Goodbye "Don't ask. Don't tell."

[Turtle]

Your point is lost. If it is the same thing then call it the same thing.

Because it's not the same thing. The legal rights would be, yes, absolutely, but there is a difference between a Marriage and a Civil Union, and it's a difference that comes from a long history of all societies that have had marriages. That's the primary reason that marriages are transferable from one country to another, because it means the same thing everywhere. It would be easy if the people and their governments had not taken the term from the religious ceremony from which it came, but they did, and it is now intertwined into the very fabric of society and the laws that govern it.

Equality for all!

Yes, exactly. Gays right now, at this very minute, have the same exact equal rights to marry as do straights. They just can't marry someone of the same sex, same as straights can't.

Why have 2 terms to make 1 group feel superior?

You shouldn't have 2 terms to make 1 group feel superior. Is that what you thing the term "marriage" does? Really? It doesn't. It's simply the traditional term for a traditional marriage, and if you want a non-traditional marriage you need to come up with a non-traditional term. It's really that simple.

They haven't had a problem with hetero atheists who marry at a justice of the peace, this is also a non religious marriage. I don't hear em screaming about that.

I've touched on this previously. It is because the religious term of marriage has evolved over time to carry with it certain legal obligations and benefits and thus become the de facto legal term for the union, as well. But the one aspect of it that has not changed is the original intent and purpose for it, that being the union of a man and a woman. It was originally specifically for procreation, and that is no longer the case, as many people marry for love and do so as an expression of that love, in addition to the legal issues, but it's still between a man and a woman. So while the term originated in religion, and while it still holds special meaning within religion, it has also come to mean other things outside of religion for legal purposes, but the purpose of it has not changed, nor has the definition.

I will usually concede to you but on this topic you are wrong.

I don't think so.

Religious zealouts need to mind their own lives and leave others alone.

You can replace "Religious zealots" with any special interest group of your choosing, including gays, and that statement holds true. I don't like anyone sticking their nose in my business and telling me what to do and how to think, and that includes both religious zealots as well as gays, and both continue to do the same thing. I'm not gonna give one a pass while condemning the other on it, either.

 

[DougTravels]

I'll just agree to disagree with you turtle, I respect your opinions too much to continue with this. I am tempted to make a couple of final points on this, but I will let it rest.
I just don't want to be like some others here who want to close the discussion but also get the last digs in.

I hope you have a profitable week!

 

[pjjjjj]

I vote for that!

If the M word were removed from the legal aspects of two-consenting-adults-who-love-each-other-and-live-in-a-conjugal-relationship cohabitate and choose to enter into a lawful formal agreement called a 'civil union'.. no matter the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved, so every 'civil union' was 'equal' in the eyes of the LAW..... and if a man and a woman who happen to be religious and old-fashioned and want to ALSO have a ceremony in a church performed by a minister, with God as their witness, and they call that ceremony a marriage ceremony... and that ceremony is only available to those whom the church will marry, based on the church's interpretation of what the bible says... it still won't be good enough, will it? It won't be what you voted for, will it?

And what happens when sister-Jenny, who is 21, wants to have a 'civil union' with her brother-Tom, born of the same parents, who is 23, because they are madly in love and want to live together in a conjugal relationship and raise a family?

And what of Mr. Albert down the street who loves 5 different women, and they are all consenting adults, and they all really do love each other and want to live together in a conjugal relationship and raise a big huge family together?

And what about old 64 year old Davis renting the apartment upstairs, a widower with a great job with great benefits, and he has a good pal, Norm, who's very sick and can't afford medical care? Should they claim they're in love and want to become a family in a civil ceremony so Norm can benefit from Davis' healthcare options?

Where does it end? And who will decide?

And not only that, but sometimes people should watch what they wish for. With those rights to be equal, also will come legal responsibilities, such as being deemed 'civilly united' and therefore financially responsible for support and maintenance and at risk of losing half of everything, including a pre-existing house, just because 2 people (or more?) shack up for a couple years. Might put a damper on some relationships.

 

[LDB]

Well, since Turtle has more patience than I do and makes the same points I am turning over arguing with walls to him. Nobody has said anything that diminishes the fact it's nothing about having property/health/inheritance rights and all about semantics.

 

[greg334]

While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution,

Isn't recognition rights also the same as granting them in our twisted government. Our Supreme Court has yet to be told what to determine and what not to by the other two parts of our government.

The list;

• the right to privacy
• the right to marriage
• the right to procreation
• the right to interstate travel

Get me to wonder where is my right to procreation and keep the kids? Doesn't the state remove kids, or make me pay when I have no rights to the kids? They do allow other thing to happen? Does this mean that the kids at any age have that same right, so a 14 year old can try to have a baby with a 35 years old?

I didn't know there was a question of interstate travel, so does this mean my truck is valid in California seeing I have a right to travel and it is undefined so that means that California can not tell me that my truck is not allowed to drive on our federally paid for road, right?

