Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Solly]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Who are you to say who isn't best for society? I don't think that is your right.

It's what we all try to do here

[Patroklos]

Damn it -- where did Patty Cakes go off to?

Lost connection for a few days, and then the thread was buried, but I see it has been RESURECTED.

None of your second class responces make sence. This is not seperate but equal. This isn't the same entity bieng given out seperatly. This is different but equal. Marriage is between a man and a woman, you only arguement against it is "I disagree" (similarly that is your detractors only arguement too).

Marriage and civil unions are different entities. They mean different things. But there is nothing stopping a marriage and civil union from being legally equal. The only thing keeping it from being morally equal, which is your illogical opinion since civil union meets the practical goals of economic and legal statis, is the gay communities inability to accept it, followed by the Christian community.

But guess what, the christians won't morally accept it even if it is called marriage. So take it as your own, and make it morally equal.

At the very least take this and run with for the temporary legal status benefits, and then keep on fighting anyways. You WON. You are just wageing a self destructive ideological battle now.

And homophobia, again, is an actual psychological fear, and actually has nothing to do with hate. The majority of your detractors don't hate you, they find you odd and weird, but that is not hate. I find golf players odd and weird, but I don't hate them. But go ahead and sling that word about, it has for all intents and purposes become meaningless from such usage already.

[MrFun]

But the beauty of having the government grant legal, equal protection for married gay couples is that Christian denominations will not be forced to administer marriage to gays if they so choose to take that path.

[Patroklos]

But the beauty of having the government grant legal, equal protection for married gay couples is that Christian denominations will not be forced to administer marriage to gays if they so choose to take that path.

They are not forced to do that here in America now.

[Patroklos]

I see this issue as having met an ideological impass here. Alot of Christians support civil unions, ones to be the exact legal mirror or marriage. That is a big compromise and one that meets all criteria for not being discriminatory. I don't see the same from the other side.

[MrFun]

But I fail to see how Christians can think they are going to have their churches forced to administer marriages for gays, if the government extends equal, legal protection for marriage for gay couples.

[Patroklos]

But I fail to see how Christians can think they are going to have their churches forced to administer marriages for gays, if the government extends equal, legal protection for marriage for gay couples.

Neither do I.

Like I say in regards to abortion, my opposition here has nothing to do with Christian beliefs. I am sure my secular morality has been slightly influenced by my Christian faith (would be hard not too), but I never justify secular issues with that faith.

[MrFun]

It doesn't matter if one's morality is more oriented towards secularism or religion. In neither case, would you be forced to change your opinion towards gays if government granted gays equal citizenship rights and privileges.

[Patroklos]

equal citizenship rights and privileges.

That is exactly what they did give you, and that is exactly what you refused.

[MrFun]

No -- as I already said before, civil unions do not have the same universal, legal portability as marriage does.

[Patroklos]

No -- as I already said before, civil unions do not have the same universal, legal portability as marriage does.

That is your erronous opinion. There was no legal difference between what was put on the table and marriage besides the nomenclature. Nothing.

This is your illogical crusade to get the word "marriage," thats it. You slapped away the hand of compromise and now hearts on all sides have hardened.

Basically all the Chistians who were inclined to just let you run with it just don't give a **** now, "we tried, screw you whining bastards."

EDIT: My approximation of formerly on the fence Christians.

[Arrian]

Civil Unions for all, damnit!

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Civil Unions for all, damnit!

An interesting idea, but the gay posters here have made it clear their primary puropse and concern here is the word marriage.

Or was it economic and social equality. God only knows these days.

[Arrian]

And if the State simply gave our CU's, then the gay "marriage" debate could move to various congregations around the country. That would be nice.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That is your erronous opinion. There was no legal difference between what was put on the table and marriage besides the nomenclature. Nothing.

This is your illogical crusade to get the word "marriage," thats it. You slapped away the hand of compromise and now hearts on all sides have hardened.

Basically all the Chistians who were inclined to just let you run with it just don't give a **** now, "we tried, screw you whining bastards."

EDIT: My approximation of formerly on the fence Christians.

What would have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. had compromised? What would have happened had feminist activists compromised? What would have happened had Frederick Douglas compromised?