(January 4, 2014 at 1:15 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote:

(January 4, 2014 at 12:58 pm)Lek Wrote: No. What I'm saying is we can hold to our opinions, but respect the fact that others hold different opinions. The goal is to come up with a system that gives equal rights to all parties. We'll never convince each other to come over to our sides. Civil unions are a way to give equal benefits to all parties while allowing for different beliefs and opinions. By the way, I'm also not high.

That is exactly what gay marriage is doing, giving equal rights to all parties. Please explain how gay marriage is taking away your rights.

Like so many religious folks, he mistakenly thinks he has the right not to be offended.

Marriage didn't start with Christianity. You Xtians don't own that term to begin with. This isn't about you (the Christians) it's about what's fair and just, and, frankly, your religion should not even weigh in on anyone's decision to get married. Ever.

(January 4, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Lek Wrote: I rest my case.

Quite simply, sir or madam, whether or not you wish to recognize it as such, you're suggesting that there should be the marriage equivalent of Whites Only and Coloreds Only drinking fountains, on the basis that Christians ought to have the right to decide what counts as marriage for everyone while graciously throwing the gays a bone and letting them be equal as long as it also means they remain separate. Your justification for this is that Christians have had that right for a long time and that means they should always have that right.

I'm sorry, but you really don't have a case to rest, as far as I can tell.

(January 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(January 4, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Lek Wrote: I rest my case.

Quite simply, sir or madam, whether or not you wish to recognize it as such, you're suggesting that there should be the marriage equivalent of Whites Only and Coloreds Only drinking fountains, on the basis that Christians ought to have the right to decide what counts as marriage for everyone while graciously throwing the gays a bone and letting them be equal as long as it also means they remain separate. Your justification for this is that Christians have had that right for a long time and that means they should always have that right.

I'm sorry, but you really don't have a case to rest, as far as I can tell.

I don't think you've read my previous posts. I said we should keep the government out of marriage. Marriage should be a private thing. Anyone who wants to be married could be married in a church or whatever way they deem appropriate. This is true for straights, gays or whomever. Civil unions would simply be a way to give equal rights under the law, which is a legitimate function of government.

Are you going to respond to my points or not Lek?

(January 4, 2014 at 1:57 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote: Are you going to respond to my points or not Lek?

Ok. I don't agree with the concept of gay marriage. I do understand the feelings involved. My younger brother is gay and we've talked alot. Because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic. That why I feel that marriage should a private matter as far as the government is concerned. I gotta go, but I'll take a closer look at your points when I get back and see if I've answered you questions fully.

'As I grow older and older,
And totter towards the tomb
I find that I care less and less
Who goes to bed with whom.' - Dorothy Parker

Boru

(January 4, 2014 at 2:17 pm)Lek Wrote: Ok. I don't agree with the concept of gay marriage. I do understand the feelings involved. My younger brother is gay and we've talked alot. Because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic. That why I feel that marriage should a private matter as far as the government is concerned. I gotta go, but I'll take a closer look at your points when I get back and see if I've answered you questions fully.

So what you mean is, that as far as the Government is concerned, no one is married. They can just enter into a Civil Union with whoever they want. Marriage is another matter entirely.

Correct? Cause that sounds fine to me.

(January 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Lek Wrote: I don't think you've read my previous posts. I said we should keep the government out of marriage. Marriage should be a private thing. Anyone who wants to be married could be married in a church or whatever way they deem appropriate. This is true for straights, gays or whomever. Civil unions would simply be a way to give equal rights under the law, which is a legitimate function of government.

And I would be fine with that, except that this was never a suggestion you heard Christians offer until it became clear that you would have to share the 'institution' with same-sex couples. Not that I am impugning your motives specifically, but the sentiment in general, coming from Christians in general, stinks of "I can't have it to myself, so it would be best if nobody has it", especially when it's obvious to everybody that marriage is not going to be free of the purview of government anytime soon. It's sneaking in 'separate but equal' under the vague and by no means certain promise that equality can finally exist if, maybe sometime in the next couple of decades, government decides to relinquish jurisdiction over marriage. To offer civil unions that way would essentially be making a promise you know you can't keep now and wouldn't even have to worry about keeping for a very long time, if ever.

I was once on the other side of this debate. I know how they think.

^This. Especially the part about once being on the other side.