Same Sex marriage - my view point

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Here's a quick question for the "civil union" crowd. What's the appropriate substitute for the word "married" in this scenario? "I'm getting civilly unionized this weekend." How would you ask your beloved to get married? "Darling, will you enter into a civil union with me?" Please check the appropriate box on the form: Single, Entered in a Civil Union Contract With One (1) Other Individual."

I used to be in favor of government getting out of marriage completely and only granting civil unions equally to any two consenting adults that wanted them, but at a certain point you do have to acknowledge that the language of marriage is deeply ingrained in how we communicate about relationships. Civil Union just does not have the same impact. If the gays are going to be having relationships, settling down with a single partner and getting government recognition of that union with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails, and your only argument is the word they choose to describe it as, you're an idiot. There's simply no valid argument based solely around the title assigned to the act. "But marriage is a term that has historically only applied to straight people!" Tell that to the Episcopalians, Unitarians, and all the other churches that actively perform gay marriages. Tell that to the Mormons, where marriage used to be defined to include polygamy, but now it's not. Or, as others have mentioned, anti-miscegenation laws which defined marriage as being between people of the same race. We've constantly updated the definition of marriage as times change. The historical argument is complete nonsense.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

That would be meaningless. You can't legislate the contemporary use of language, and changing the name of the same actions is a meaningless jack off... or jill off in the case of lesbians.

How would it be meaningless? We aren't talking about legislating the contemporary use of the language this is about getting the government out of religion. Marriage is a religious sacrament and therefor the government has no business allowing or denying access. Both straights and gays would enter into some sort of civil union or whatever they come up with, no separate but equal anything. What you and your spouse do in church is between yall and the church.

BULLSHIT! We're talking about getting religion out of government. "Marriage" is the word embedded in CIVIL statutes from city to state to federal level. All you'd accomplish with such legislation is requiring costly, meaningless changes the shape of collections of alphabetic symbols which would probably cause nothing but confusion and interfere with the rights of others whose personal relationships have no impact on your life.

What you do in your church is between you and your church.

I am actually quite shocked about how many people here are dead set on using the word marriage instead of another term being applied across the board.

So your personal religious beliefs are a reason to demand that other people not use a particular word they've been using for centuries to refer to the same meaning? Good luck with that! :roll:

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

That would be meaningless. You can't legislate the contemporary use of language, and changing the name of the same actions is a meaningless jack off... or jill off in the case of lesbians.

How would it be meaningless? We aren't talking about legislating the contemporary use of the language this is about getting the government out of religion. Marriage is a religious sacrament and therefor the government has no business allowing or denying access. Both straights and gays would enter into some sort of civil union or whatever they come up with, no separate but equal anything. What you and your spouse do in church is between yall and the church.

I am actually quite shocked about how many people here are dead set on using the word marriage instead of another term being applied across the board. I know a ton of gay folk and none of them give half a shit about the word marriage. They just want to be treated equally and most realize that it will be a LOOONG time before the federal government legislates that gays be allowed to get "married". There are simply to many religious districts that will vote out any rep who voted for it and reps care far more about their jobs than any of us. On the other hand, leaving marriage up to the churches and the government using civil unions for everyone is actually becoming more politically feasible everyday. Hell, once the economy settles down a bit, with the right leadership I think its quite possible to get it passed today (well, maybe after the 2010 elections, doubt Obama would touch it till his 2nd term though).

Are there actually any gay folk here that disagree with removing marriage from the government and everyone being treated equally with civil unions?

Marriage is not just a religious sacrament, get that through your thick skull! You knuckleheads didn't have a problem with it being a civil ceremony when straight couple were getting married outside the god damn church.

Sigh, I do understand it but half the country does not and will not accept it. Either you want equality or you want to spend a few extra decades fighting over a dumb fucking word. Get that through your thick skull.

And by the way, I actually do care about the issue. I have friends that are flat out discriminated against and its socially and politically acceptable. Dumbasses hung up on a fucking word are going to cost them another decade of discrimination because of what? I truly think that somewhere deep down the people hung up on the word just want to stick it to the religious assholes that have screwed them over for so long. Can't say that I blame em but I damn sure wouldn't endure another day of discrimination over it.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey


So your personal religious beliefs are a reason to demand that other people not use a particular word they've been using for centuries to refer to the same meaning? Good luck with that! :roll:

Swing and a miss...

I have no personal religious beliefs so try again.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

I don't get involved in the partisan circle jerks around here so you might want to direct that at someone else to get the reaction you are looking for. Thanks.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

I don't get involved in the partisan circle jerks around here so you might want to direct that at someone else to get the reaction you are looking for. Thanks.

Not looking for a reaction just stating the truth..

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Sigh, I do understand it but half the country does not and will not accept it. Either you want equality or you want to spend a few extra decades fighting over a dumb fucking word. Get that through your thick skull.

And by the way, I actually do care about the issue. I have friends that are flat out discriminated against and its socially and politically acceptable. Dumbasses hung up on a fucking word are going to cost them another decade of discrimination because of what? I truly think that somewhere deep down the people hung up on the word just want to stick it to the religious assholes that have screwed them over for so long. Can't say that I blame em but I damn sure wouldn't endure another day of discrimination over it.