Right to privacy? Yea right, I don't have a right to privacy because the press can print anything they want about me, or my work, special rights for the press. The government does not help with identify theft when it happens, if I have real privacy right, that violates my right to privacy, right?

Right to marriage, that is the real issue here. Well if marriage is defined by religion, the state needs to be out of religion, religion needs to be out of the state, and the state needs to be out of our lives, the solution would be simple....

No civil unions, only a religious organization can do a marriage or a civil union or better yet, pull a Grey's anatomy marriage, a sticky note signed by both parties - which I like.

No religious holidays, no Christmas, no easter holiday, no Rev King day, no monuments for religious figures like Rev King, no tax breaks for religious organizations. No congressional pray, no presidential pray breakfast.

No thanksgiving either, it was thanking God for the survival of the union.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Greg said....No thanksgiving either, it was thanking God for the survival of the union.


Think you got carried away on that one..there Pilgrim...

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Environment

We live in an estrogenic or feminizing environment. Certain chemicals in the environment and our foods, one of which is DDT, cause estrogenic effects. Although banned in 1972, DDT, like its breakdown product DDE, is an estrogen-like substance and is still present in the environment. Chlorine and hormone residues in meats and dairy products can also have estrogenic effects. In men, the estrogenic environment may result in declining quality of sperm or fertility rates. In women, it may lead to an epidemic of female diseases, all traceable to excess estrogen/deficient progesterone.

Were all turning into women anyhow....

Estrogen is pronounced in nearly everything we eat....its chemical warfare started by the womens movement many years ago....

 

[greg334]

I know a lot of pharmaceuticals in the drinking supply has been talked about, unless you distill the water, you can't get them out. This goes for all that bottled water people drink, they may have something in it other than filtered tap water....

So all that flushing of birth control pills down the toilet is a real concern?

Ban the Pill for societies sake?

 

[Turtle]

But, at least our innards are now grease-free! Food Wrapper Coating Found in Human Blood

 

[Jack_Berry]

gays should be allowed to marry. that way when they divorce they can have the equal rights to ugly messy divorces heteros have.

just share the equality and let GOD straighten out our messes when they time comes.

 

[aristotle]

FINAL SCORE:
Good GUYS... 5
Depraved ... 666...er... 667

 

[Turtle]

Too funny.

A few years ago I went to renew registration and plates for the car, and got new plates, an Environmental plate, one with the bobcat on it. The number on the plate was 00666. I just looked at her and said, "You've got to be kidding."

 

[MrGautama]

If the M word were removed from the legal aspects of two-consenting-adults-who-love-each-other-and-live-in-a-conjugal-relationship cohabitate and choose to enter into a lawful formal agreement called a 'civil union'.. no matter the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved, so every 'civil union' was 'equal' in the eyes of the LAW..... and if a man and a woman who happen to be religious and old-fashioned and want to ALSO have a ceremony in a church performed by a minister, with God as their witness, and they calYou know, you are right Pjjjj I've changed my mind and wouldn't support that. It would be a tacit recognition of discrimination and homophobia, much in the way I oppose the much discussed topic (in scientific circles) of changing the name from theory of evolution to law of evolution to accomodate for the ignorance of some religious folks that argue "it's just a theory".l that ceremony a marriage ceremony... and that ceremony is only available to those whom the church will marry, based on the church's interpretation of what the bible says... it still won't be good enough, will it? It won't be what you voted for, will it?

You know, you are right Pjjjj I've changed my mind and wouldn't support that. It would be a tacit recognition of discrimination and homophobia, much in the way I oppose the hotly discussed topic (in scientific circles) of changing the name from Theory of Evolution to Law of Evolution to accommodate for the ignorance of some folks that argue "it's just a theory".

For the church part to be honest with you I can't care any less, if someone wants to become involved in irrationality and discrimination by joining religion go ahead, if that one is a gay activist that whines about discrimination in religion has to have his or her head examined. Admission in the church is not a fundamental right and religious organizations can, I think, discriminate against anyone they see fit. What consequences that discrimination might have in participation and attendance after full citizenship and recognition is given to gays is to be seen. But for me, protesting or demanding equality from an private organization that is inherently discriminatory is just insane.

And what happens when sister-Jenny, who is 21, wants to have a 'civil union' with her brother-Tom, born of the same parents, who is 23, because they are madly in love and want to live together in a conjugal relationship and raise a family?

And what of Mr. Albert down the street who loves 5 different women, and they are all consenting adults, and they all really do love each other and want to live together in a conjugal relationship and raise a big huge family together?

And what about old 64 year old Davis renting the apartment upstairs, a widower with a great job with great benefits, and he has a good pal, Norm, who's very sick and can't afford medical care? Should they claim they're in love and want to become a family in a civil ceremony so Norm can benefit from Davis' healthcare options?

-Tom and Jenny: Well I think that's up to them, anyway isn't that a daily occurrence in the Appalachians already?

- Mr Albert: That's a good one and probably should be discussed as it's own topic. I may be wrong but mostly nuts are the kind of people that engage in such behavior and for what has been seen, as in Colorado City for example, it leads not to equality but to subjugation of women, abandonment of male children, and abuse of the welfare system among other things. But again it would have to be seen in it's own light.

