Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I concede. Sex Ex was not just about biology. In it's first incarnation it was a bunch of slide shows and films of VDs to scare kids away from sex. But, as previously pointed out, the USA has a very high teen pregnancy rate. So the 'education for smarter choices' is a failure.

Yeah, I wouldn't try and use the stats to argue against sex education. The peak in teen pregnancy rates in the US was in 1990, and after that there has been a marked decrease, until you get to 2000 when you see the rate levelling out and even increasing in some states.

The most obvious cause of the change from 2000 onwards would be the return of abstinence only education, but we all know it's a lot more complicated than just that one thing. Even still, if you want to talk about the stats... whatever evidence they provide is not kind to your position, General.

Frazzled wrote:As noted, if a private school wants to do that-good for them. Its not required. If a college wants to do that-good for them. Its not required. Public education is required. Again, what you call "challenging" I see as nothing more than forced brainwashing. further, it takes away from actually teaching them something. In places where that is a fad test scores are pathetic and the students can't compete because they are too busy being indoctrinated into the latest fad and not learning what 2+2 is. Meanwhile our Asian competition kicks our teeth in.

Fortunately I and my ilk vote and contribute politically.

Absolute nonsense. When educators talk about the different teaching methodologies around the world, they talk about how dogmatic Asian schools are. There is no scope for discussion or critical analysis, it is true because it comes from the teacher, and you learn it by wrote. You want to talk about brainwashing, you talk about Asian schools. Who aren't kicking anyone's teeth in... a quick glance at GDP per capita figures should show clearly how silly that is.

Meanwhile, claiming a 40 minute class once a week is brainwashing is just plain goofy.

Doctor Thunder wrote:As a Mormon, I thought I should just point out that Marriage and Family are central to our faith and sacred to us in a way that can be difficult for people not of our faith to understand.

Our position is not anti-gay, our position is pro-preserving what we believe is sacred. I know it may be hard to believe, but it really has nothing to do with the homosexual community. If there had been a law passed allowing people to marry their pets, we would have opposed that just as strongly.

We may have incompatible beliefs with the pro-gay marriage community, but that does not make us enemies. We hold no enmity against the gay community. We are simply standing up for what we believe to be right, and we understand that they are doing the same.

But your marriage isn't changed or threatened by the state recognising Tom and Harry's relationship. It is you using your faith to control what other people are doing, when they aren't affecting you at all.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay. But marriage is defined not just by religions but by thousands of years of tradition. I object to losing traditions. Those faiths that want gay unions can have them, but they are not marriages as defines for the last thousand years. I would honestly support a bill that made unions equal. Really! Leave me the tradition of marriage! Please?

Wait, mormons have thousands of years or tradition? And that tradition doesn't include polygamy?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Well, technically marriage is defend as a traditional marriage. That is its connection to current law.
But you are right. The use of the word marriage is based on tradition. The phrase "gay marriage" makes no sense based on the definition of marriage as a man and wife. It is like saying a one person marriage (i.e.- husband with no wife). It does not make since if you use the definition of marriage.

Hence I am saying Civil Unions are the answer.

So you actually supported a proposition to remove the rights of a minority, just so that at some point in the future the exact same thing can be established, with the only difference being that one word doesn't have it's meaning slightly altered?

I've heard of pedantry but... well, wow.

Okay. I surrender. You win. You have fully shown me to be a bigot. How evil and wrong of me to think, "Hey, I support the idea that civil unions can have the same rights as marriage, but marriage can be preserved as between a man and a woman." I have seen how selfish and idiotic I have been to think “Since marriage has always been between a man and woman in the US, it can stay that way. Sure, it is an idea that excludes homosexuality- just as homosexuality is an idea that excludes heterosexuals”. I promise not to ever post again on this or any other thread discussing homosexual unions, for fear of showing my vile and hateful ways.
Good day, gentlemen.

over and out.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay. I surrender. You win. You have fully shown me to be a bigot. How evil and wrong of me to think, "Hey, I support the idea that civil unions can have the same rights as marriage, but marriage can be preserved as between a man and a woman." I have seen how selfish and idiotic I have been to think “Since marriage has always been between a man and woman in the US, it can stay that way. Sure, it is an idea that excludes homosexuality- just as homosexuality is an idea that excludes heterosexuals”. I promise not to ever post again on this or any other thread discussing homosexual unions, for fear of showing my vile and hateful ways.
Good day, gentlemen.

