Bush promotes measure against gay marriage

[Guest Xias]

Yes... because Jeebus jumps out of the clouds and inspires normal non-violent putting the boots to gays. Violent people are violent people period.

 

Why didn't I think of that?

I still think you're missing my point.

 

Yes, some people are just violent. But there are also plenty of people who would not feel strongly enough about this if they didn't have something telling them that they were right. If they couldn't go to the Bible and read that this was wrong, and the Bible being what they live by, then they wouldn't be doing the assaulting. Again, you're understating the influence of the Bible.

 

Really, we're both making broad generalizations here. Neither of us knows every actual gay-basher, and neither of us can really prove ourselves to be right, rendering this debate pretty much pointless.

 

But it's not as if I was doing anything at 5:21 in the morning anyway.

 

-Xias

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I would ask how you attempted to do this. There's a difference between trying to do it on your own and having Christ work in your life. A vast difference. One of my best friends on the planet is a former lesbian who has completely turned around in her sexual orientation. She isn't miserable, or fighting herself. She's happy and healthy.

Sorry, SpiderPoet, but while I've disagreed with you on things before, I've never really lost respect for you like I can when you endorse those programs that "reform gays" through religion. All these programs do is encourage people to change by making them hate what they've done with their life, and to me that's much more of a negative program than a positive one.

 

re: "Liberal teachers" and how wrong they are. In my own opinion, although I'm not a churchy fella, I don't see how gays and the church can't coexist except people on both sides are extreme enough to never be able to accept the other. A few more sinners isn't going to be the end for the church, since supposedly we're all sinners in the first place and Jesus showed love for everyone who would simply accept it.

[MrRant 0]

Well we wouldn't be sinners if it wasn't for that bitch Eve....

 

And regarding SP's comment JOTW, I don't think he is talking about a re-education program of hate but of people finding Christ and him showing them the way and that way doesn't included being homosexual. Good for them if it makes them happy.

[Guest Xias]

Well we wouldn't be sinners if it wasn't for that bitch Eve....

 

And regarding SP's comment JOTW, I don't think he is talking about a re-education program of hate but of people finding Christ and him showing them the way and that way doesn't included being homosexual.   Good for them if it makes them happy.

Yeah, it's funny how one of the most fundemental stories of the Bible is a pretty good arguement for sexism, eh?

 

And regarding SP's comment JOTW, I don't think he is talking about a re-education program of hate but of people finding Christ and him showing them the way and that way doesn't included being homosexual.  Good for them if it makes them happy.

 

The problem is, though, is that testimonal after testimonal shows that it usually does the exact opposite.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

I like living in sin though. Depends on what testimonials you are looking for I would imagine. I'm just assuming what SP was trying to say.

 

Never said I agreed with it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I have to disagree. One term just sounds more "real" than the other one. The term civil union just doesn't sound like what happens when two people are in love, like the term marriage does- it sounds more like a freaking business proposal than one out of love, and just plays into the sterotype of "gays only care about the money", in my mind.

This is simply culture, and culture changes over time.

 

A civil union sounds like a business proposal because that's what it is, a government process that requires no more than two people in love. Marriage is simply a bunch of extraneous religious mumbo-jumbo piled on top.

 

Think about this: A funeral is a funeral, but different religions have different rituals complimenting the typical funeral stuff.

[Guest Xias]

I have to disagree. One term just sounds more "real" than the other one. The term civil union just doesn't sound like what happens when two people are in love, like the term marriage does- it sounds more like a freaking business proposal than one out of love, and just plays into the sterotype of "gays only care about the money", in my mind.

This is simply culture, and culture changes over time.

 

A civil union sounds like a business proposal because that's what it is, a government process that requires no more than two people in love. Marriage is simply a bunch of extraneous religious mumbo-jumbo piled on top.

 

Think about this: A funeral is a funeral, but different religions have different rituals complimenting the typical funeral stuff.

But if this is true, then why not refer to heterosexual unions as civil unions as well? No matter what you call one type, if you don't call the other type the same thing, one of them will be looked down upon as a result.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

That is the exact attitude that will end up causing more problems than anything else. You are just lowering yourself to their level... why don't you try and be above them.

 

The most important thing should be having all the rights and benefits of "marriage" to share with your partner. Not the word.

 

You have misplaced priorities.

[Guest Xias]

That is the exact attitude that will end up causing more problems than anything else. You are just lowering yourself to their level... why don't you try and be above them.

 

The most important thing should be having all the rights and benefits of "marriage" to share with your partner. Not the word.

 

You have misplaced priorities.

No, the most important thing is to be EQUALS. Not "well, kind of the same, but with a different name". EQ-UAL-S.

 

Again, if it was up to you, back during the days of the racism debates you'd be telling people that the "seperate but equal" policies of integration are A-OK and they have "misplaced priorities" for wanting FULL equality.

 

-Xias

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But if this is true, then why not refer to heterosexual unions as civil unions as well?

Technically they will be, becuase in such a senario marriages are purely religious in nature. The new John & Jane Doe will trumpet to their neighbors that they "got married," but to the government it's the same thing.

 

Doesn't matter if you subscribe to a ceremonial union called "poked in the eye with a sharp stick", to Washington it's a civil union all the same.

[Guest Xias]

But if this is true, then why not refer to heterosexual unions as civil unions as well?

Technically they will be, becuase in such a senario marriages are purely religious in nature. The new John & Jane Doe will trumpet to their neighbors that they "got married," but to the government it's the same thing.

 

Doesn't matter if you subscribe to a ceremonial union called "poked in the eye with a sharp stick", to Washington it's a civil union all the same.

I have to disagree here. In government paperwork, it will appear as "marriage" for heterosexual unions and "civil unions" for homosexual marriage. The certificate for heterosexual marriages will still say "marriage" on them. It will not say that on the homosexual civil union certificates.

 

Why not just take it a step further and remove all mention of the religious term "marriage" from the government?

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

That is the exact attitude that will end up causing more problems than anything else.  You are just lowering yourself to their level... why don't you try and be above them. 

 

The most important thing should be having all the rights and benefits of "marriage" to share with your partner.  Not the word.

 

You have misplaced priorities.

No, the most important thing is to be EQUALS. Not "well, kind of the same, but with a different name". EQ-UAL-S.

 

Again, if it was up to you, back during the days of the racism debates you'd be telling people that the "seperate but equal" policies of integration are A-OK and they have "misplaced priorities" for wanting FULL equality.

 

-Xias

But you are equal. There would be no benefit or tax form that you would be able to get .

 

Face it. You are more concerned with one word than actually getting the benefits etc that most homosexuals claim they want.

 

I would be more interested in making sure my partner was covered on my health insurance that whether I had a marriage or a civil union.

[Guest Xias]

That is the exact attitude that will end up causing more problems than anything else.   You are just lowering yourself to their level... why don't you try and be above them. 

 

The most important thing should be having all the rights and benefits of "marriage" to share with your partner.   Not the word.

 

You have misplaced priorities.

No, the most important thing is to be EQUALS. Not "well, kind of the same, but with a different name". EQ-UAL-S.

 

Again, if it was up to you, back during the days of the racism debates you'd be telling people that the "seperate but equal" policies of integration are A-OK and they have "misplaced priorities" for wanting FULL equality.

 

-Xias

But you are equal. There would be no benefit or tax form that you would be able to get .

 

Face it. You are more concerned with one word than actually getting the benefits etc that most homosexuals claim they want.

 

I would be more interested in making sure my partner was covered on my health insurance that whether I had a marriage or a civil union.

Again, we wouldn't be equals because of the term. The term will allow our unions to be more easily looked down upon, because by its very name, it's just not the same as marriage.

 

Will I be happy if civil unions are passed? Absolutely. I'll be thrilled for the reasons you just listed. I'll know that if I do fall in love with a guy, and not a girl, we'll be able to live better lives than we would otherwise.

 

Does that mean I don't still want to be absolute equals, in name as well as status? Of course not.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

Who is going to look down on you? The same people that already do. Why be concerned with what they think? The ones that don't look down on you now wouldn't all of a sudden start. Being "married" isn't going to make certain people like you.

 

Besides the definition of marriage is union so it's the exact same thing.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why not just take it a step further and remove all mention of the religious term "marriage" from the government?

That's actually exactly what I'm proposing if you read it harder.

 

Keep in mind the church will now be able to soley decide who gets married or not. So you still won't be able if you're not a member of the church and/or the church won't let you, which is likely to happen if this scenario occurs.

 

So straight people will still get married, gay people still won't but will still get the same benefits, and people like you will still be anal about this even when it's just a fucking word.

