If gays get equal rights tomorrow what rights and freedoms do you lose?

[AGENT J]

I can't take you seriously.

Not surprised because taking facts seriously would crumble your whole world of fallacies . . . . . . Reality makes some views and opinions very hard, so its a good move on your part to simply ignore it and keep deflecting. I accept your concession, let us know when you are ready to stop dodging and can answer the OP. hanks

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, that's what is likely to happen. Will people get on with their lives? Well, eventually. Some will never get over it, though.

So what? There are people who haven't gotten over the South losing the Civil War. There are people who feel an injustice against them happened and they hold that feeling til they die. Anyone who does so for something like this, over the use of a word or the legal meaning of a word being something they don't agree with is showing their issues.

 

[AGENT J]

Yes, that's what is likely to happen. Will people get on with their lives? Well, eventually. Some will never get over it, though.

SOME people still arent over blacks/race minorities having equal rights
SOME people still arent over women having equal rights
etc. etc. etc.

none those peoples FEELINGS matter the law, rights and or constitution. They are simply SOL.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So what? There are people who haven't gotten over the South losing the Civil War. There are people who feel an injustice against them happened and they hold that feeling til they die. Anyone who does so for something like this, over the use of a word or the legal meaning of a word being something they don't agree with is showing their issues.

Some people believe that the word itself is sacred. Shouldn't we respect religious views, particularly when they could be respected so simply and without depriving anyone else of their rights?

 

[AGENT J]

Some people believe that the word itself is sacred. 1.)Shouldn't we respect religious views, particularly when they could be respected 2.) so simply and without depriving anyone else of their rights?

1.) they already are respected
2.) that's not the case here
LEGAL marriage already has nothing to do with RELIGIOUS marriage, giving religion the power over OTHER's legal matters would be the disrespect and infringement of rights

what you are asking for is exactly how it is now, if you disagree prove otherwise.

How is a legal contract void of religion and having nothing to do with religion disrespectful to religious views?

 

[Dittohead not!]

1.) they already are respected
2.) that's not the case here
LEGAL marriage already has nothing to do with RELIGIOUS marriage, giving religion the power over OTHER's legal matters would be the disrespect and infringement of rights

what you are asking for is exactly how it is now, if you disagree prove otherwise.

How is a legal contract void of religion and having nothing to do with religion disrespectful to religious views?

The legal contract is a civil union. Just call it that. Let the people entering into the union call it what they will. Let the churches call it a marriage or not call it a marriage. That way, everyone is happy, just because of changing one word. How easy would that be?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)The legal contract is a civil union. Just call it that.
2.) Let the people entering into the union call it what they will.
3.) Let the churches call it a marriage or not call it a marriage.
4.) That way, everyone is happy, just because of changing one word.
5.) How easy would that be?

1.) Theres no need to change its name, ZERO. Also that is the type of contract it is but the MARRIAGE contract is very specific in what it involves. It alone comes with about 1200 rights, protections and privileges. And its the one that is recognized by the fed and every state. Civil unions ARE NOT. Marriage contract =/= civil union. Its like saying a tank is just a vehicle and so is a fisher price wagon so lets call them the same thing. Its dishonest and a sham.
2.) they already can
3.) they already can
4.) no everyone would not be happy because you would take away the rights of people based on the hurt feelings of some where they have ZERO power and no logical right to be upset
5.) it would not be easy, thats the plan hard facts of it. The legality and precedence of it would factually not be easy. Secondly honest people would always see the fact it was changed based off of asinine reasons of hurt feelings of SOME religious people sticking thier nose where it doesnt belong and they have no right or power too.

You know what is REALLY easy, leave it just like it is and allow equal rights :shrug:
that is the EASIEST, most just, most right and logical solution. I challenge anybody to come up with a better one based on laws, rights ,logic and facts . . .ANYBODY lol

I also noticed you didn't answer my question, ill ask it again, How is a legal contract void of religion and having nothing to do with religion disrespectful to religious views?

 

[Dittohead not!]