Homosexual acceptance excludes heterosexuals? That's new.

Either way, to assume that our argument with 'you' is a rejection of 'you' is really unnecessary. As is the sarcasm.

In the Athenian democracy, a "citizen" was male and trained in the military. (I don't remember
all the requirements). In our society, our idea of a citizen has changed.

The American voter hasn't always included people living in its borders. The right to vote
required one to be male, white, propertied and determined by wealth.

Ideas change. Words expand to include them.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay, I was hoping not to have to say this, because I HATE it! please forgive me.

But people have a Right to Hate. You are allowed to foster intense and absolute irrational hate for anyone you want. That is a freedom we all have. You cannont act on that hate to do harm to another person, but the hate and bigotry is a right people have. I think it is a waste of energy, but it is legal.

I agree that schools should not teach religion! Fully agree. But acceptance of homosexuality is a dogma that also should not be taught. Acceptance of homosexuals is okay, as they are people with feelings and rights. Children should be taught to accept those different from themselves. You don't need to go into the specifics of sexual alignment as that is not a public matter. Skin color is a better example. You can tell if someone is dark skinned, you can’t tell if they are homosexual.

Thing is though, I never said anything about the lessons being Pro-Homosexuality. I was taught about a number of religions and philosophies in my later school years as that was my choice. They were all presented dispassionately, I was literally studying the texts and nothing more. The same needs to happen with homosexuals. Admit they exist. Explain that it is a natural occurence in humanity. Explain what it means to be homosexual, and leave it at that.

Bigotry comes from a shocking lack of understanding. Fantastic example would be the self made British Underclass, the Chav. We recently had a massive influx of foreign workers from Poland into Britain, who took jobs as plumber, electricians, carpenters etc. The Chavs as ever got up in arms declaring the Poles had taken British Jobs and British Jobs for British People etc. Yet, had this (again, largely self made) underclass got off their arses, and had a job in the first place, the job the Poles allegedly 'stole' would not have been there in the first place. Now, if someone has had homosexuality demystified in the classroom, away from Religious dogma, and they still don't like a Homosexual just because of who they fancy, well, education has done it's part, and some people just want to bear a grudge.

But to deny the education in any given field is extremely stupid.

And as others have said, why did the Mormons get so upset? Adam and Steve getting hitched impacts on them not one jot. It's bullying to my eyes, little more than 'you can't do that because I say you can't'. This is ridiculous in the modern age. There should never have been any religious involvement here. Then again, my general stand point is one of neutrality. I say abortion should be legalised, and let each persons conscience dictate their choice. Same with Gay marriage. No place of marriage should be forced to marry anyone together. Allow them to say no, but do not *ban* the marriage of two people of the same gender.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:



Bigotry comes from a shocking lack of understanding. Fantastic example would be the self made British Underclass, the Chav. We recently had a massive influx of foreign workers from Poland into Britain, who took jobs as plumber, electricians, carpenters etc. The Chavs as ever got up in arms declaring the Poles had taken British Jobs and British Jobs for British People etc. Yet, had this (again, largely self made) underclass got off their arses, and had a job in the first place, the job the Poles allegedly 'stole' would not have been there in the first place. Now, if someone has had homosexuality demystified in the classroom, away from Religious dogma, and they still don't like a Homosexual just because of who they fancy, well, education has done it's part, and some people just want to bear a grudge.