Part of the problem of this line of thinking is that the word is important. If gays can have access to all the same privileges as married straight people, but can't use the word, then their relationship is still defined by a different term, and that makes it inherently unequal. If gay people settle for equal rights now with civil unions, then push for the word marriage, people can say "why do you care, you've already got the same rights, get over it," and thus push back any hope of gay people getting access to marriage (for at least a few decades at any rate). The endgoal is the same regardless of scenario; the people pushing for the word marriage just aren't satisfied with taking "baby steps" towards that goal because they feel that risks pushing the endgoal farther out timewise. It's simply an argument of strategy.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Why shouldn't they get to decide what they internally call something? Externally, it's a civil union. In that religious sect/group/family/etc, it can be called whatever floats their boat. I don't care what they internally call it, because it's that religious groups choice. People have a choice to be a part of that group or not, based on their own views. So, if they want two people "joining to become one unit" to be called marriage instead of civil union then so be it. From a legal, political, and governmental aspect though it should be called a "civil union" (or something along that line).

Why, so the Religious assholes don't get upset?

No, so that everybody is on the same level. Gay, straight, bi, whatever doesn't matter, as far as the government is concerned they are the same. Religious people can be upset about it not being called marriage, I have no problems with that. I'm just saying the easiest and best option is simply remove the religiously based word of "marriage", and replace it with "civil union" that bears no religious ties. Internally religions can do whatever they do, because that is their right.

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
As for the whole "get government out of marriage and give everyone civil unions" business, as long as government is in the marriage business (because it is essentially a contract that government is overseeing and granting certain benefits with), any 2 consenting adults should be allowed to get married. If we change the laws so that it isn't called marriage anymore, but 'civil unions', fine, but until that happens, marriage should be open to all and not restricted based on sexual identity.

I agree with this completely.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
From a legal, political, and governmental aspect though it should be called a "civil union" (or something along that line).

Separate but equal isn't legal.

So, how come the GLBT community cannot get married?

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion.

Why are you so hung up on a word? It's just a collection of letters representing a vocal speach pattern that represents a complex CIVIL legal status and associated rights, duties and privileges. You can call it "Fred" for all I care, but very few others will know what you mean, and they'll still be just as wrong as you are.

Which is why we should abolish the term "marriage" from the governmental contract that is made, and instead replace it with "civil union".

Religious people cannot get upset because their religion defines it as only between a man and woman.

Conservatives cannot get upset because it somehow breaks the "sanctity of marriage" or some other bullshit like that (meanwhile these same politicians who say that stuff are involved in cheating on their wife, or even better having gay sex).

GLBT people cannot get upset because they have the exact same thing that straight couples have, and there is not even a different term for it.

Now, I'm sure that all of these goups still will bitch but they really don't have any footing to stand on if it's called a "civil union" instead of "marriage".

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Here's a quick question for the "civil union" crowd. What's the appropriate substitute for the word "married" in this scenario? "I'm getting civilly unionized this weekend." How would you ask your beloved to get married? "Darling, will you enter into a civil union with me?" Please check the appropriate box on the form: Single, Entered in a Civil Union Contract With One (1) Other Individual."

I used to be in favor of government getting out of marriage completely and only granting civil unions equally to any two consenting adults that wanted them, but at a certain point you do have to acknowledge that the language of marriage is deeply ingrained in how we communicate about relationships. Civil Union just does not have the same impact. If the gays are going to be having relationships, settling down with a single partner and getting government recognition of that union with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails, and your only argument is the word they choose to describe it as, you're an idiot. There's simply no valid argument based solely around the title assigned to the act. "But marriage is a term that has historically only applied to straight people!" Tell that to the Episcopalians, Unitarians, and all the other churches that actively perform gay marriages. Tell that to the Mormons, where marriage used to be defined to include polygamy, but now it's not. Or, as others have mentioned, anti-miscegenation laws which defined marriage as being between people of the same race. We've constantly updated the definition of marriage as times change. The historical argument is complete nonsense.

Oh please, that's a bullshit arguement and you know it. People will still call it marriage, regardless of if the government calls it a civil union or marriage.

Nobody is saying that if the government calls it a "civil union" that you can no longer "propose marriage" to your SO. There is nothing that would say you could not get down on one knee and say to your SO, "Will you marry me?" If you get rid of marriage on the governments side, people are still able to say whatever they choose and they will. People will still say they love one another. People will still say they want to/are/planning to get/etc "married", for the simple fact that everybody knows what idea they are conveying to the other person(s) they are talking to.

You act like a change in the legal/governmental word choice would mandate people to no longer use a different word. Get a grip.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Sigh, I do understand it but half the country does not and will not accept it. Either you want equality or you want to spend a few extra decades fighting over a dumb fucking word. Get that through your thick skull.

