On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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. Actually you quoted me: >>>> 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. I didn't say they were equal but they're working on it. But instead of trying to fast track the process people are focusing on the word marriage. And you said: "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...." So you finally agreed to what we've all been saying on this thread, then you flip your position below. >>> 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. You say "marriage should be the concern of religious institutions" That means if you're not religious you shouldn't be married. You said it not me. "civil unions should be the concern of the government" I repeat, you are against gay marriage but for civil unions. What twisting of words have I performed? > I am for gay couples being afforded > all the same rights as heterosexual couples. Nope. And I quote again: "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...." > 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. You just contradicted yourself again. Pick a stance and stand. This is what you just said about the word: "If you want to get 'married' go to a church, synagogue, etc...." What equal rights do gays have to use the word marriage in your statement? > Whether that is allowing them to get 'married' (in the civil sense, > not religious sense) Now you're saying words are just words. So marriage is the same as a civil union? What are you arguing for then when you argue for equal rights of the use of a word? > 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. Now I'm lost. You don't want the government to change the word marriage to civil union? But you don't want gays to get married, just get a civil union which is the same as a marriage? >>> 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. Focus on this thread, that's what we're talking about the government changing marriage certificates to civil union certificates. > 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? I don't know about bible thumpers but I'll quopte you: "marriage should be the concern of religious institutions" >>> 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. Why include the list? This is between you and me. > Please show me where I said anything discriminatory against any one? > Oh, wait...you can't, because I didn't. You said: "marriage should be the concern of religious institutions" That's discrimination according to you. > 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. Exactly. They can define themselves however they want. > 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. That's what you argued 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. I never heard that argument from a conservative. > 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. That's why they need equal rights under the law. Argue for that rather than the use of the term marriage. It's a divisive fight rather than a realistic one. > 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'. What's with you and blacks today ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:326457 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