1.) Theres no need to change its name, ZERO. Also that is the type of contract it is but the MARRIAGE contract is very specific in what it involves. It alone comes with about 1200 rights, protections and privileges. And its the one that is recognized by the fed and every state. Civil unions ARE NOT. Marriage contract =/= civil union. Its like saying a tank is just a vehicle and so is a fisher price wagon so lets call them the same thing. Its dishonest and a sham.
2.) they already can
3.) they already can
4.) no everyone would not be happy because you would take away the rights of people based on the hurt feelings of some where they have ZERO power and no logical right to be upset
5.) it would not be easy, thats the plan hard facts of it. The legality and precedence of it would factually not be easy. Secondly honest people would always see the fact it was changed based off of asinine reasons of hurt feelings of SOME religious people sticking thier nose where it doesnt belong and they have no right or power too.

You know what is REALLY easy, leave it just like it is and allow equal rights :shrug:
that is the EASIEST, most just, most right and logical solution. I challenge anybody to come up with a better one based on laws, rights ,logic and facts . . .ANYBODY lol

I also noticed you didn't answer my question, ill ask it again, How is a legal contract void of religion and having nothing to do with religion disrespectful to religious views?

It is disrespectful to religious views because it is known by a name that is considered sacred by some people.

A legal contract devoid of all religion can be called a civil union. It could be called a contract, an agreement, an understanding, anything. Call it a wedding if you want. Just reserve the word "marriage" for the non legal part of marriage. Let the religious have their word, as that's all they really want.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)It is disrespectful to religious views because it is known by a name that is considered sacred by some people.
2.)A legal contract devoid of all religion can be called a civil union. It could be called a contract, an agreement, an understanding, anything.
3.) Call it a wedding if you want.
4.) Just reserve the word "marriage" for the non legal part of marriage.
5.) Let the religious have their word, as that's all they really want.

1.) sorry that completely fails, LEGAL marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage and the word marriage has been around forever and its origin has nothing to do with religion. SO to logical and honest people there is ZERO disrespect. Claiming otherwise is laughable and void of all logic. That failed argument can't even be supported.

2.) that is ALREADY the case, what you are describing already exist now, its a marriage contract.
3.) a "wedding ceremony" has nothing to do with legal marriage
4.) why? for what reason? give me one good, valid and logical reason based on RIGHTS to do all that work and make the legal contract something LESSER than it is now?
5.) they already have it, religious marriage :shrug: they dont own the word marriage, never have never will and its origin did not come from religion.

There is ZERO disrespect to religion and I say that as a christian but it would be disrespectful to others.

 

[Ikari]

If tomorrow gays got equal rights and sexual orientation was added to all anti-discrimination laws and civil rights etc tell me what rights and freedoms and liberties you lose? I keep hearing these crap claims that Christianity is under attack and our freedoms are under attack but because of gay rights but where?

I want to know why if I was illegal discriminated against as a Christian woman and I fought against that crime and rights infringement, that most people would say "I was fighting for my rights", "I was fighting for my freedoms and liberties", that "I was a strong woman", that "I was doing what was right".


But now SOME of those same people when gays do it claim it's them fighting against freedom and liberties and rights of mine? Which ones?

Why are gays somehow different and not worthy of the same rights and protections I have, WE ALL have? Why

So please tell me what you and I will lose tomorrow if this happened?

Everyone has the same rights, the same exact set of rights. No more, no less.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1.) sorry that completely fails, LEGAL marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage and the word marriage has been around forever and its origin has nothing to do with religion. SO to logical and honest people there is ZERO disrespect. Claiming otherwise is laughable and void of all logic. That failed argument can't even be supported.

2.) that is ALREADY the case, what you are describing already exist now, its a marriage contract.
3.) a "wedding ceremony" has nothing to do with legal marriage
4.) why? for what reason? give me one good, valid and logical reason based on RIGHTS to do all that work and make the legal contract something LESSER than it is now?
5.) they already have it, religious marriage :shrug: they dont own the word marriage, never have never will and its origin did not come from religion.