And by the way, I actually do care about the issue. I have friends that are flat out discriminated against and its socially and politically acceptable. Dumbasses hung up on a fucking word are going to cost them another decade of discrimination because of what? I truly think that somewhere deep down the people hung up on the word just want to stick it to the religious assholes that have screwed them over for so long. Can't say that I blame em but I damn sure wouldn't endure another day of discrimination over it.

Part of the problem of this line of thinking is that the word is important. If gays can have access to all the same privileges as married straight people, but can't use the word, then their relationship is still defined by a different term, and that makes it inherently unequal. If gay people settle for equal rights now with civil unions, then push for the word marriage, people can say "why do you care, you've already got the same rights, get over it," and thus push back any hope of gay people getting access to marriage (for at least a few decades at any rate). The endgoal is the same regardless of scenario; the people pushing for the word marriage just aren't satisfied with taking "baby steps" towards that goal because they feel that risks pushing the endgoal farther out timewise. It's simply an argument of strategy.

The endgoal is to have GLBT people able to enter into the same legal contract as straight people, using the same word.

I personally think that getting rid of the word "marriage" and using "civil union" is the better option, but I am completely fine with GLBT couples having the right to get "married". Take your pick, civil union or marriage. I don't give a fuck, it's just a word. I want both groups to be able to have whatever word is used, and it mean the exact same thing with the exact same benefits.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Which is why we should abolish the term "marriage" from the governmental contract that is made, and instead replace it with "civil union".

Religious people cannot get upset because their religion defines it as only between a man and woman.

Conservatives cannot get upset because it somehow breaks the "sanctity of marriage" or some other bullshit like that (meanwhile these same politicians who say that stuff are involved in cheating on their wife, or even better having gay sex).

GLBT people cannot get upset because they have the exact same thing that straight couples have, and there is not even a different term for it.

Now, I'm sure that all of these goups still will bitch but they really don't have any footing to stand on if it's called a "civil union" instead of "marriage".

Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Which is why we should abolish the term "marriage" from the governmental contract that is made, and instead replace it with "civil union".

Religious people cannot get upset because their religion defines it as only between a man and woman.

Conservatives cannot get upset because it somehow breaks the "sanctity of marriage" or some other bullshit like that (meanwhile these same politicians who say that stuff are involved in cheating on their wife, or even better having gay sex).

GLBT people cannot get upset because they have the exact same thing that straight couples have, and there is not even a different term for it.

Now, I'm sure that all of these goups still will bitch but they really don't have any footing to stand on if it's called a "civil union" instead of "marriage".

Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

If it makes conservatives/religious people more agreeable because it doesn't use a word that's got a lot of religious ties to it, then why not?

You're right it would be what society currently calls "marriage", but what does it matter? If a simple name change makes people more accepting of it, I fail to see any negative (outside of the massive amount of overhauling to change the name of it) to doing it.

Change the name, or keep it. I don't give a shit, because I want both groups to have the same word used for the same legal benefits.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

No it's about the attempted tyranny of the Religious Bigots over those who do not adhere to those Bigots beliefs.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

You've still completely ignored the points raised that concern churches that perform gay marriages. Why is the "sanctity of marriage" of a religion that doesn't support gay marriage more important than the "sanctity of marriage" of a religion that does?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ausm

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

Or we could do the intelligent thing and get rid of religion... except that doing so would trample the rights of those who choose to believe their dogma... which is the same thing the wingnuts do to justify the claimed superiority of thier beliefs and choices over anyone else's. :roll:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

No, it's about extending the same protections afforded under the law to everyone.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

No, it's about extending the same protections afforded under the law to everyone.

How is calling it a marriage "extending the same protections afforded under the law", and calling it a civil union with all the same rights...not?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Which is why we should abolish the term "marriage" from the governmental contract that is made, and instead replace it with "civil union".

Religious people cannot get upset because their religion defines it as only between a man and woman.

Conservatives cannot get upset because it somehow breaks the "sanctity of marriage" or some other bullshit like that (meanwhile these same politicians who say that stuff are involved in cheating on their wife, or even better having gay sex).

GLBT people cannot get upset because they have the exact same thing that straight couples have, and there is not even a different term for it.

Now, I'm sure that all of these goups still will bitch but they really don't have any footing to stand on if it's called a "civil union" instead of "marriage".

Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

You bigotry towards conservative and religious "assholes" is noted. How's it feel being exactly what you claim to hate?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

You bigotry towards conservative and religious "assholes" is noted. How's it feel being exactly what you claim to hate?

I'm not, I'm not trying to deny them any rights they should have as American Citizens.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

No, it's about extending the same protections afforded under the law to everyone.

How is calling it a marriage "extending the same protections afforded under the law", and calling it a civil union with all the same rights...not?

"Separate but equal is inherently unequal." Or so says the highest court in this land.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

What happens when you are both religious and gay? :Q

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

What happens when you are both religious and gay? :Q

You become a Catholic priest?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

Yes you are a moron, what's wrong with a civil union? Religous people can have their "sanctity" of marriage, and gay couples can get the benefits this is supposed to be about, or is it really about sticking it to those religous people?

What happens when you are both religious and gay? :Q

You become a Catholic priest?

<--literally lol'ed, thanks