This is about providing a group of people rights that everyone else in this state is guaranteed.
Can't this be done without calling it marriage?
Not if the State grants them at all. The State needs to treat it's citizens equally. We've tried separate but equal in the past and it isn't practical.
Separate but equal is only flawed when you are dealing with tangible things.
Bull. Separate but equal inherently implies unequal. Otherwise, why would you need them to be separate?
Equality is not the same as being identical.
And it's dubious if civil unions are even "separate but equal" at all. Everyone would have to get a civil union to get the rights of marriage through the government, but marriage itself would still be recognized as being the union between a man and a woman specifically.
And it's dubious if civil unions are even "separate but equal" at all. Everyone would have to get a civil union to get the rights of marriage through the government, but marriage itself would still be recognized as being the union between a man and a woman specifically.
Why? What purpose would that serve? How would that be easier than simply not restricting marriage in this respect?
This is about providing a group of people rights that everyone else in this state is guaranteed.
Can't this be done without calling it marriage?
Not if the State grants them at all. The State needs to treat it's citizens equally. We've tried separate but equal in the past and it isn't practical.
Separate but equal is only flawed when you are dealing with tangible things.
Bull. Separate but equal inherently implies unequal. Otherwise, why would you need them to be separate?
Equality is not the same as being identical.
And it's dubious if civil unions are even "separate but equal" at all. Everyone would have to get a civil union to get the rights of marriage through the government, but marriage itself would still be recognized as being the union between a man and a woman specifically.
Since marriage would be a spiritual and not legal covenant I wouldn't give a fuck. Nevermind there will be churches that will grant same sex marriages.
Why is it important to recognize marriage itself as being specifically between a man and woman?
A lot of people view marriage as a religious thing. As such I'm fine with the Catholic definition of marriage being whatever the fuck Catholics want it to be.
The thing is, as I understand Disney has quite a lot of sway in Florida, and they are definitely for gay rights.
You're correct, but damn if that sentence doesn't seem weird as shit. Disney is a fucking paradox.
Or ahead of their time.
Actually, you'll find most major corporations are strongly in favor of gay marriage for the state they are based out of as a means of drawing in talent to that area. The insurance industry lobbied hard against the gay marriage ban in Ohio, for instance, fearing it would drive away employees.
Also, everyone knows Mickey is as queer as a three dollar bill.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Why is it important to recognize marriage itself as being specifically between a man and woman?
Because it is.
Once again your debate and rhetoric skills shine through Obs.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
What's stupid is that I could find five churches/temples right now in the Phoenix area willing to preform a marriage ceremony. Right fucking now. The only thing preventing them is the GOVERNMENT.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
If it's the same, what's the problem keeping the bureaucracy down and just having them be the same thing? Would you rather have your relationship with your wife recognized as a marriage or a union? At the end of the day, the fact that different labels are used does make a difference.
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
1.) No, it doesn't
2.) Even if it did, it wouldn't grant the right to be recognized as an equal couple by society
3.) Bite my dick
4.) I don't know how 3.) got in there, let's just try to move on from that it was a bad time
5.) Going for half-measures because some group decides that their definition of a term, which has kept the same for a whole 40-50 years(!) is the one and only possible even though it's been around since time immemorial and shifted with the culture like sand is completely stupid.
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
Giving gays civil unions rather than marriage serves no purpose other than being a "fuck you" to gay people.
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
Yes, and a union can only be called a marriage if officially recognized by a credible religion.
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
Yes, and a union can only be called a marriage if officially recognized by a credible religion.
What the Hell is a "credible religion"? There are Christian churches that recognize gay marriages. Would that count?
BloodySloth on
0
Options
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
Yes, and a union can only be called a marriage if officially recognized by a credible religion.
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
Yes, and a union can only be called a marriage if officially recognized by a credible religion.
What the Hell is a "credible religion"? There are Christian churches that recognize gay marriages. Would that count?
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
Yes, and a union can only be called a marriage if officially recognized by a credible religion.
What the Hell is a "credible religion"? There are Christian churches that recognize gay marriages. Would that count?
Also. Um.
I don't know if you'd call a Justice of the Peace a religious figure. I'd actually say your religious marriage can only become an actual marriage if it's recognized by the courts.
Because they don't have the OBS seal of approval. Silly. See, it doesn't matter if a Church recognized by the government and tax exempt wants to do it... it just matters of Obs wants to do it.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I understand the whole religious view on marriage, and even though it's still wrong to me that religions look down on same-sex couples, they're institutions and they can do whatever they want. This isn't what the discussion is about. This is about marriage from the secular government perspective, and as such, there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriages should be outright banned or cunningly mislabeled. People don't want to be in a "civil union", they want to get fucking married.
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
Yes, and a union can only be called a marriage if officially recognized by a credible religion.
What the Hell is a "credible religion"? There are Christian churches that recognize gay marriages. Would that count?
Probably not.
ITT: Obs declares what is and isn't a real religion.
Does Christianity say marriage can be between men and men and women and women?
turns out, Christianity has dissociative identity disorder and doesn't know what it says.