Wow... sounds an aweful lot like the rednecks here comlaining about the illegal aliens. "They are stealing Amarican jobs" they will bleat at everyone, but then will not even consider taking the jobs that the illegals are actually doing. The Illegals on the other hand are here actually doing the work that needs to be done. Usually for cheaper than what the rednecks would too. You think "joe Sixpack would be out there picking those Veggies, or doing that janitorial work that the Illegals are doing for the wage they are doing it at? Riiiiight.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And as others have said, why did the Mormons get so upset? Adam and Steve getting hitched impacts on them not one jot. It's bullying to my eyes, little more than 'you can't do that because I say you can't'. This is ridiculous in the modern age. There should never have been any religious involvement here. Then again, my general stand point is one of neutrality. I say abortion should be legalised, and let each persons conscience dictate their choice. Same with Gay marriage. No place of marriage should be forced to marry anyone together. Allow them to say no, but do not *ban* the marriage of two people of the same gender.

It is all a way for them to be able to control a concept. If they can control one concept that they find offensive because of a line from a book written +/-2000 years ago supposedly inspired by an invisable man in the sky and use that to subjugate one group then they can press on and try for subjugation of other groups. It is a battle of control for the meaning of a word, and who can get their defination approved.

I think thats a little harsh on them. The Mormons, as with all Religions (and I do mean all) are entitled to their beliefs, wherever they might stem from.

However, the second that those beliefs are imposed on others something has gone wrong. Sure, we live in a nominally Christian west, and our laws stem mainly from the 10 Commandments, but thats where it should end. The 10 Commandments were set in stone, but our laws, thankfully, are not.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay. I surrender. You win. You have fully shown me to be a bigot. How evil and wrong of me to think, "Hey, I support the idea that civil unions can have the same rights as marriage, but marriage can be preserved as between a man and a woman." I have seen how selfish and idiotic I have been to think “Since marriage has always been between a man and woman in the US, it can stay that way. Sure, it is an idea that excludes homosexuality- just as homosexuality is an idea that excludes heterosexuals”. I promise not to ever post again on this or any other thread discussing homosexual unions, for fear of showing my vile and hateful ways.
Good day, gentlemen.

I'm not convinced you're a bigot. You're experimenting with a lot of arguments to justify opposing gay marriage, and most of them suffer from bizarre prioritisation (favouring a definition over human rights, for instance) but you're not necessarily a bigot.

Gen Lee's position is that he supports gay marriage in all but name. That does not seem bigoted. It's certainly a lot better than wanting to prevent gay marriage totally.

I think the key point about gay marriage is to secure the civil and legal rights. The name is not important in practice and in time will probably become generally used as is gradually happening in the UK. Then the law can be amended to call it marriage.

Kilkrazy wrote:Gen Lee's position is that he supports gay marriage in all but name. That does not seem bigoted. It's certainly a lot better than wanting to prevent gay marriage totally.

Sort of, he's floated a fair few arguments over the course of a couple of threads. No single argument was inherently bigoted, but he seems awful keen to find a reasonable sounding justification for opposing gay marriage. I'm not saying he's bigoted, but there is likely more going on than just a spirited defence of a word. It might be party loyalty, it might be wanting to protest against those durn liberals, I don't know.

over and out

You mean this proposition 8 is purely about the dictionary definition of a word?

How very French!

over and out

If it's only about the definition, then why can't each church handle that themselves?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
FWIW, that is the very crux of the matter.

Most people against gay marriage want to reserve the word "marriage" as defined for 1 man and 1 woman, but have no problem with an alternative structure that only differs in name, but not in law. Kind of like how "heterosexual" is defined as man-woman, while "homosexual" is man-man or woman-woman.

But those aren't legally mandated terms. So the comparison is a false one.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The gays want to appropriate the word and take it away from the 98% who currently use it properly, perverting the history of language. It is the same reason that gays want to say that everybody is homosexual, rather than focusing on the 2% who self-identify as such, so that words lose their meaning and they can benefit this way.

It's called the redefinition of terminology, and it is a natural part of linguistic evolution.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I have yet to meet anyone who would deny gays civil rights. After all, it's not like gays lack enhanced civil protection under the law, nor that they would be customarily lynched for looking at a heterosexual person in a sexual manner.

