A lot of anti-gay-marriage people argue that if gay marriage were legal it wouldn't be long before churches were being forced to marry gays.
The other problem I have with this is whats the answer to the question "why was it changed" the answer is because of gay marriage. That to me is giving in to the bad guys and continuing discrimination in a backhanded way.
And that is nothing but fear mongering. That would never happen, nor would most supporters of SSM support that. I know I wouldn't.
How is it discrimination when the law treats everyone equally? It doesn't matter why it's changed, it just matters that after the change everyone has equal rights. And while it might be 'giving in' to anti-gay-marriage folks, I'm alright with that. I don't mind throwing them a bone if it gets gays their equal rights.
A lot of anti-gay-marriage people argue that if gay marriage were legal it wouldn't be long before churches were being forced to marry gays.
The "why" matters. Why do you think the DoI was written? Why do you think millions of studies are always being done and then acted upon in our legislature? DaDT anyone? Laws against murder? Theft? Rape? Child abuse? And the list goes on and on and on ad nauseum on.
WTF does this have to do with anything I said?
Please explain to me how a law that treats everyone equally is discriminatory.
How is it discrimination when the law treats everyone equally? It doesn't matter why it's changed, it just matters that after the change everyone has equal rights. And while it might be 'giving in' to anti-gay-marriage folks, I'm alright with that. I don't mind throwing them a bone if it gets gays their equal rights.
How is it discrimination when the law treats everyone equally? It doesn't matter why it's changed, it just matters that after the change everyone has equal rights. And while it might be 'giving in' to anti-gay-marriage folks, I'm alright with that. I don't mind throwing them a bone if it gets gays their equal rights.
Note the part in bold:
I am showing you that the "why" DOES matter.
If you enact a law for discriminatory reasons then the law, by nature, will be discriminatory.
Why must the word "marriage" be limited to just those of religious types? Why can gays not use the word "marriage"?
It is like telling gays that they are not good enough to use the word...or the drinking fountain, or sit up front of the bus or court room.
simple, because like i said the HONEST answer to the name change would be so the gays couldnt have it OR to hush up the antigay crowd.
A humorous example I like to give is what if when Obama won we decided we wont be calling him the president any more because that word is sacred and we need to protect its sanctity, from now one its the CEO of America because we dont want a black guy to ever be the president of the united states?
Congrats Mr. Obama/ Mrs Clinton! you won! uhm listen, see the thing is we aren’t going to call you the President, see well, uhm , you are half black/a woman and we just cant call you THE PRESIDENT, that’s a “sacred" word based on MY opinion, even though we have used it for all others we are going to change it NOW, we are going to call you aaaaaah . . . . uhm . . . The CEO if the United States of America, yeah thats it.
Now mind you, you'll still have the same "full rights/privileges" and powers and decisions to make has the president we just cant call you that or use that word anymore because of you.
I understand what you are saying, from here on out everybody would be called the same but I think its a huge slap in the face of gays because everyone would know why it was changed. And it would be so people could continue discriminating. No thanks.
I get the argument that you're making, I just don't buy it.
A law that treats everyone the same is by definition not discriminatory. And if it takes calling it civil unions for everyone for gays to get the same civil rights as straight people, then so be it. Because in the end, that's really the only part that I care about, is the civil rights. I couldn't care less what it's called.
I get the argument that you're making, I just don't buy it.
A law that treats everyone the same is by definition not discriminatory. And if it takes calling it civil unions for everyone for gays to get the same civil rights as straight people, then so be it. Because in the end, that's really the only part that I care about, is the civil rights. I couldn't care less what it's called.
It would be a separate but equal institution, which has been ruled unconstitutional. While I would take the compromise just to get the rights, I would be surprised if it didn't get ruled to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and go to having SSM.
Three words for you: seperate but equal. Surely you're not saying that wasn't discriminatory?
Go back and actually read what I suggested. I never said I support civil unions only for homosexuals. I support them only if it's for everyone (i.e. the law treats everyone equally). It is not a 'separate but equal' situation.
Go back and actually read what I suggested. I never said I support civil unions only for homosexuals. I support them only if it's for everyone (i.e. the law treats everyone equally). It is not a 'separate but equal' situation.
I get the argument that you're making, I just don't buy it.
A law that treats everyone the same is by definition not discriminatory. And if it takes calling it civil unions for everyone for gays to get the same civil rights as straight people, then so be it. Because in the end, that's really the only part that I care about, is the civil rights. I couldn't care less what it's called.
Well sure, they could claim that they were married, but it wouldn't mean anything legally. I'm proposing separating the legal and ceremonial parts of marriage completely. A marriage in a church would just be ceremonial (or it would be your marriage before god if you prefer the religious aspect). It would carry no legal status.
To get your legal rights (the rights that marriage currently confers) you would just go down to the courthouse and sign the paperwork and it would be official.
You don't understand, you're a centrist, you have to agree with me.uhmmmm we do because it IS their sexuality LMAO
homo and hetro describe the SEXUALITY
so if you are trying to make a parallel, in this case, it would be MARRIAGE, same sex MARRIAGE or hetero MARRIAGE or homosexual MARRIAGE or gay MARRIAGE
but still MARRIAGE
You don't understand, you're a centrist, you have to agree with me.
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?