Okay. Let us be clear. When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us Do. Not. Want to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.
We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves. Period. That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves. You see, here's the thing. I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours. However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions. I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion. I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even bisexual, for that matter. I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying. What I have, on every occasion said is that my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant. Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy. Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is PERSONAL, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.
I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else. The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.
Are we all on the same page, now?
NO! Because that is
EXACTLY what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"?
If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.
I never said that I
don't support that. i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for
everyone - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone. I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.
Now, I'll tell you what. Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up
their marriages being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone. Lemme know haw that works out for ya...
My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that
homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals. If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage". If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions". If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens". I don't give a shit
what they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners. You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything
not "marriage" to not straight-couples.
Does that make my position clear enough for you?
No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for.
...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...
I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.
That ship has already sailed. The government has a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnership of spouses. The government regulates divorce law. It regulates inheritance law. it provides evidential protections of spouses. There are hundreds of ways in which the government, on a local, county, state, and even federal level, is intimately entwined with the civil contract of domestic partnership. Thus what you
want government doing is irrelevant; part of its function requires that it recognise those contractual partnerships. Now, if you don't want that being called "marriage" for all, then by all means pick a different label, and apply it to
all, and relegate marriage to the useless, meaningless realm of all other purely religious practices, like baptism, and communion.
But, to ***** and whine that government "recognises" the legal domestic partnerships of heterosexuals, and homosexuals is ridiculous, pointless, ignorant, and, frankly, comes across a bit disingenuous. No one had any problem with government recognising these partnerships before the gays got involved. Why, suddenly, have we decided that it is "none of the government's business"? Is it possible that we have decided this because we don't like the position that the government is taking? If so, guess what? That's just sour grapes; get over it.
Well I'm not getting over it. Sorry. The government works for ME! I hire the government to handle certain things that I can't do by myself. I give them enumerated powers to conduct those affairs and nothing more. They don't own me, they don't get to tell me how to live.
I will continue to speak out whenever government usurps powers they don't have and encroaches on my rights as an individual. And if you don't like that, you can suck my ass.
Actually it doesn't - work for you, I mean. The government works for the
Republic. You are only one very small part of that Republic. For you to assume that you get to
dictate what the government can, and cannot do, based on your own, tiny little opinion is the height of arrogance. but, I'll tell you what. Don't take my word for it. Take your grievances to court. Sue the Government, and demand that they stop recognising marriages of any kind. Lemme know how that works out for ya.
You see, you don't really
want Government to stop recognising marriages - you just want them to stop recognising
same-sex marriages. However, since you have already seen the writing on the wall, and know that you have lost that fight, you have chosen to stake out this outrageously extreme position of "Get government out of
all marriages", in the hopes that it will gain more popularity.
Guess what? It won't. People
like having divorce regulated. They
like being able to file taxes as married couples. They
like the protections, and privileges that come from the State recognising civil domestic partners. And for the record, joint partnership agreements
don't cover everything. For instance, business partners do not have the criminal protection from being forced to testify against each other that spouses do. And that is just off the top of my head. They also do not have the right to supersede family members in terms of medical decisions, should their partner become incapacitated, as spouses do.
No. What you are trying to advocate is forcing citizens to suddenly have to file reams of new paperwork, in order to be recognised as having the rights, and privileges that are currently afforded to spouses through a single document, and civil service. All because you have gotten your panties in a bunch over the fact that those damned gays are crashing your party.
But, hey! By all means. Stake out that position. Advocate for making things messier, more complicated, and for making the marriage of every couple in the United States - both gay, and straight - useless, and meaningless. This should be fun. Lemme know how that works out for ya.
Oh, and one last point. You, Sir, are a hypocrite. You insisted that, if I weren't trying to "force my morals" on you, I would not push for Gay marriage, but would advocate civil unions. Yet, when I said that I would, in fact, support
just that, you suddenly shat yourself, and moved the goal post, insisting that wasn't good enough; that you want government out of the "domestic partnership business" altogether. So, now we see that it is not those of us who support people making their own choices trying to dictate morality; it is moralistic hypocrites like you, who will just keep moving the goal posts until you reach a line that it would be impossible for any reasonable person to support, and then insist that it is us who are being "unreasonable".