There is ZERO disrespect to religion and I say that as a christian but it would be disrespectful to others.

You talk as if changing one word is a big deal. I don't see it as a big deal at all. It's just one word, after all.

and, this is the etymology of the word "marriage". As you can see, it means the union of one man and one woman for life. You're the one arguing to change the meaning of the word.

c. 1300, "action of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje.

Meaning "a union of a man and woman for life by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c. Meanings "the marriage vow, formal declaration or contract by which two join in wedlock;" also "a wedding, celebration of a marriage; the marriage ceremony" are from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) "intimate union, a joining as if by marriage" is from early 15c.

Why not let the religious keep the meaning of a word they consider sacred intact and call the contract between two people by another name? It would be so simple!

 

[AGENT J]

1.)You talk as if changing one word is a big deal. I don't see it as a big deal at all. It's just one word, after all.
2.)and, this is the etymology of the word "marriage". As you can see, it means the union of one man and one woman for life. You're the one arguing to change the meaning of the word.
3.)Why not let the religious keep the meaning of a word they consider sacred intact
4.) and call the contract between two people by another name?
5.) It would be so simple!

1.) facts, laws and rights disagree with you
theres no reason to change it and changing it would be a big deal because it would be changing the rights of others and making something lesser over thier meaningless feelings lol
2.) wrong again because it ORIGIN had nothing to do with religion and was a UNION lol many sights back that up.
sorry that type of dishonesty just doesnt fly, facts, rights and law trump it

should we change jewish, muslim marriage too? I mean according to my religion Christian theres only marriage based on my religion . . . let me guess, that is magically OK LMAO

3.) because they dont own it and they are already keeping it, they dont have to change a thing about thier religion lol. You gonna need a better argument because all your points are failing and being majorly destroyed.

4.) because theres no need and that is the harder, unfair, unjust, a violation of rights and disrespectful solution.
5.) no it would not be simple as already proven lol

the simply solution is whats happening right now.

Religion plays ZERO role in the discussion and is meaningless to the topic.

You have yet to provide ONE valid and logical reason based on rights and laws. Please do so in your next post.
Tell us why your solution is the easier one or even needed?

also dont forget my question, should we make all other religions but mine (Christianity) also use a different word?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You talk as if changing one word is a big deal. I don't see it as a big deal at all. It's just one word, after all.

and, this is the etymology of the word "marriage". As you can see, it means the union of one man and one woman for life. You're the one arguing to change the meaning of the word.

Why not let the religious keep the meaning of a word they consider sacred intact and call the contract between two people by another name? It would be so simple!

The religious did not invent marriage and they do not hold a patent on it. I frankly do not understand your position at all. How can they own a word? For a long time interracial marriage wasn't considered a real marriage and was even illegal. This is no different.

I don't think giving in to the religious' hissy fits is really the way equality works. This doesn't change their church, their religion, or their marriages in any way, shape or form. They oppose it to be spiteful and nothing else.

 

[AGENT J]

The religious did not invent marriage and they do not hold a patent on it. I frankly do not understand your position at all. How can they own a word? For a long time interracial marriage wasn't considered a real marriage and was even illegal. This is no different.

I don't think giving in to the religious' hissy fits is really the way equality works. This doesn't change their church, their religion, or their marriages in any way, shape or form. They oppose it to be spiteful and nothing else.

Because if one stays on topic of legality and rights, there's no rational to support said position. That's why you, like most do not understand it. It's irrational, illogical, unsupportable and down right silly.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The religious did not invent marriage and they do not hold a patent on it. I frankly do not understand your position at all. How can they own a word? For a long time interracial marriage wasn't considered a real marriage and was even illegal. This is no different.

I don't think giving in to the religious' hissy fits is really the way equality works. This doesn't change their church, their religion, or their marriages in any way, shape or form. They oppose it to be spiteful and nothing else.

