This is what I don't get about the whole **** marriage thing...

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Does the word mean that much if the outcome is the same?Theokhoth

Like segregated schools. . .same education, same benefits, but if the black guy steps into a white school then there'll be hell to pay. The name isn't the issue; it's the "separate but equal" connotations behind the name.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] exactly... as long as the same rights are granted to those unions.. who cares what you call it? the focus should be on obtaining those equal union rights, not fussing over a name.comp_atkins

Like segregated schools. . .same education, same benefits, but if the black guy steps into a white school then there'll be hell to pay. The name isn't the issue; it's the "separate but equal" connotations behind the name.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] exactly... as long as the same rights are granted to those unions.. who cares what you call it? the focus should be on obtaining those equal union rights, not fussing over a name.comp_atkins

Like segregated schools. . .same education, same benefits, but if the black guy steps into a white school then there'll be hell to pay. The name isn't the issue; it's the "separate but equal" connotations behind the name.

Because as long as the "separate" is there, the "equal" is impossible to attain. "Separate but equal" is unacceptable in a Democracy because it's an oxymoron.

why put a label on your relationship MARRIAGE......why?

the gay couple can just be together and thats it

what i do not want is for gay couples to adopt...especial gay man, women eh, so and so....

a kid should be brough up wid a father and mother, not 2 fathers,

why put a label on your relationship MARRIAGE......why?

the gay couple can just be together and thats it

what i do not want is for gay couples to adopt...especial gay man, women eh, so and so....

a kid should be brough up wid a father and mother, not 2 fathers,

planbfreak4eva

why put a label on your relationship MARRIAGE......why?

the gay couple can just be together and thats it

what i do not want is for gay couples to adopt...especial gay man, women eh, so and so....

a kid should be brough up wid a father and mother, not 2 fathers,

planbfreak4eva

I think everyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever they want... if a man wants to marry a pig then he should have a right tooCyleM

why put a label on your relationship MARRIAGE......why?

the gay couple can just be together and thats it

what i do not want is for gay couples to adopt...especial gay man, women eh, so and so....

a kid should be brough up wid a father and mother, not 2 fathers,

planbfreak4eva

Exactly what is the foundation for this particular "moral value"? :|

Every organization that has conducted a scientific investigation on the matter has concluded that same-sex parentages are functionally equal to opposite-sex parentages when it comes down to how well their kids turn out. The whole issue about the integrity of gays and lesbians as parents is a massive farce as it can be resolved by people deciding to educate themselves on the matter.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Like segregated schools. . .same education, same benefits, but if the black guy steps into a white school then there'll be hell to pay. The name isn't the issue; it's the "separate but equal" connotations behind the name.

xaos

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. xaos

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Like segregated schools. . .same education, same benefits, but if the black guy steps into a white school then there'll be hell to pay. The name isn't the issue; it's the "separate but equal" connotations behind the name.

Theokhoth

Because as long as the "separate" is there, the "equal" is impossible to attain. "Separate but equal" is unacceptable in a Democracy because it's an oxymoron.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] well, how about getting the "equal" part first.. then worrying about the "separate"comp_atkins

Once again, it isn't the name that's the problem any more than it was the separate water fountain that was the problem.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] well, how about getting the "equal" part first.. then worrying about the "separate"comp_atkins

Because as long as the "separate" is there, the "equal" is impossible to attain. "Separate but equal" is unacceptable in a Democracy because it's an oxymoron.

:| That's hardly an example of segregation.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

I think everyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever they want... if a man wants to marry a pig then he should have a right tooCyleM

Actualy i kinda feal that if the church thinks that gay couples should marry, they shouldnt marry. Its the Churches thing to decide on the rules of marrige, since its ... i guess owned by them? But i agree that another option should be open to gay couples with simelar benefits to marrige.

I have nothing against gays btw.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] well, how about getting the "equal" part first.. then worrying about the "separate"comp_atkins

Because as long as the "separate" is there, the "equal" is impossible to attain. "Separate but equal" is unacceptable in a Democracy because it's an oxymoron.

