron so take that advice with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm a fucktard moron so take that advice with a huge grain of salt.

For once, I totally and completely agree with you.

 

[CurveLight]

I'm a fucktard moron so take that advice with a huge grain of salt.

For once, I totally and completely agree with you.

Oh, didn't you know? My main goal in life is to get someone like you to agree with me. The way you explain your positions with sound logic and the absence of ad homs is extremely inspiring. Frankly, I'm very surprised some academic textbook publishers or political diplomats have not snatched you up to take advantage of your light-years ahead ability to make it almost impossible for any intelligent and logical person to disagree with any of your positions. If I were you I'd find a way to make people pay to read your posts. You're sitting on a gold mine!

 

[Immanuel]

One more thing Bodecea, I am on the record here in this thread and many others over the last several years as to my belief that the government should get out of the marriage business completely and state marriages should be civil unions and apply to not only the homosexual community, but the straight community as well. That the religiuos rite of marriage should remain the realm of the church AND that any church that chose to marry homosexual couples should be allowed to do so.

And you and I have discussed that very fact several times.

I can understand why CurveLight would be unaware of my stance and have a problem with what I say, but since you and I have discussed this before, I fail to understand why you are taking issue with what I have said here.

Immie

Your rhetoric bounces across several lines blurring your position. If you are going to claim some gay activists will not rest until they can force all churches to marry gays then you need to be extremely clear and not leave room for misunderstandings. It would also be helpful to cite evidence and if you can't then that is a good sign the fringe groups you are referencing are so inconsequential it is a moot point and should be left alone. I would suggest doing a consistency check for how you frame responses but hey, as many have graciously pointed out, I'm a fucktard moron so take that advice with a huge grain of salt.

I did cite evidence... the civil rights movement for one. You know... History repeats itself. I fully believe that it will here. Maybe not so far as to get the Catholic Church to offer marriage to homosexuals or to ordain them, after all, they still wont give priests the right to marry women, why would they allow homosexuals the rite of marriage? But, maybe someday they wont have to pretend to be something they are not. Even better, maybe Christians will some day see them as sinners in need of a savior as well!

Also, your statement about my point being, "some gay activists will not rest until they can force all churches to marry gays", is not the message I have been trying to bring across. The word "force", is definitely not what I have been attempting to portray although, if circumstances were right maybe some would attempt that tact. Force is too strong of a word. Coax would be a little closer. I don't believe the activist would necessarily use force per se, but rather bring about their desires using methods of persuasion. On the other hand, given a political climate that was ripe for them, "forcing" churches through use of the legal system would not be out of the question. I'd use it if my cause (say pro-life) could pull it off, why wouldn't the homosexual community?

The states adopting civil unions is a step in that direction. If the homosexual community can bring moderate members of society to see them as "normal" human beings then they have taken a step towards acceptance. Enough steps and a religious ceremony in a real church (not saying that those churches that have opened the door to them already are not "real" churches) might not be out of the question. That is all I have really been trying to say.

I have to say that I can understand your feelings that I cross several lines and blur my position and for that I apologize. Sometimes, I confuse myself on my position. You see, I am a Christian and to make things worse, I consider myself to be a conservative Christian. I am supposed to hate gay people... or so I am told. I am supposed to be opposed to gay marriage... again that is what I am told even stating that I support the idea of civil unions for straights and gays and getting the state out of the marriage business is heresy to some of my friends. I am supposed to condemn any woman that would think about let alone have an abortion, but I just can't do that and stick to my belief that without God's Grace, I have no hope myself.

There are many things that I am supposed to be and do simply because I am a conservative Christian. I'm not supposed to want to help the poor or the hungry, because I am supposed to be rich and arrogant... well, some would call me arrogant, few would call me rich, yet, I support the idea behind Welfare and Social Security although I believe that both programs need some major help.

Consistency? Sorry, not going to find that from me. I tend to jump over the center line too often.

Did I ever call you a "fucktard moron"? No, I didn't because I don't use the first word in that phrase as it is imbecilic. You and I had one real disagreement but I know I didn't call you a "fucktard moron". Maybe a moron, but never fucktard. I know that I said something about you calling everyone else names or just plain attacking them for no reason, but it seems to me that most people begin posting on these sites with guns blazing and then when they get to know people a little better they tend to moderate their, "hatred" especially their hatred of the dreaded "other side". I know it happened to me and I see you moderating a bit as well.