But an interracial marriage was still a union between one man and one woman for life, which fits the definition of the word. Why do we need to redefine the word? Just use a different word, and let the religious have the word marriage. So much ado over really, nothing. It's a word. It's not a right, it's simply a word. We can give gays the same rights as everyone else, and make gay marriage less of a contentious issue, simply by changing one word.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because if one stays on topic of legality and rights, there's no rational to support said position. That's why you, like most do not understand it. It's irrational, illogical, unsupportable and down right silly.

If we stay on the topic of legality and rights, there is no problem simply using the original definition of the word and using a different word to define a new sort of contract.

Words actually do have meanings. Why redefine this one?

 

[roguenuke]

If we stay on the topic of legality and rights, there is no problem simply using the original definition of the word and using a different word to define a new sort of contract.

Words actually do have meanings. Why redefine this one?

Because legally it is only defined by how the laws of marriage function. It has nothing to do with who can or can't enter into a marriage.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

But an interracial marriage was still a union between one man and one woman for life, which fits the definition of the word. Why do we need to redefine the word? Just use a different word, and let the religious have the word marriage. So much ado over really, nothing. It's a word. It's not a right, it's simply a word. We can give gays the same rights as everyone else, and make gay marriage less of a contentious issue, simply by changing one word.

Things change and societies evolve. The word marriage does not intrinsically have to mean between a man and woman. It can just as easily mean a union between two men or two women. We shouldn't be giving into their childish demands. SSM doesn't effect christians' lives in any way; they're trying to step into other people's lives and refuse them something they enjoy themselves.

What skin do they have in the game? Can you quantify the damage done to the religious by letting homosexuals marry? There is absolutely zero damage, so this issue has nothing to do with them and their opinion doesn't matter. There has been absolutely zero effect on my marriage by SSM, and anyone who says their marriage has been changed because of it might be a closet homosexual themselves. I know that you're already aware of this, but religion is not in charge of our government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?s=t Societies throughout history have had MANY definitions of marriage. You don't get to pick your ONE definition of marriage and try to force it on everyone else.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Things change and societies evolve. The word marriage does not intrinsically have to mean between a man and woman. It can just as easily mean a union between two men or two women. We shouldn't be giving into their childish demands. SSM doesn't effect christians' lives in any way; they're trying to step into other people's lives and refuse them something they enjoy themselves.

What skin do they have in the game? Can you quantify the damage done to the religious by letting homosexuals marry? There is absolutely zero damage, so this issue has nothing to do with them and their opinion doesn't matter. There has been absolutely zero effect on my marriage by SSM, and anyone who says their marriage has been changed because of it might be a closet homosexual themselves. I know that you're already aware of this, but religion is not in charge of our government.

Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com Societies throughout history have had MANY definitions of marriage. You don't get to pick your ONE definition of marriage and try to force it on everyone else.

There is no damage done by allowing homosexuals to marry, but the use of the word marriage is taking a term that is considered sacred and changing its meaning.

All we need to do is start calling all "marriages" by another name, say for example, civil unions. The legal term for any marriage, then is "civil union." The partners can privately call their union whatever they like. They can go to a church that will perform a "marriage" ceremony if they choose. Everyone would have the same rights, the same everything, but the word marriage wouldn't appear in the formal documents. Gays have equal rights, religions are accorded their sacred institution, and everyone is semi happy.

 

[jaeger19]

What makes you think they don't? In most states they can marry, and in the rest they can have civil unions that are tantamount to marriage. What rights do you think they lack now?

In 13 states gay marriage is banned..

And civil unions are not tantamount to marriage. Not even close. Marriage is well established in case law, marriage trumps all.

 

[jaeger19]

There is no damage done by allowing homosexuals to marry, but the use of the word marriage is taking a term that is considered sacred and changing its meaning.

All we need to do is start calling all "marriages" by another name, say for example, civil unions. The legal term for any marriage, then is "civil union." The partners can privately call their union whatever they like. They can go to a church that will perform a "marriage" ceremony if they choose. Everyone would have the same rights, the same everything, but the word marriage wouldn't appear in the formal documents. Gays have equal rights, religions are accorded their sacred institution, and everyone is semi happy.