[Guest Xias]

Who is going to look down on you? The same people that already do. Why be concerned with what they think? The ones that don't look down on you now wouldn't all of a sudden start. Being "married" isn't going to make certain people like you.

 

Besides the definition of marriage is union so it's the exact same thing.

Again, all of what you are saying could be applied to similar struggles for equality. I don't care what others think, but I care whether or not I am an equal. And if heterosexual unions are called one thing and homosexual unions are called another, it is no one's opinion that I am not equal- it is a FACT, according to the United States government.

 

-Xias

[Guest Xias]

Why not just take it a step further and remove all mention of the religious term "marriage" from the government?

That's actually exactly what I'm proposing if you read it harder.

 

Keep in mind the church will now be able to soley decide who gets married or not. So you still won't be able if you're not a member of the church and/or the church won't let you, which is likely to happen if this scenario occurs.

 

So straight people will still get married, gay people still won't but will still get the same benefits, and people like you will still be anal about this even when it's just a fucking word.

Okay, I'm sorry that I didn't get you were proposing that. I actually proposed the exact same thing a few pages ago, and that's part of the reason why I didn't realize you were proposing that.

 

Anyway, I realize it will be the choice of the church, and that's part of the reason why I'm for calling it civil unions in all areas of the government. Conservative churches will be allowed to continue their policies of not allowing homosexual marriage, while liberal churches can do just the opposite if they so desire. Apparently, you've never heard of these churches, but they do exist.

 

I'm not "anal" about having my union called a marriage. I'm not religious, and at the moment I'm in a heterosexual relationship (well, kind of), so I have no idea if a future homosexual relationship would be with someone religious. The only thing I'm anal about is that both heterosexual and homosexual unions be called the same thing in the actual government. If civil unions are simply passed into law to describe homosexual unions, that won't happen.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

This is a similar "struggle for equality" compared to other equality issues? That is a pretty strong comparision for a relatively minor thing.

[Guest Xias]

This is a similar "struggle for equality" compared to other equality issues? That is a pretty strong comparision for a relatively minor thing.

A heterosexual doesn't think it's important?!? Get out, really?

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

So basically you are saying if you can't have the word marriage than nobody should get it eh?

 

Who is selfish again?

[Guest Xias]

So basically you are saying if you can't have the word marriage than nobody should get it eh?

 

Who is selfish again?

No....that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it needs to be equal and I just don't care what you want to call it.

 

If you want to call it all marriage.....fine. Want to call it all civil unions? Fine. Want to call it all "a pointless exercise in domestication" or "a fluffy wonderous journey down the path of love, with butterflies and kittens"? I don't care. As long as it's all the same, in another words, EQUAL, it doesn't matter to me.

 

I was just saying how calling it all civil unions and leaving the decision of whether a union is a marriage or not to the individual churches does make some sense, but again, if you'd rather call it all marriage it doesn't matter to me.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

No it doesn't make any sense.

 

I'm not religous so you are saying if I want to have marriage on my certificate instead of civil union, I should have to go to a church to do so? I'd rather go to the courthouse.

 

Going by that logic... I'd rather keep them seperate then, since it would inconvience me by going against my belief that the word marriage isn't religious in nature. It's just a word but I want that word and I'm not willing to go to a church to get it so I guess you gays (and my sister) will just have to suffer.

 

My it IS fun being a selfish ass!

[Guest Xias]

No it doesn't make any sense.

 

I'm not religous so you are saying if I want to have marriage on my certificate instead of civil union, I should have to go to a church to do so? I'd rather go to the courthouse.

 

Going by that logic... I'd rather keep them seperate then, since it would inconvience me by going against my belief that the word marriage isn't religious in nature. It's just a word but I want that word and I'm not willing to go to a church to get it so I guess you gays (and my sister) will just have to suffer.

 

My it IS fun being a selfish ass!

So, uh, why are you then against it being called marriage for gays too, then? If we've established that you don't care and you just like the word marriage....what, you just think homosexual unions don't deserve the word?

 

Right, there's no inequality there....

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

No. The point is I'm not willing to inconvience myself (or any other non religious person) by going to a church if we wanted the word marriage on a certificate if they decided to make everything civil unions like you say.

 

If I have the choice of :

 

a. Straight (non religious) people being able to get the word marriage on their certificate without having to go to a church like they are now with gay's having civil unions.