So because the divide here really is definitional, there is no compromise possible.

That isn't true at all. You could simply remove the word 'marriage' from the legal lexicon.

Kilkrazy wrote:You mean this proposition 8 is purely about the dictionary definition of a word?

How very French!

Dude, I’ve pointed this out about three times already.

For extra bonus comedy, compare and contrast with what people were saying in the ‘Words I don’t like thread’. It’s okay to use 'rape' to talk about the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in a wargame, but using 'marriage' to refer to a non-traditional union is absolutely unacceptable.

In case anybody is curious, one of the major reasons to advocate for Gay Marriage, as opposed to simply Civil Unions for all who want them, is that there is no way of explaining why Marriage should be defined as one man and one woman without somehow saying that heterosexual love is superior.

Now, I favor whatever gets rights into the hands of those that can use them, and I think if civil unions are the compromise that enough people are comfortable with. But while I wouldn't call a person that favors civil unions but not gay marriage a bigot.... it's a position that seems more rooted in favoritism for one form of partnership over another.

In today's society, birth control means that hetero couples can choose not to procreate (and many don't). Conversely, many homosexual couples adopt, use surrogates, or otherwise have children. So, procreation isn't the dominate reason to restrict any definition.

So, I'm going to assume that most people are pretty open minded, but perhaps don't feel 100% comfortable with homosexuality. The idea that "we can't stop them, but we don't have to endorse what they do." I don't think it's bigoted per se, because that's a very powerful word, but I think the argument is based on emotion and not more logical policy.

It's amazing that the only ones against compromise are the ones who would benefit. Seems like most people in favour of gay marriage want to stick it to the religious right more than accomplish there goal.

The talk of evolving the language is just an attempt at progress bullying, ie if its traditional its obviously bad and anybody who supports tradition is a backwards bigot.

The real problem is there is a conflict in the structure of U.S. law. It is a leagal system that has adopted seperation of church and state but, prints out traditional religious jargon on government forms for the purposes of accounting(taxes).

You want to fix this, simple, change the MARRIAGE LICENSE to a CONTRACT of CIVIL UNION. Thus making the document a legitemate legal document & get government out of marriage altogether. It started as a religious term and concept it should stay that way.(don't beleive me? Check out the tradition of jumping the broom)
The governments only concern should be with co-habitation. Couples pay taxes then they should REAP THE BENEFITS!!! No matter their sexuality. Just don't be a hipocrit and say that someones sexuality is any more important than somebody elses faith.

That would work, too. How do interstate laws work out in recognizing civil unions
other than marriage? So if you get a civil union in Illinois is it recognized in California?

There are 50 states and different ways it could work out.

Do it one state at a time starting with california & and massachusetts. Once established on both coasts It'll eventually spread. There are 5 states that seem to be the lead states in matters like this. Once they go, the rest will follow.

Problem is the money thats being made keeping it a problem(how much spent for vs how much against) getting those first two to go will be very difficult with the established leaders on each side making a living off of keeping the problem the hot button it is. Most likely a combined effort from moderates on both sides.

The fast track would be to find a lawyer that will appeal divorce judgement on the grounds of separation of church and state. ie there can be no divorce because marriage is not a leagal but term a religious one. He's got to be good enough to get it to the higher courts. If ever heard by the supreme court It'll fly, or they over turn every seperation decision for the past 40 + years.

focusedfire wrote:It's amazing that the only ones against compromise are the ones who would benefit. Seems like most people in favour of gay marriage want to stick it to the religious right more than accomplish there goal.

Compromise can be a good and necessary thing, when two parties with opposing, principled arguments are at loggerheads. But to this point the only principle the anti-gay marriage people have stuck to is ‘marriage has a traditional meaning’. I can’t see the substance that demands a compromise.

The talk of evolving the language is just an attempt at progress bullying, ie if its traditional its obviously bad and anybody who supports tradition is a backwards bigot.