Won't work. The legal case law is established on marriage. All the regulations, laws, from tax code, to property rights, to whether a spouse can be forced to testify, are based on the world marriage.

 

[roguenuke]

There is no damage done by allowing homosexuals to marry, but the use of the word marriage is taking a term that is considered sacred and changing its meaning.

All we need to do is start calling all "marriages" by another name, say for example, civil unions. The legal term for any marriage, then is "civil union." The partners can privately call their union whatever they like. They can go to a church that will perform a "marriage" ceremony if they choose. Everyone would have the same rights, the same everything, but the word marriage wouldn't appear in the formal documents. Gays have equal rights, religions are accorded their sacred institution, and everyone is semi happy.

No it isn't. They don't own that term. And they are still free to personally use it however they wish.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There is no damage done by allowing homosexuals to marry, but the use of the word marriage is taking a term that is considered sacred and changing its meaning.

All we need to do is start calling all "marriages" by another name, say for example, civil unions. The legal term for any marriage, then is "civil union." The partners can privately call their union whatever they like. They can go to a church that will perform a "marriage" ceremony if they choose. Everyone would have the same rights, the same everything, but the word marriage wouldn't appear in the formal documents. Gays have equal rights, religions are accorded their sacred institution, and everyone is semi happy.

So it's exactly as I said. There is absolutely zero damage of any kind being done to the religious, but they're throwing a hissy fit because they want to monopolize the word marriage. That's not a good reason for the government to block something. You're on the wrong side of this. SSM is going to happen, so you can be pissed about it all you want, but at the end of the day it has no effect on your life whatsoever. Deal with it.

Why are "christians" being such spiteful and vindictive people over this?

 

[AGENT J]

1)If we stay on the topic of legality and rights, there is no problem simply using the original definition of the word and using a different word to define a new sort of contract.
2.)Words actually do have meanings.
3.) Why redefine this one?

1.) wrong again the many original marriage contracts didn't even specify husband and wife, nor make reference to any definition you are trying to invent and failing, they only said "party"
2.) correct, thats why your argument is failing and as been destroyed from naming angles.
3.) nobody is LOL it will still be a marriage contract. WHo is deny participation in said contract is being correct based on equal rights. NOTHING is being redefined thanks for playing

SO now Ill ask you AGAIN since you keep dodging (Which is VERY telling) to answer these questions and do the following:

You have yet to provide ONE valid and logical reason based on rights and laws. Please do so in your next post.
Tell us why your solution is the easier one or even needed?

also dont forget my question, should we make all other religions but mine (Christianity) also use a different word?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)But an interracial marriage was still a union between one man and one woman for life
2.) which fits the definition of the word.
3.) Why do we need to redefine the word?
4.) Just use a different word
5.) and let the religious have the word marriage.
6.) So much ado over really, nothing. It's a word. It's not a right, it's simply a word.
7.) We can give gays the same rights as everyone else
8.) and make gay marriage less of a contentious issue, simply by changing one word.

1.) ahhh look at the hypocrisy showing through . . . but MANY were "offended" and felt that was wrong and that thier religion was disrespected by interracial marriage? So that made up and meaningless disrespect was ok then but now this made up and meanignless disrespect matters???? lol gotcha
2.) who defintion? what definition, gay marriage fits it too :shrug" seems you are picking and choosing based on meanignless feelings
3.) we are not, the contract is being fixed
4.) no need
5.) they already control religious marriage, legal marriage has nothing to do with them
6.) also false, it is a right. You dont know much about this actual topic do you?
7.) yes we can and we are already, gays will have equal rights this summer more than likely
8.) in reality it isnt an issue to anybody that supports equal rights.

why would we give in to anti-rights people? did we give in to them over womans rights? minority rights? interracial marriage? etc etc? nope because theres no logical and sound reasons to do so based on laws and rights.

equal rights > than subjective silly feelings