- Mr Davis: This one is easy, his good pal Norm wouldn't have problems affording medical treatment if we lived in a truly developed country and enjoyed universal health care. With that said I can see a different scenario to where your concern applies better; immigration. A few years ago the rate for a fake marriage to gain residence was at $5.000, meaning that if you came here with a tourist visa and 5 grand you could buy yourself residence by marrying someone willing to enter the agreement. That is a crime that happens every day with heterosexual marriage only laws, for which the INS has measures in place to try to detect it with mixed results. I don't see how by having gay equality that would be different.

You are assuming that all that would be logically pursued once gays became full citizens, that it would open the door for all those perversions to occur so we have to keep the deviant under control, by the way you left out the recognition of pedophilia as a sexual preference.

Where does it end? And who will decide?

We as a society should decide based on sound reasoning and not prejudice.

With those rights to be equal, also will come legal responsibilities, such as being deemed 'civilly united' and therefore financially responsible for support and maintenance and at risk of losing half of everything, including a pre-existing house, just because 2 people (or more?) shack up for a couple years. Might put a damper on some relationships.

Isn't that a part of marriage that we endure already?, just ask a divorce lawyer!!

 

[wellarmed]

Using womens rights and the rights of a person of color as an example is just wrong. Everyone in this country has the same rights,for gay people to want the "RIGHT" to get married is wrong,it's just the first step in the direction of manipulating the system. Why a man could decide they would rather have sex with someone like ahh, maybe LDB instead of Cindy Crawford is just mind boggling.

 

[pjjjjj]

....
-Tom and Jenny: Well I think that's up to them, anyway isn't that a daily occurrence in the Appalachians already?

I believe it is illegal, just as it might be illegal in some places for 2 men to marry. But what about their right to be married? Where does it end?

- Mr Albert: That's a good one and probably should be discussed as it's own topic. I may be wrong but mostly nuts are the kind of people that engage in such behavior and for what has been seen, as in Colorado City for example, it leads not to equality but to subjugation of women, abandonment of male children, and abuse of the welfare system among other things. But again it would have to be seen in it's own light.

One man's nut is another man's main meal. Like I said, who decides? Which one is a nut and which one is ok? What about these peoples' rights? Where does it end?

You are assuming that all that would be logically pursued once gays became full citizens, that it would open the door for all those perversions to occur so we have to keep the deviant under control,

One man's perversion is another man's 'normal'. Who decides?

... by the way you left out the recognition of pedophilia as a sexual preference.

Yes I did, only because children are not consenting adults, at least not at this time in history, until someone changes what 'consenting adult' means. But now that I think about it, what about Harry-pedophile who gets married to Frank-pedophile because they love each other and want equal rights to be legally married.. and they want to also enjoy their right to adopt a child?

Where does it end? At which point? Who chooses? And what of the people who disagree and whose rights will not end up being entertained? They will be discriminated against.

We as a society should decide based on sound reasoning and not prejudice.

Well MrGautauma, it sounds like you've got a few of your own prejudices there, doesn't it?

Isn't that a part of marriage that we endure already?, just ask a divorce lawyer!!

Well sure it is. Just saying it isn't all light and roses, and watch what you wish for, that's all.

 

[MrGautama]

Well Pjjjj that's how I see it, how about reading it again I think the answers to my opinion are there. Now if the goal is to refute just for the sake of it then I guess you are right then.

My position is clear, the choice is between equal rights for all citizens or discrimination for minorities. Mixing unrelated subjects only confuses the issue which is well... not helpful.




--------------------------------------

​

 

[aristotle]

LRE... aka MrG... this new poster you are using that portrays our modern US soldiers in a menacing, Nazi-like pose is an outrageous insult to our troops. Take it down! I don't know what personal deficiency you are overcompensating for, but you are one sick, twisted man. You have no shame and no honor.

 

[layoutshooter]

Don't play the dead children game in here Mr G. Your numbers you quote don't even come close the the 47 million babies killed in U.S. Abortion clinics since 1973 and YOU support one of the biggest supports of those that "target" children.

 

[cheri1122]

LRE... aka MrG... this new poster you are using that portrays our modern US soldiers in a menacing, Nazi-like pose is an outrageous insult to our troops. Take it down! I don't know what personal deficiency you are overcompensating for, but you are one sick, twisted man. You have no shame and no honor.

You miss the point: the poster insults the US government, not the troops. [The troops do not make official policy, but they must enforce it.]
Looks as if you support freedom of speech only as long as it agrees with your opinion, huh?

You however, have violated the EO terms of participation with your personal attack.

 

[layoutshooter]

Our troops have the "Right" to not serve in an illegal war and have the right to become "objectors' legally. Few armies anywhere else in the world can say that. It is VERY difficult to do, for good reason, but it has been and can be done. As to U.S. policy, too weak when Bush was in and now ... well, you will find out. The carnarge will grow larger as we weaken. History proves that. Get ready.