"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

Opposing changing the definition of a word/institution older than history itself is not discrimination.

It is if not altering it discriminates against a whole segment of the population and the age of something means dick all

[SteveII]

Individual rights are granted by the democratic process. Every advancement of rights in the last 150 years has been part of the democratic process.


Opposing changing the definition of a word/institution older than history itself is not discrimination.

It is when you institute a 'separate but equal' framework for 'secular unions'.

The *word* isn't that important. What *is* important is the societal and governmental benefits, including things like survivor benefits and tax deductions. Also, the recognition by the government of the bond.

You are kidding yourself...big time. It had everything to do with the word 'marriage'. No way was 'civil unions' enough. You don't know what you are talking about. 

Would you be happier if government got out of the marriage business altogether, leaving that to the religious institutions, and instead have *every* government sanctioned union be a civil union?

Yes.

[RoadRunner79]

What rights and privileges where being withheld?  As a single man I want to know how I'm being discriminated against.  Should we re-define it, so I can be a married bachelor?

I think that some rights should be extended to all.   For instance, I think that you should be able to designate, who you can have visit you in a hospital.  Even if they are not family, even in spite of family.     But note, for the most part, I wasn't really talking about the marriage issue at all.

[Bolding mine]

Neither was I. 


I asked you what word or words you would use for those who would deny others equality under the law. I'm still waiting.

Ok good, I guess I made an assumption, because that is close to what I hear in regards to the marriage issue. 

Here is your original quote:

In the interest of not abusing language, what do you call it when a group of people, speaking on behalf of ancient traditions and a particular religious perspective, wish to deny some of their fellow citizens the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come from a government-issued license? This always was a question of equal protection and equal opportunity under the law. Churches and other religious institutions are free to discriminate all they want. The government issuing the license may not.

To which the answer is... I'm not sure what you are talking about.   Do you mean "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

[SteveII]

I marked my views above.

In that case, what is the problem with having a government sanctioned institution for people who want their relationships recognized by the government and that includes gay relationships?

Is the only problem that the government calls it marriage?

My only problem is that 5 people in the government redefined marriage.

[polymath257]

In that case, what is the problem with having a government sanctioned institution for people who want their relationships recognized by the government and that includes gay relationships?

Is the only problem that the government calls it marriage?

My only problem is that the government redefined marriage.

So, once again, if the government stopped calling *anything* marriage and instead started calling it 'civil unions' and allowed gays to be in such, you would have no issue with that?

[Amarok]

You are kidding yourself...big time. It had everything to do with the word 'marriage'. No way was 'civil unions' enough. You don't know what you are talking about. 

Your right it was not enough

---

My only problem is that 5 people in the government redefined marriage.

And that's not a problem and once again it is a legal construct .

[polymath257]

It is when you institute a 'separate but equal' framework for 'secular unions'.

The *word* isn't that important. What *is* important is the societal and governmental benefits, including things like survivor benefits and tax deductions. Also, the recognition by the government of the bond.

You are kidding yourself...big time. It had everything to do with the word 'marriage'. No way was 'civil unions' enough. You don't know what you are talking about.

No, the issue was with the 'separate but equal' aspects of having hets be married and gays not. The benefits have to be the same, as does the wording.

Would you be happier if government got out of the marriage business altogether, leaving that to the religious institutions, and instead have *every* government sanctioned union be a civil union?

Yes.

OK, so your basic position is that governments have to use *your* definition of marriage? And if they don't, then they shouldn't use the word at all?

Just to be clear, there would NOT be a 'marriage license', but rather a 'license of civil union' for even heterosexual couples?

[RoadRunner79]

I do also, but it seems that there is little that can be done if you do not celebrate homosexual activity; then you are a "hateful", "homophobic", "bigot".   Even though I'm not hateful, not fearful, and I'm not intolerant towards homosexuals.  I just think that homosexual activity is immoral and a sin.  Along with a number of other sins, which we are all guilty of. 

I don't think that you can reason with the angry rhetoric and demonization  which you describe.  It is what I would consider bigotry (from  the definition). There is nothing you can do with the lies, except for correct it;  for anyone who may not know what you are saying, and jump to the wrong conclusion based on the abuse of language.

OK, so do you think that the government should make adultery illegal?

Do you think that it should make divorce impossible?

Do you think it should enact laws that are founded in your religious beliefs?

Or, do you think that religion should keep its rules to itself and let the *secular* society determine what is legal and illegal?

Remember, NOBODY is asking for your church to sanctify the secular marriages performed by the state. The two are separate issues and should be separate issues.

I don’t think that the state should encourage adultery. Do you?

I also think that divorce is far too easy, often to the detriment of children.

[SteveII]

My only problem is that the government redefined marriage.

So, once again, if the government stopped calling *anything* marriage and instead started calling it 'civil unions' and allowed gays to be in such, you would have no issue with that?

That would be excellent. But you are missing the point that the LGBT goal was to redefine marriage. The civil union thing was not good enough.

[Crossless2.0]

[Bolding mine]

Neither was I. 


I asked you what word or words you would use for those who would deny others equality under the law. I'm still waiting.

Ok good, I guess I made an assumption, because that is close to what I hear in regards to the marriage issue. 

Here is your original quote:

In the interest of not abusing language, what do you call it when a group of people, speaking on behalf of ancient traditions and a particular religious perspective, wish to deny some of their fellow citizens the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come from a government-issued license? This always was a question of equal protection and equal opportunity under the law. Churches and other religious institutions are free to discriminate all they want. The government issuing the license may not.

To which the answer is... I'm not sure what you are talking about.   Do you mean "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

It's a simple question. If you don't wish to answer, that's fine.

And no, I'm not referring to the Declaration of Independence. But you knew that.