I pray you don't find that to be an insult as it is not at all intended to be.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

The states adopting civil unions is a step in that direction. If the homosexual community can bring moderate members of society to see them as "normal" human beings then they have taken a step towards acceptance. Enough steps and a religious ceremony in a real church (not saying that those churches that have opened the door to them already are not "real" churches) might not be out of the question. That is all I have really been trying to say.

Well stated

 

[immto]

The states adopting civil unions is a step in that direction. If the homosexual community can bring moderate members of society to see them as "normal" human beings then they have taken a step towards acceptance. Enough steps and a religious ceremony in a real church (not saying that those churches that have opened the door to them already are not "real" churches) might not be out of the question. That is all I have really been trying to say.

Well stated

The catholic Church is not going to go with that but you're on the right track.

 

[rightwinger]

The states adopting civil unions is a step in that direction. If the homosexual community can bring moderate members of society to see them as "normal" human beings then they have taken a step towards acceptance. Enough steps and a religious ceremony in a real church (not saying that those churches that have opened the door to them already are not "real" churches) might not be out of the question. That is all I have really been trying to say.

Well stated

The catholic Church is not going to go with that but you're on the right track.

They don't have to. Other Churches will step up and fill the void. Catholic Doctrine is still in the 19th century. They still can't accept Priests marrying, how can they accept gay marriage?

 

[Yurt]

I don't think anyone is pushing to force gay marriage on churches. It is the legal and societal impacts of marriage that gays seek. The legal rights as well as the legal acknowledgement and acceptance of their relationship.
This being the case, the government should assign civil unions to all couples. Let gays find a religion that will marry them.

exactly....

i would add....let anyone who wants to offer marriages, marry them.....doesn't have to be a religion, it certaintly isn't now

 

[scottsoperson]

does tiger woods support the sanctity of marriage amendment?

 

[scottsoperson]

the catholic church is against gay marriage. but archbishop law is hiding out in the vatican.

 

[bodecea]

Since I do the hiring at the corporation where I work.

We have NO homos in the work place.

That you know of...and you think they're gonna tell YOU?


That you know of...and you think they're gonna tell YOU?



No luck in spotting them in your nightly forays peeking in neighbors' windows yet?

Yet we are civilized people and strive to treat all "normal" people fairly and with compassion.

Some are more civilized than others.

Bodecea, why turn this debate/discussion into a personal attack on me???

It is not a personal attack on you unless you identify with the "you" in my comment. It amazes me how people are so concerned with what gay people do in the bedroom...it's got to be voyeurism to the extreme. Seriously.



Can't we just debate/discuss the issues without the personal animosity?[/QUOTE]

 

[bodecea]

I'm a fucktard moron so take that advice with a huge grain of salt.

For once, I totally and completely agree with you.

Oh, didn't you know? My main goal in life is to get someone like you to agree with me. The way you explain your positions with sound logic and the absence of ad homs is extremely inspiring. Frankly, I'm very surprised some academic textbook publishers or political diplomats have not snatched you up to take advantage of your light-years ahead ability to make it almost impossible for any intelligent and logical person to disagree with any of your positions. If I were you I'd find a way to make people pay to read your posts. You're sitting on a gold mine!

If nothing else, he should be a Full Professor of Western History in some prestigious Ivy League University.

 

[CurveLight]

For once, I totally and completely agree with you.

Oh, didn't you know? My main goal in life is to get someone like you to agree with me. The way you explain your positions with sound logic and the absence of ad homs is extremely inspiring. Frankly, I'm very surprised some academic textbook publishers or political diplomats have not snatched you up to take advantage of your light-years ahead ability to make it almost impossible for any intelligent and logical person to disagree with any of your positions. If I were you I'd find a way to make people pay to read your posts. You're sitting on a gold mine!

If nothing else, he should be a Full Professor of Western History in some prestigious Ivy League University.

I'm sure Liberty University would love to have him tenured....if they can pry him away from Cambridge, Princeton, or Harvard.