That’s a terrible mischaracterisation of the debate. Who said that it was traditional and therefore must be bad? Who said supporting tradition makes anyone a bigot? I think you made that up.

People have said that language is not as important as rights. Keeping the meaning of word really pales into insignificance compared to making sure a lifetime partner has access to their spouse on their deathbed.

The real problem is there is a conflict in the structure of U.S. law. It is a leagal system that has adopted seperation of church and state but, prints out traditional religious jargon on government forms for the purposes of accounting(taxes).

You can draw loose dates and argue marriage was a religious act before it was a legal act, but the point of difference is very hazy, and started a long time ago. Regardless, marriage was a feature of both legal and religious bodies for a lot longer than there’s been a United States.

You want to fix this, simple, change the MARRIAGE LICENSE to a CONTRACT of CIVIL UNION. Thus making the document a legitemate legal document & get government out of marriage altogether. It started as a religious term and concept it should stay that way.(don't beleive me? Check out the tradition of jumping the broom)

I’ll ask all the folk arguing for Civil Unions and Marriage to become separate… are you fine with everyone the same legal piece of paper, called ‘civil unions’, entitling the couple to the same set of rights and obligations regardless of their genders? Are you also fine with leaving it up to religions to decide who they will grant ‘marriages’… such that a couple can get their civil union, then go to their local church and get a ‘marriage’.

And so then you’ll be fine when under that system, a couple can still get ‘married’ in addition to their ‘civil union’ whether they’re gay or straight. So that the word ‘marriage’ will still change to include gay marriage, regardless of whether you set up the ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ distinction or not.

The governments only concern should be with co-habitation. Couples pay taxes then they should REAP THE BENEFITS!!! No matter their sexuality. Just don't be a hipocrit and say that someones sexuality is any more important than somebody elses faith.

But they aren’t asking anyone to give up any part of their faith. Nothing is lost by someone else getting gay married.

sebster wrote:

focusedfire wrote:It's amazing that the only ones against compromise are the ones who would benefit. Seems like most people in favour of gay marriage want to stick it to the religious right more than accomplish there goal.

Compromise can be a good and necessary thing, when two parties with opposing, principled arguments are at loggerheads. But to this point the only principle the anti-gay marriage people have stuck to is ‘marriage has a traditional meaning’. I can’t see the substance that demands a compromise.

The talk of evolving the language is just an attempt at progress bullying, ie if its traditional its obviously bad and anybody who supports tradition is a backwards bigot.

That’s a terrible mischaracterisation of the debate. Who said that it was traditional and therefore must be bad? Who said supporting tradition makes anyone a bigot? I think you made that up.

People have said that language is not as important as rights. Keeping the meaning of word really pales into insignificance compared to making sure a lifetime partner has access to their spouse on their deathbed.

The real problem is there is a conflict in the structure of U.S. law. It is a leagal system that has adopted seperation of church and state but, prints out traditional religious jargon on government forms for the purposes of accounting(taxes).

You can draw loose dates and argue marriage was a religious act before it was a legal act, but the point of difference is very hazy, and started a long time ago. Regardless, marriage was a feature of both legal and religious bodies for a lot longer than there’s been a United States.

You want to fix this, simple, change the MARRIAGE LICENSE to a CONTRACT of CIVIL UNION. Thus making the document a legitemate legal document & get government out of marriage altogether. It started as a religious term and concept it should stay that way.(don't beleive me? Check out the tradition of jumping the broom)

I’ll ask all the folk arguing for Civil Unions and Marriage to become separate… are you fine with everyone the same legal piece of paper, called ‘civil unions’, entitling the couple to the same set of rights and obligations regardless of their genders? Are you also fine with leaving it up to religions to decide who they will grant ‘marriages’… such that a couple can get their civil union, then go to their local church and get a ‘marriage’.