Not because of obsolete discriminatory beliefs, but anatomical differences and the nature of the act that is being carried out in a restroom. =/

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="xaos"] If the outcome is the same, why not call them the same thing? Otherwise, they are not the same.xaos

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="xaos"] If the outcome is the same, why not call them the same thing? Otherwise, they are not the same.xaos

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

Actualy i kinda feal that if the church thinks that gay couples should marry, they shouldnt marry. Its the Churches thing to decide on the rules of marrige, since its ... i guess owned by them? But i agree that another option should be open to gay couples with simelar benefits to marrige.

I have nothing against gays btw.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]No, the church should have no jurisdiction on the rules of marriage when we are talking about secular marriage.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. spazzx625

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Does the word mean that much if the outcome is the same?LikeHaterade

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

i still dont understand why would a boy marry another boy , and a girl marry another girl , there is nothin.. ..eerrr "funny and interesting" about it :Pgubrushadow

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Furthermore that just isn't right.. There are some churches out there that have no qualms with marrying gays in the United States.. What do you say to them>?sSubZerOo

But again I wouldnt be surprised if the Church of the USA decides to "force" all representative churches to not perform gay marriages. And no matter how much I would find it wrong, I dont feel I have the right to defy such a decision.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Does the word mean that much if the outcome is the same?LikeHaterade

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

Then there'd be no legitimate reason not to call it marriage.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] They aren't really the same, though... link I probably should have elaborated my original point so it doesn't look like I'm just harping on the terminology...xaos

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

The name wouldn't be the same. Just because the name is different doesn't mean they mean something different than a marriage.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] They aren't really the same, though... link I probably should have elaborated my original point so it doesn't look like I'm just harping on the terminology...xaos

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

LikeHaterade

The name wouldn't be the same. Just because the name is different doesn't mean they mean something different than a marriage.

Then there'd be no legitimate reason not to call it marriage.

Theokhoth

Society defines the term marriage between a man and woman. Society determines it's acculturation. That argument seems legitimate to me, so long as there is equal rights being achieved.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Hypothetically, if civil unions had matched gay marriages in every right, then what?

LikeHaterade

The name wouldn't be the same. Just because the name is different doesn't mean they mean something different than a marriage.

Gay people should just be satisfied with the legal benefits of marriage/civil union or whatever. They will likely never gain equality in religion because most religions very specifically prohibit homosexuality. It just feels like they're trying to intrude on people's beliefs, which doesn't seem reasonable to me. You get the same rights as anyone else, but let them have their religion. F1_2004

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] If the name is specifically being held back from them, then they aren't the same.xaos

The name wouldn't be the same. Just because the name is different doesn't mean they mean something different than a marriage.

Different, but not necessarily derogatory. Just because it wouldn't be classified as a marriage wouldn't make it worse. And shame on those that would make it appear so. Obviously there would be those that would, but I believe that it's the homosexual couples' job to shun those people. The same way I hope all homosexuals shun the ignorant fools in today's society that make fun of, or bring violence to other homosexuals.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Then there'd be no legitimate reason not to call it marriage.

LikeHaterade

Society defines the term marriage between a man and woman. Society determines it's acculturation. That argument seems legitimate to me, so long as there is equal rights being achieved.

Then society is wrong.

Segregation goes against society.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

The name wouldn't be the same. Just because the name is different doesn't mean they mean something different than a marriage.

LikeHaterade

Different, but not necessarily derogatory.

In other words, separate, but equal.

If it quaks like a duck, and walks like a duck.. Its a duck.. So why call not call it marriage.. I think its pretty childish for the religious community to be splitting hairs on this. The church had no problem before in allowing divorce.. This alone shows that marriage has changed fundamentally before.

sSubZerOo

I agree, but so long as equal rights may be achieved, I believe society has the right to define it.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

The name wouldn't be the same. Just because the name is different doesn't mean they mean something different than a marriage.

