Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Desperate....
Aye, I think I called your situation correctly.
That's fine. but I did want to ask one thing about your post with all the countries. Do all the countries give the title "rights" for same sex marriage? Or do some of them simply recognize same sex marriage, or some of them don't regulate marriage at all, or some of them have different versions of marriage (like we have civil unions and domestic partnerships for non-traditional situations).
Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?
thegreekdog wrote:Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?
Correct.
Any thoughts?
AndyDufresne wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?
Correct.
Any thoughts?
TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.
--Andy
Phatscotty wrote:it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.
I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.
If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.
thegreekdog wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?
Correct.
Any thoughts?
TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.
--Andy
My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.
thegreekdog wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?
Correct.
Any thoughts?
TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.
--Andy
My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.
Phatscotty wrote:So because a handful of countries interpret rights extremely Liberally over the last 10 years.....that means it's a right all around the world and for everyone in the world?
Phatscotty wrote:Also, since 2000 is the first time anyone did this, is it fair to say gay marriage was "invented/created" 12 years ago?
Phatscotty wrote:it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.
Phatscotty wrote:I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.
Phatscotty wrote:If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.
crispybits wrote:I'm starting to think I may have been a little unfair and PS was actually trying to argue his position, it's just the few sentences and logical fallcies and irrelevant tangents he keeps going back to ARE the extent of his argument. He just doesn't seem to have anything else to back it up with, so it's less a case of unwillingness to provide rational explanations and logical defences, and more a case of inability to do so.
crispybits wrote:If the defence for the historic view of marriage is purely religious (and I think some would disagree with you), then the fact that there are recognised religions that are happy to conduct gay marriage ceremonies would mean that in the USA at least, the government should be powerless to prevent that. Separation of church and state and all that.
thegreekdog wrote:If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).
Bones2484 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).
I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?
I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.
edit: Looks like I was fastposted by Crispy as I was writing my response.
Phatscotty wrote:Time will tell.....
My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted. You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.
thegreekdog wrote:crispybits wrote:If the defence for the historic view of marriage is purely religious (and I think some would disagree with you), then the fact that there are recognised religions that are happy to conduct gay marriage ceremonies would mean that in the USA at least, the government should be powerless to prevent that. Separation of church and state and all that.
I don't disagree with that and it's an interesting take.
If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).
Bones2484 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).
I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?
Bones2484 wrote:I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.
Phatscotty wrote:My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.
Phatscotty wrote:You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS