Wow...a total lack of knowledge when it comes to language. Even in modern times it is quite evident that language and definitions change. Gay use to mean that a person was happy. Now it is used almost exclusively to refer to homosexuals. Same with "faggot". It use to mean a bundle of sticks...when was the last time someone told you that they were going to get a faggot and have it mean a bundle of sticks?
More evidence is that there are dead languages. IE languages that no one speaks anymore.
dammit stop derailing my thread. It is a simple question. Do you care what the government calls it?
Actually, I agree with you. The homosexual community should be ashamed of embracing the term "gay" because it discriminates against people who are actually gay.[/url]
There will NEVER be the kind of order that you are talking about. It is an impossibility. And why would you want it anyways? If there was complete order in everything then we would stagnate and die off. Chaos, for want of a better term, is necessary to our survival. It helps us grow and think and expand.
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?
Actually, it's called peace, and its impossibility is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's only impossible because people say it's impossible.
Chaos, on the other hand, is violence. It's deliberately inefficient. It's like evaluating the growth of a city by how noisy it is, not how smooth it is.
Regardless of what name they want to use, if the purpose is to extend the benefits enjoyed by a normal union (marriage) to those who want benefits based upon a union founded in unatural acts, then I am definitly against it. I am not against homosexual unions that simply recognise two peoples commitment to each other, I am only against the extension of marriage benefits.
I oppose gay marriage regardless of what term you use to call it.
Regardless of what name they want to use, if the purpose is to extend the benefits enjoyed by a normal union (marriage) to those who want benefits based upon a union founded in unatural acts, then I am definitly against it. I am not against homosexual unions that simply recognise two peoples commitment to each other, I am only against the extension of marriage benefits.
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?
Order does not equal peace and chaos does not equal violence. You can have chaos without any violence..don't believe me? Have a couple of kids.And you can have fighting even with order. A simple difference of opinion in an orderly way shows this.
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?
Not so long as the Marriage License exists. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. So long as it exists, same sex couples should have their free exercise to the right of contract recognized.
Not so long as the Marriage License exists. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. So long as it exists, same sex couples should have their free exercise to the right of contract recognized.
Regardless of what name they want to use, if the purpose is to extend the benefits enjoyed by a normal union (marriage) to those who want benefits based upon a union founded in unatural acts, then I am definitly against it. I am not against homosexual unions that simply recognise two peoples commitment to each other, I am only against the extension of marriage benefits.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court rejected "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education.
wtf does that have to do with my question?
Tf it has to do with your question is that the government cannot instiute a segregated system. This means no "marriage" for straights and "civil unions" for gays. It is marriage for both or marriage for none. Those are the only two Constitutional options.
That's what a civil union is.when did i say anything about a segregated system or any system. Please show me where i said that.
Honestly, so long as you call it a Civil Union, and the benefits are only those that are directly related to THE GOVERNMENT, I have no problem with it. Taxes, inheritance, etc.... on the GOVERNMENT side. So long as it would not require non-governmental entities (employers, etc...) to accept it as the equivelant of a marriage, that's fine with me. The moment they start trying to force private (non-governmental) entities to act as if it's a marriage, then I have issues with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?