LikeHaterade

Different, but not necessarily derogatory. Just because it wouldn't be classified as a marriage wouldn't make it worse. And shame on those that would make it appear so. Obviously there would be those that would, but I believe that it's the homosexual couples' job to shun those people. The same way I hope all homosexuals shun the ignorant fools in today's society that make fun of, or bring violence to other homosexuals.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Then there'd be no legitimate reason not to call it marriage.

Theokhoth

Society defines the term marriage between a man and woman. Society determines it's acculturation. That argument seems legitimate to me, so long as there is equal rights being achieved.

Then society is wrong.

Segregation goes against society.

This just always seemed blown up to me. This is in no way even close to segregation in the sixties. We had "separate but equal" back then, but things actually weren't equal. I believe that would be a different case if gays were to fight for equal rights through civil unions. It's legal rights and benefits on paper. They're not using different water fountains.

Gay people should just be satisfied with the legal benefits of marriage/civil union or whatever. They will likely never gain equality in religion because most religions very specifically prohibit homosexuality. It just feels like they're trying to intrude on people's beliefs, which doesn't seem reasonable to me. You get the same rights as anyone else, but let them have their religion. F1_2004

Homosexual people are not even allowed to get a secular marriage. There is no logical reason for that. Even atheists can get secularly married even though they are "outlawd" by religion.

But you see secular marriage isnt any of religion's business.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Society defines the term marriage between a man and woman. Society determines it's acculturation. That argument seems legitimate to me, so long as there is equal rights being achieved.

LikeHaterade

Then society is wrong.

Segregation goes against society.

This just always seemed blown up to me. This is in no way even close to segregation in the sixties. We had "separate but equal" back then, but things actually weren't equal. I believe that would be a different case if gays were to fight for equal rights through civil unions. It's legal rights and benefits on paper. They're not using different water fountains.

Just because the effects of that discrimination are not as severe and inhumane as they were with blacks doesnt mean homosexuals should settle with that thought.

Doesn't have to be derogatory to be unacceptable to me; segregated schools had nothing that made them innately inferior in terms of how the laws were structured, after all. I should add that I'm not trying to change anyone's mind in this thread, since I think it's a pretty heartfelt issue for most folks who have any opinion on it. I'm just giving my $.02 (or as many posts as I've made in this thread, maybe more like my $1.50)xaos

Marriage is on a much smaller level than schools though. I understand. I should probably share my personal view on marriage before this discussion continues and say that I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. I do however believe that society has the right to choose it's acculturation, so long as equal rights are achievable.

Well, civil partnerships may well be pretty much the same, but gays should still be entitled to the same rights as everyone else - including the right to marry.

This just always seemed blown up to me. This is in no way even close to segregation in the sixties. We had "separate but equal" back then, but things actually weren't equal. I believe that would be a different case if gays were to fight for equal rights through civil unions. It's legal rights and benefits on paper. They're not using different water fountains.

LikeHaterade

The intentions behind it are the same.

Just because the effects of that discrimination are not as severe and inhumane as they were with blacks doesnt mean homosexuals should settle with that thought.

Teenaged

I don't think the intentions are the same. Society is not accepting homosexual marriage primarily due to their religious beliefs. Not blind hate.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Society defines the term marriage between a man and woman. Society determines it's acculturation. That argument seems legitimate to me, so long as there is equal rights being achieved.

LikeHaterade

Then society is wrong.

Segregation goes against society.

This just always seemed blown up to me. This is in no way even close to segregation in the sixties. We had "separate but equal" back then, but things actually weren't equal. I believe that would be a different case if gays were to fight for equal rights through civil unions. It's legal rights and benefits on paper. They're not using different water fountains.

Things weren't actually equal because things were separate. It doesn't have to be "close" to the segregation of the sixties; any segregation at all is contradictory to the very basis of our society.