And so then you’ll be fine when under that system, a couple can still get ‘married’ in addition to their ‘civil union’ whether they’re gay or straight. So that the word ‘marriage’ will still change to include gay marriage, regardless of whether you set up the ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ distinction or not.

The governments only concern should be with co-habitation. Couples pay taxes then they should REAP THE BENEFITS!!! No matter their sexuality. Just don't be a hipocrit and say that someones sexuality is any more important than somebody elses faith.

But they aren’t asking anyone to give up any part of their faith. Nothing is lost by someone else getting gay married.

1st)Thank you Sebster for proving the first line of my post accurate. You are so caught up on terminolgy rather and maintaining the urgument, that you pass when your objective is in reach. Instead continuing the battle. Something I might use against you if we ever game.

2) As to the terrible mischaracterization of the debate. Your own words made gen lee feel as if you think he's a bigot. Jesting or not comedy has its roots in truth. Check his last reply to you. You are so concerned with your side of this your not considering other points of view. What is it about civil union & winning what your arguing for that is so repelant?

3) As far as lose dates apply the only ones that really matter are 1776, 1781, 1794 and what was in the founders mind when they set the initial laws of this country. Which at that time marriage was the pervue of the church. But, if you want to go back futher you still have a long way before it gets cloudy. The Magna Carte was written when? Its safe to say that marriage was a church regulated institution at that point.

4) As to your question wetherr we will be fine if the church abopts it later or not. yeah, it's up to the individual church and their membership. It' a little thing called freedom of choice. And, if a church says no what would your answer be? ..................................If its anything other than "as long as the couple in question isn't denied any of their gauranteed benefits from the gov't it's ok" then you need to examine what your real motivations are.

Why are you debating point 4? I don't recall anyone implying that a religion has to
change as a result of any of this. All the arguments (or at least the ones I've noticed)
point to changes in the law, not individual religions.

Sorry for the double posting, but in regards as to if the thing went whole circle and everyone went back to calling it marraige as opposed to ??united would I have a problem with it?

Well, seeing as I'm trying to rid the human race of the evil that is marriage, Probably, look marriage causes divorce, children with an unstable home enviroment, even death. As a matter of fact(argue this one if you can) the vast majority of marriage end in either divorce or death. ect, ect,...........................
Seriously, if its the will of the people(majority or culturly) then sure. But it's at that point where the will of the people will have spoken.

And thats the point a persons point is not any less valid if it is religious in origin. You're imply that the religions have to change. On your point 3 of the worlds major religions would have to accept an unwanted change. The difference in our arguments is that where we are accepting of gays and their rights under the law, you still continue to push a point that deprives the majority of what they feel and is they're right under the law. Religious Freedom

focusedfire wrote:
1st)Thank you Sebster for proving the first line of my post accurate. You are so caught up on terminolgy rather and maintaining the urgument, that you pass when your objective is in reach. Instead continuing the battle. Something I might use against you if we ever game.

If the objective is equal treatment, then a legally defined separation whereby 'civil union' is for homosexuals and 'marriage' is for heterosexuals is not at all indicative of the end being 'within reach'.

focusedfire wrote:
2) As to the terrible mischaracterization of the debate. Your own words made gen lee feel as if you think he's a bigot. Jesting or not comedy has its roots in truth. Check his last reply to you. You are so concerned with your side of this your not considering other points of view. What is it about civil union & winning what your arguing for that is so repelant?

It seems a little presumptuous to say that, after 8 pages in just this thread, that certain perspectives are being ignored. Perhaps they are simply being rejected.

focusedfire wrote:
3) As far as lose dates apply the only ones that really matter are 1776, 1781, 1794 and what was in the founders mind when they set the initial laws of this country. Which at that time marriage was the pervue of the church. But, if you want to go back futher you still have a long way before it gets cloudy. The Magna Carte was written when? Its safe to say that marriage was a church regulated institution at that point.

