ChasingBlueSky 0 #76 June 30, 2005 QuoteBo this is not diracted at you but everyone One little problem What would happen how would you know how is really a civil union and who is just getting a tax brake. What if me and a friend (male or female) decide hey lets pretend we have a civil union just for the tax benefits? How would you determine who is real and who is just trying to get a free ride. That really is questions and not a wise ass remark. I am for civil unions but I am against the law forcing it on a religion. Do you see anyone putting that much focus on current civil unions? (other than possible green-card marriages)_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #77 June 30, 2005 QuoteQuoteExactly what did he say? How do you know which version of the bible to believe? What about the disputed apocryphal gospels? Please like I said find me one verse where it says homosexuality is OK....Use the apocryphal gospels also. I think you missed my point. What the bible says is irrelevant. Any private organization can make up it's own rules, by-laws, etc. What is in those writings should hold no sway on our government._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #78 June 30, 2005 no i don't but it was a taught. We are allowed to still think and look towards the future in SC right? I wonder what would be the requirement to be able to have a civil union. Maybe that's one of the reasons it is not being made legal in the US.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #79 June 30, 2005 >It must suck to base your religion on something, then ignore parts of it. Which is like saying it must suck to be an american and ignore the part of the constitution where it says you have to return runaway slaves. Most people have no problem ignoring that particular part of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #80 June 30, 2005 I haven't heard ANYONE say ANYTHING about forcing churches to allow gays to marry in their churches. That's an entirely separate issue, and one I see NEVER coming into play, honestly. For example, you can only get married in a Greek Orthodox church if you're Greek Orthodox. Your entire wedding party has to be Greek Orthodox as well. I hear nothing about people wanting the government to step in to change THAT. Churches can basically write their own laws, and that's protected by the governemt as well. Another example - while no other entity can discriminate in their hirings based on religion, a Catholic Church has every right to say, "You must be Catholic to be a priest". No one's trying to take church's rights away. This is about the government recognizing a civil union, for the purpose of survivorship rights, distribution of wealth, etc. And think of the number of heteros who get married because they knocked someone up. It happens in droves. At least we know that couldn't happen with the homosexuals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #81 June 30, 2005 QuoteThat is the issue I have here. I don't care if a non-profit, private organization wants to be selective on who it allows to eat it's bread and drink it's wine. But our gov't is flat out denying civil unions - based on what reasons? From where I stand it seems to be due to their faith and what their church is telling them. That is not right. OK, but here in the States the PEOPLE have voted and not once has Homosexual unions been voted in. So while I agree with you 100% that a private organization has the right to deny (Although the Courts have disagreed) then the POPULATION has the right to decide what teh Government does...So far here in the States these homosexual unions have failed for the most part. Do you not agree that in a Democracy the people have the right to have the Government do as the people want?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #82 June 30, 2005 QuoteWho's laws? Did he tell them to you? Is their proof of this entity writing them down? If not, why argue over the validity of what's in the bible? Like I aid I don't believe in the bible...However you can' claim to be Christian and not follow the religion."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #83 June 30, 2005 Quote think you missed my point. What the bible says is irrelevant. Any private organization can make up it's own rules, by-laws, etc. What is in those writings should hold no sway on our government. No, you missed mine. Mine was you can't claim to be Christian and support gays according to the Bible. As for the Government, the People have voted and shot homosexual unions down"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #84 June 30, 2005 I have no problem with a civil union. What determines a civil union? Usually because of the culture divorce is not something someone looks forward too or something that is done with ease (please spare me the exceptions). But if civil unions become legal what’s to keep me and one of my best friends saying hey were a couple just for the tax benefits? This is not a reason to not allow people to have civil unions but something that just poped in my head about 30 min ago.