On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Many states are making them equal. It's a much easier task to get >>> civil unions to equal marriage than to change marriage. But they don't >>> want to go that route. >> >> Who are 'they'? > > You, Gmoney the folks that are fighting the wrong fight. > >> I am saying that there should be no such thing as a 'marriage >> license'..at all. Everyone who decides they want to spend the rest of >> their life with someone should get a 'civil union'. If you want to get >> 'married' go to a church, synagogue, etc.... > > You do realize that's what we're all saying? Yet you're arguing like > you have an unique point.
No, you are not. You and others are saying gay people already have civil unions, that should be good enough. Its not. Separate but equal never works. > >>>> I think its been proven, more than once, that separate but equal just >>>> does not cut it. >>> So we should force the church to recognize it? > >> You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? I have >> stated, quite clearly, marriage should be the concern of religious >> institutions, civil unions should be the concern of the government. > > So you're against gay marriage? > Actually your against all but religious marriage? > You just pissed off GMoney and most of the folks you're supporting. Twist my words a little there Sam. I am for gay couples being afforded all the same rights as heterosexual couples. And, that means being able to use the same word to describe their marriage and have their 'spouse' be eligible for all the benefits as the spouse i a heterosexual couple. Whether that is allowing them to get 'married' (in the civil sense, not religious sense) OR having the government change the way they view these relationships for EVERYONE is really irrelevant (though I have stated how I feel about it). We need to treat every couple, be it a homosexual couple or heterosexual couple the same. Period. > >> I feel change needs to be made on the government side, not the church side. > > That's what we've all been saying. You should try to pay attention :P I have never heard an opponent of gay marriages express that opinion...never. > >>> Do gays even get married? >>> 5% of population are gay and 1-5% of them get married. >>> Let's fight about it. >> >> Then why all the uproar from the Bible thumpers? > > They want to keep marriage and you agree. You tell me. Why do some Bible thumpers oppose changing the title given to the 'civil union' of heterosexual couples? Why is it OK for gay couples to have civile unions and not heterosexual couples? > >> As far as I am concerned, if even one person is discriminated against, >> that is one too many. If we lose that vision, America is dead. > > You just discriminated against all non-religious marriages. You need > to pick a side and write it down so you don't forget your point. Sam, Sam, SAm...everyone on this list is too smart to not see what you are doing. You are taking my opinion of what should be, and using the terms I used for what should be and trying to cram them into what is. Please show me where I said anything discriminatory against any one? Oh, wait...you can't, because I didn't. One more time: Gay couples should have all the same rights afforded to them as heterosexual couples. This includes being able to legally define their relationship in the same way that heterosexual couples do. There are two courses of action, that I see, that will facilitate this: 1. Allow gay couples to be 'married', in the civil sense. Not allowed to marry in a Church, but, in the eyes of the law, to be 'married'. To be allowed to file for a 'marriage license' and to call their significant other their husband or wife. This is what Conservatives are fighting against. 2. Stop using the word 'marriage' in a legal sense. Change it to something else....FOR EVERYONE. And allow EVERY COUPLE, regardless of the gender make up of that couple, to have the same rights under the law. Conservatives fight against this as well...why? I have no idea. My point, Sam, is that gay couples are treated differently under the law solely because they fell in love with someone of the same sex. That is a pretty good ans simple example of discrimination. In my opinion,m telling a gay couple they cannot get 'married' be cause they are gay, in the civil sense, is the same as telling a black couple they cannot get 'married' because they are black. Imagine the uproar if a black couple was told they cannot get married, but they can have a 'civil union'. -- Scott Stroz --------------- You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris http://xkcd.com/386/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326448 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
