Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?

[Syriusly]

Well syr was another of those overbearing, obnoxious faggots that got relinquished to the cybershit hole with her little ****** buddies.

i wasn't going to respond, I have already put you on ignore, have no idea what nasty shit you will write, but I want be reading it.

Not only did you spam the thread but you were just spewing shit out your ass when you were character assassinating me.

I don't want to see anyone dead or what was that other lunatic phrase, "locked up", only nasty ass faggots hate other people enough to wish things like that upon them.

Actually if you folks would just go find you another jungle / country to call home all would be fine. You want to create a society that I want no part of, you can't force me through laws and trying to shame me is ******* funny as shit.

Anyway like I have told the other score of silenced faggots, you may be spewing your shit, but I ain't got to step in ****** shit.

Have a nice life and enjoy your conversations with your ****** buddies of like mind.

Thanks ***...

You talking to yourself??

You are just another insignificant piece of dick breathed ****** shit, are you running a flag up so I will add you to the ignore list with the rest of your little nasty ****** buddies??

Doom boy apparently has a vocabulary of about 10 words.

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

Once again- the gays were 'absolutist'?

I have pointed out in post after post how Christian Conservatives fought civil unions just as much- and for the exact same reason- as they fought against allowing Americans to marry.

The argument against civil unions is that Americans have no right to a civil union- but all Americans have a right to marriage. Since Christian Conservatives were legally blocking marriage and civil unions, homosexual couples went to court to fight for their right to marriage.

This revisionist history by opponents of same gender marriage is just ridiculous.

I'm pro-gay marriage, and whatever the conservatives did does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.

Two different issues.

.

 

[Syriusly]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.


.

Incorrect. Gay people were told they couldn't even have civil unions. Mainly because it was icky.

And let me tell you....this is icky!!!

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

You can invent any term you want. Why would expect anyone else to want to use some term you invent?

Meanwhile- Americans who want to marry someone of the same gender are getting married- just like my wife and I are married.

And life is good.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

I have not. This is just an "idea" on my part, not distorted by some commitment to a partisan ideology.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

Mac just wonders. He fears that someone, somewhere, won't think just like he does and actually express that opinion!! It upsets him so.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

I have not. This is just an "idea" on my part, not distorted by some commitment to a partisan ideology.

.

Your commitment should be to the ideology of EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Vociferously.

 

[Syriusly]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

Once again- the gays were 'absolutist'?

I have pointed out in post after post how Christian Conservatives fought civil unions just as much- and for the exact same reason- as they fought against allowing Americans to marry.

The argument against civil unions is that Americans have no right to a civil union- but all Americans have a right to marriage. Since Christian Conservatives were legally blocking marriage and civil unions, homosexual couples went to court to fight for their right to marriage.

This revisionist history by opponents of same gender marriage is just ridiculous.

I'm pro-gay marriage, and whatever the conservatives did does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.

.

What fact? You appear to be confusing your opinion with 'fact'.

Christian conservatives opposed civil unions just as they opposed gay marriage. The State of Georgia when it made same gender marriage illegal also made civil unions illegal.

Christian Conservatives ensured that civil unions would never be legally equal to marriage.

Homosexuals who wanted a legally equal union had one legal option to counter that- going to court to demand their Constitutional right to marriage.

There never was any right to a civil union- but there was always a right to marriage.

Christian Conservatives demanded that gays be denied any legal recognition similar to marriage- and they reaped what they sowed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

You can invent any term you want. Why would expect anyone else to want to use some term you invent?

Meanwhile- Americans who want to marry someone of the same gender are getting married- just like my wife and I are married.

And life is good.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

You see hatred coming from both sides?

 

[Syriusly]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Well couples who want to get married are getting married now. If others want to start calling their unions "Cosmic Amalgamation" I am fine with it.

 

[Syriusly]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

You seem to inventing a problem that does not exist.

Not sure how you think gay couples should 'bend' to your imaginary new name for marriage.

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

Once again- the gays were 'absolutist'?

I have pointed out in post after post how Christian Conservatives fought civil unions just as much- and for the exact same reason- as they fought against allowing Americans to marry.

The argument against civil unions is that Americans have no right to a civil union- but all Americans have a right to marriage. Since Christian Conservatives were legally blocking marriage and civil unions, homosexual couples went to court to fight for their right to marriage.

This revisionist history by opponents of same gender marriage is just ridiculous.

I'm pro-gay marriage, and whatever the conservatives did does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.

.

What fact? You appear to be confusing your opinion with 'fact'.

Christian conservatives opposed civil unions just as they opposed gay marriage. The State of Georgia when it made same gender marriage illegal also made civil unions illegal.

Christian Conservatives ensured that civil unions would never be legally equal to marriage.

Homosexuals who wanted a legally equal union had one legal option to counter that- going to court to demand their Constitutional right to marriage.

There never was any right to a civil union- but there was always a right to marriage.

Christian Conservatives demanded that gays be denied any legal recognition similar to marriage- and they reaped what they sowed.

The Christian Conservatives should have done the obvious thing and agreed to civil unions, which they chose not to do. Yep.

I'm looking forward, which is why I tossed out the idea that they come up with some nice little term they can call their own.

I think this is being blown out of proportion, more semantics and symbolism than anything else.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

You seem to inventing a problem that does not exist.

Not sure how you think gay couples should 'bend' to your imaginary new name for marriage.

No one "has" to do anything.

I'm not one of those who like to control, punish, and intimidate others.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

You seem to inventing a problem that does not exist.

Not sure how you think gay couples should 'bend' to your imaginary new name for marriage.

Quietly. As long as they bend without complaining....and in an adult, mature manner.....all will be great.

 

[Syriusly]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Which religion is going to suck it up and accept the faggots??
.

What kind of religion indeed?

Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’a]">[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]">[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[LoneLaugher]

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

You seem to inventing a problem that does not exist.

Not sure how you think gay couples should 'bend' to your imaginary new name for marriage.

No one "has" to do anything.

I'm not one of those who like to control, punish, and intimidate others.

.

You absolutely are.

 

[Syriusly]

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

You seem to inventing a problem that does not exist.

Not sure how you think gay couples should 'bend' to your imaginary new name for marriage.

No one "has" to do anything.

I'm not one of those who like to control, punish, and intimidate others.

.

You seem to be one of those who proclaims how others will act- and want them to bend- to an imaginary concept.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why does Mac pretend that the term "marriage" has no legal implications?

 

[Mac1958]

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

You seem to inventing a problem that does not exist.

Not sure how you think gay couples should 'bend' to your imaginary new name for marriage.

No one "has" to do anything.

I'm not one of those who like to control, punish, and intimidate others.

.

You seem to be one of those who proclaims how others will act- and want them to bend- to an imaginary concept.

Okie dokie.

.