Also, apparently Jews, Muslims, and Zoastrians can go fuck themselves.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Does Christianity say marriage can be between men and men and women and women?
turns out, Christianity has dissociative identity disorder and doesn't know what it says.
This. There is no one "Christianity," especially when talking about Protestantism. Whether or not gay people are OK literally depends on who you talk to.
And that's just the ones that are willing to openly say they're okay with it. I imagine there's a lot of pressure on ministers to keep it to themselves.
If we took away marriage benefits so there is absolutely no benefit to being married, would gays still be complaining?
Yes. Turns out people still get pissed off by policy that's written based on the premise that they are somehow inhuman, even if it only exists to say that they're inhuman.
If we took away marriage benefits so there is absolutely no benefit to being married, would gays still be complaining?
Yes. Turns out people still get pissed off by policy that's written based on the premise that they are somehow inhuman, even if it only exists to say that they're inhuman.
Definitely. In fact, I think it would piss them off more. I know it would piss me off if someone said "There's absolutely no benefit to this, none at all. For anyone. But only we can do it because we're better" I would be kind of out of sorts.
If we took away marriage benefits so there is absolutely no benefit to being married, would gays still be complaining?
Yes. Turns out people still get pissed off by policy that's written based on the premise that they are somehow inhuman, even if it only exists to say that they're inhuman.
Definitely. In fact, I think it would piss them off more. I know it would piss me off if someone said "There's absolutely no benefit to this, none at all. For anyone. But only we can do it because we're better" I would be kind of out of sorts.
Well it's unfortunate that you have to see it that way.
Posts
Equality is not the same as being identical.
And it's dubious if civil unions are even "separate but equal" at all. Everyone would have to get a civil union to get the rights of marriage through the government, but marriage itself would still be recognized as being the union between a man and a woman specifically.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Why? What purpose would that serve? How would that be easier than simply not restricting marriage in this respect?
Since marriage would be a spiritual and not legal covenant I wouldn't give a fuck. Nevermind there will be churches that will grant same sex marriages.
Because it is.
What?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Actually, you'll find most major corporations are strongly in favor of gay marriage for the state they are based out of as a means of drawing in talent to that area. The insurance industry lobbied hard against the gay marriage ban in Ohio, for instance, fearing it would drive away employees.
Also, everyone knows Mickey is as queer as a three dollar bill.
Once again your debate and rhetoric skills shine through Obs.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I don't think they have as much sway as all of that.
For the most part (excluding Jacksonville) it's really more of a city / rural distinction.
Jacksonville is the most densely-populated rural area in the state. :P
Civil union imparts all the same rights as marriage. What's the problem?
So you would be ok with civil unions for everyone, and get government out of this whole "marriage" business?
What's stupid is that I could find five churches/temples right now in the Phoenix area willing to preform a marriage ceremony. Right fucking now. The only thing preventing them is the GOVERNMENT.
If it's the same, what's the problem keeping the bureaucracy down and just having them be the same thing? Would you rather have your relationship with your wife recognized as a marriage or a union? At the end of the day, the fact that different labels are used does make a difference.
1.) No, it doesn't
2.) Even if it did, it wouldn't grant the right to be recognized as an equal couple by society
3.) Bite my dick
4.) I don't know how 3.) got in there, let's just try to move on from that it was a bad time
5.) Going for half-measures because some group decides that their definition of a term, which has kept the same for a whole 40-50 years(!) is the one and only possible even though it's been around since time immemorial and shifted with the culture like sand is completely stupid.
Giving gays civil unions rather than marriage serves no purpose other than being a "fuck you" to gay people.
Yes, and a union can only be called a marriage if officially recognized by a credible religion.
What the Hell is a "credible religion"? There are Christian churches that recognize gay marriages. Would that count?
Universal Life Church
Let the gay marriage party begin!
Probably not.
Also. Um.
I don't know if you'd call a Justice of the Peace a religious figure. I'd actually say your religious marriage can only become an actual marriage if it's recognized by the courts.
Does Christianity say marriage can be between men and men and women and women?
Edit: Several branches say that.
turns out, Christianity has dissociative identity disorder and doesn't know what it says.
Also, apparently Jews, Muslims, and Zoastrians can go fuck themselves.
This. There is no one "Christianity," especially when talking about Protestantism. Whether or not gay people are OK literally depends on who you talk to.
And that's just the ones that are willing to openly say they're okay with it. I imagine there's a lot of pressure on ministers to keep it to themselves.
Now or before the two millennium game of telephone? The early Christian church sanctioned unions between same sex individuals.
Separate but equal didn't work in the last century, is obs really suggesting we do the exact same stupid thing again?
That's impossible. All of Florida is extremely conservative. We know because it voted for a Democrat last year and 10/25 Democrats for the House.
Yes. Turns out people still get pissed off by policy that's written based on the premise that they are somehow inhuman, even if it only exists to say that they're inhuman.
I'm not sure how any of you can be taking him seriously.
Definitely. In fact, I think it would piss them off more. I know it would piss me off if someone said "There's absolutely no benefit to this, none at all. For anyone. But only we can do it because we're better" I would be kind of out of sorts.
Well it's unfortunate that you have to see it that way.