Actually, the Founder's intent is completely irrelevant. All that matters is the letter of the law as laid down in the Constitution insofar as the gay marriage debate does not involve a Constitutional amendment.

focusedfire wrote:
4) As to your question wetherr we will be fine if the church abopts it later or not. yeah, it's up to the individual church and their membership. It' a little thing called freedom of choice. And, if a church says no what would your answer be? ..................................If its anything other than "as long as the couple in question isn't denied any of their gauranteed benefits from the gov't it's ok" then you need to examine what your real motivations are.

Under Gen. Lee's proposed system that freedom would be denied to them.

Still dont get it. Once the term is changed Civil union is the only one that matters. The other term becomes nothing more than what it should be considered currently. A religious or occult ritual that has no bearing on your rights freedoms.

Let me simplify. Man unites with man, it's a civil union. Woman unites with woman, it is a civil union. Man unites with woman, ITS A CIVIL UNION!

And yes it involves the constitution, "The govt shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."- THE FIRST AMMENDMENT

If asking why mince words? This way everyone gets most of what they want. and if individual churches want to include gays in their occult ritiual its up to that individual church. Your way FORCES people to adopt and accept your way of thinking....There's a word for that........

Also your way opens people to litigation for merely having a religious beleif.ie... A church refuses to marry a Gay couple and is in violation of the law. Thus open to court mandated sanctions. Which then are appealed under religious freedom and the whole thing starts again. What I propose ends the problem, which is the either acctual or percieved state use and sanctioning of a religious term.

over and out

1st)Thank you Sebster for proving the first line of my post accurate. You are so caught up on terminolgy rather and maintaining the urgument, that you pass when your objective is in reach. Instead continuing the battle. Something I might use against you if we ever game.

I’m not caught up on terminology at all. I didn’t even mention terminology. You talked about how compromise is good, I said compromise is good when there is some substance to the other side. Nothing to do with terminology at all.

2) As to the terrible mischaracterization of the debate. Your own words made gen lee feel as if you think he's a bigot.

I didn’t make him feel as if he was a bigot. I never suggested anything of the sort until he just threw it out there, at which point I said he wasn’t necessarily a bigot but it seemed possible.

Jesting or not comedy has its roots in truth. Check his last reply to you. You are so concerned with your side of this your not considering other points of view. What is it about civil union & winning what your arguing for that is so repelant?

I have no problem with the term ‘civil union’ or many of its proposed applications. I have a lot of problems with people claiming that protection of a word is all important justification for voting against gay rights. It’s another in a long line of justifications for voting and lobbying against gay marriage. If people who very concerned over the word proposed a piece of legislation that gave people every right allowed to straight people, but separated out civil union and marriage I’d vote for it. Except those people don’t do that, and I suspect it’s because they don’t really care about the word ‘marriage’. I also suspect that if there’s compromise, they’ll only find something else down the line to justify extending rights to gay people.

3) As far as lose dates apply the only ones that really matter are 1776, 1781, 1794 and what was in the founders mind when they set the initial laws of this country. Which at that time marriage was the pervue of the church. But, if you want to go back futher you still have a long way before it gets cloudy. The Magna Carte was written when? Its safe to say that marriage was a church regulated institution at that point.

Marriage has had legal implications for as long as there has been formalised property rights. Do they teach mediaeval history over there? All those political battles over who would marry who… it wasn’t to ensure the most holy unions under the eyes of God. It was because those marriages carried with them legal claims.

At none of the dates you mentioned was marriage purely a religious concept.

4) As to your question wetherr we will be fine if the church abopts it later or not. yeah, it's up to the individual church and their membership. It' a little thing called freedom of choice. And, if a church says no what would your answer be? ..................................If its anything other than "as long as the couple in question isn't denied any of their gauranteed benefits from the gov't it's ok" then you need to examine what your real motivations are.

If the church says no to a gay marriage I’d be fine with that, it’s their right to perform whatever marriage they want.

Meanwhile, if churches start performing gay marriages, then you’ve lost your battle to protect the word marriage, at which point your whole point of complaint is lost, and the whole ‘defence of the word marriage’ thing is shown to be a silly artifice.

over and out