 

or

 

b. Gay and Straight people having civil unions and non religious people having to go to a church to get marriage on their certificate.

 

I would choose A everytime.

[Guest Xias]

No.  The point is I'm not willing to inconvience myself (or any other non religious person) by going to a church if we wanted the word marriage on a certificate if they decided to make everything civil unions like you say.

 

If I have the choice of :

 

a. Straight (non religious)  people being able to get the word marriage on their certificate without having to go to a church like they are now with gay's having civil unions.

 

or

 

b. Gay and Straight people having civil unions and non religious people having to go to a church to get marriage on their certificate.

 

I would choose A everytime.

Uh....under what people want to pass as civil union laws, gay people wouldn't be able to get marriage on their certificates at all, whether they go to a church or not. Period. If A was actually true, I'd be fine with it too. Extra work to get equality is still equality....

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

My point is that... I wouldn't care whether homosexuals could or not.

 

As long as I (and other non-religious people), don't have to go into a church... I'm happy. I'm not going to give that up just so that you can feel a false sense of equality because you can't have the same word as straight people. Why should I give up something and inconvience myself for you to feel better?

 

Does that suck? Yeah. I personally would just call it marriages across the board but in reality it's all the same if it is a marriage for straights and a union for gays. Just quit while you are ahead (metaphor).

 

Man that may not make sense, but it's 3:45am.

[Guest Xias]

My point is that... I wouldn't care whether homosexuals could or not.

 

As long as I (and other non-religious people), don't have to go into a church... I'm happy. I'm not going to give that up just so that you can feel a false sense of equality because you can't have the same word as straight people. Why should I give up something and inconvience myself for you to feel better?

 

Does that suck? Yeah. I personally would just call it marriages across the board but in reality it's all the same if it is a marriage for straights and a union for gays. Just quit while you are ahead (metaphor).

 

Man that may not make sense, but it's 3:45am.

Don't worry, it makes perfect sense. You're saying that you don't care if we're all equal as long as you aren't mildly inconvienced or are on the inequal side. Don't feel bad, plenty of people historically have felt the exact same way. You'll never be remembered as any type of hero, but you'll never be the villain either. You're just Typical, Lazy Guy in the Majority.

 

And hey, if that's what you want to be, more power to you.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

No the point was if it's okay for me to be inconvienced by having to go to a church to have the word marriage on a certificate... why can't gays suffer the inconvience of accepting a word that means the exact same thing as marriage?

 

My main concern personally is the benefits. Not the word marriage. I am a better person than the people fighting this arguement (both gays and straights) because I realize what petty bitches you are to get in a huff about a word that has at least 20 synonyms. I at least know that words don't mean equality. It is how you are treated.

[Guest Xias]

No the point was if it's okay for me to be inconvienced by having to go to a church to have the word marriage on a certificate... why can't gays suffer the inconvience of accepting a word that means the exact same thing as marriage?

 

My main concern personally is the benefits. Not the word marriage. I am a better person than the people fighting this arguement (both gays and straights) because I realize what petty bitches you are to get in a huff about a word that has at least 20 synonyms. I at least know that words don't mean equality. It is how you are treated.

Because in one case we'd still all be equal, and in the other one we wouldn't. Pretty simple, really.

 

I get what you're talking about, but you're not a better person because for better or worse this isn't YOUR fight. It's ours. You're not gay or bi-sexual. We are. We're the ones who get to decide whether or not we care about equality, not you. I hope you realize this is every bit as offensive as walking into a room full of black people in the 1970s (well, assuming you're white) and telling them what parts of racism they should be fighting against and which they shouldn't. It's not your fight. It's ours. Period.

 

Again, we don't care what you call it, as long as you call it the same thing for everyone. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that having a different name for homosexual unions than heterosexual unions is only going to support the viewpoint that one isn't as "right" as the other. It's common sense.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

It most certainly is my fight.

 

I wouldn't ever let you take away the word marriage from the people that want it which is what you are attempting to do if you can't get it by forcing them to go to a church.

 

Same thing I've told my sister (who is a lesbian).

 

And you are deluded to think that this is even close to being on par with anything the Irish, blacks, etc had to go through. This isn't about rights as you would have all the same. If you didn't have the same rights then you would have a leg to stand on... but you don't.