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #85 June 30, 2005 QuoteWhich is like saying it must suck to be an american and ignore the part of the constitution where it says you have to return runaway slaves. Most people have no problem ignoring that particular part of it. The difference is the Constituion is a living document and it was created as such. The Bible is not and is suposed to be the Word of God. So while a majority can ammend the Constitution, the Bible requires GOD to do it. He is not answering the Phone, but it is not mans place to change it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #86 June 30, 2005 That just makes no sense to me. What's to stop you and a female friend from doing the same? How hard is it to fly to Vegas and take one hour to get hitched? Costs all of $100, too. Why would it be different than it is now, just expanded to include same sex unions? I don't see heteros doing it now, why would they start getting same-sex civil unions under false pretenses? Why aren't they getting opposite sex civil unions to "cheat the system"? Especially given some people's homophobia . . . they wouldn't even want to PRETEND to be married to a person of the same sex, much less actually do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #87 June 30, 2005 QuoteWhat's to stop you and a female friend from doing the same? How hard is it to fly to Vegas and take one hour to get hitched? Costs all of $100, too. Why would it be different than it is now, just expanded to include same sex unions? I don't see heteros doing it now, why would they start getting same-sex civil unions under false pretenses? I have seen it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #88 June 30, 2005 Quote I don't see heteros doing it now. you're in insurance aren't you? Extension of medical benefits is HUGE and costs consumers $$$$. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #89 June 30, 2005 And I've seen 15-year-olds get knocked up and get married out of convenience. It happens. I mean, if we want to eliminate marriages of convenience, then we should seriously just flatten Las Vegas. Or take marriage completely out of government, since clearly it's a religious thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #90 June 30, 2005 Yeah, see my post after yours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #91 June 30, 2005 It makes perfect since maybe not in a PC world but in the real world it makes a lot of since. Simple. Marriage is a part of the culture and a tradition. As a country or even the world (again please spare me the one example, and the minimum exception) we look down on divorce and a failure (at least most do). I have never met someone who looked at there divorce as oh well NEXT. But a civil union does not follow the same tradition of culture so it will be much easier to abuse it and not feel guilt.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #92 June 30, 2005 QuoteSo while a majority can ammend the Constitution, the Bible requires GOD to do it. He is not answering the Phone, but it is not mans place to change it. The rules of the church can be changed - it just needs a meeting like that in Nicen or Vatican II. Or better yet get the Pope to declare infalibility which is defined as the word of God being spoken thru the Pope. The Church has built in plenty of loopholes to change things as they feel fit._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #93 June 30, 2005 So what if we just call it marriage? It's not a religious marriage, but plenty of people get MARRIED in a courthouse. Why not call it what it is? Would that help? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #94 June 30, 2005 QuoteSo what if we just call it marriage? It's not a religious marriage, but plenty of people get MARRIED in a courthouse. Why not call it what it is? Would that help? Yeah, because the people and the congress and especially lawyers never ever, on purpose or not, ever get hot under the collar from semantics misunterstandings. Look how little we spend on phraseology in SC Edit: misunterstandings.... - I'm not changing it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 June 30, 2005 QuoteOK, but here in the States the PEOPLE have voted and not once has Homosexual unions been voted in. ... Do you not agree that in a Democracy the people have the right to have the Government do as the people want? No. The reason we have our individual rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights is that the masses are not supposed to decide the liberties of the few. This is not an issue that the voters should be deciding. When the SC nixed the ban on interracial marriages in the 50s, they wrote that we have the right to marry the person of our choice. No modifier like MOS was mentioned. Either gays have that right, or they don't. It's not a popularity question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #96 June 30, 2005 I know. My comment was tongue-in-cheek. If 75% of the population wasn't against gay marriage in any form, it WOULD be a catch 22 - that the only way people would accept it would be in the manner and using the semantics that would cause the most "trouble". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #97 June 30, 2005 QuoteSimple. Marriage is a part of the culture and a tradition. As a country or even the world (again please spare me the one example, and the minimum exception) we look down on divorce and a failure (at least most do). I have never met someone who looked at there divorce as oh well NEXT. But a civil union does not follow the same tradition of culture so it will be much easier to abuse it and not feel guilt. Britney Spears, J Lo, horny BYU students in Vegas who want to stay within the honor code? (The code prohibits premarital sex, so they marry, fuck all weekend, and then get it anulled) But if you (or others) is really worried that people will trash the sanctity of 'civil unions' for tax breaks, the answer is simple. Just let them marry instead. They can have the same marriage penalty, the same divorce process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #98 June 30, 2005 QuoteDo you not agree that in a Democracy the people have the right to have the Government do as the people want? Yes and no. It's majority rule with minority rights. The 'people' can and have made huge mistakes. Just because some people dont agree with gays or find their sexuality offensive does not give them the power to deny them rights which every human being should be entitled to. If we take religion out of this equation its about granting a minority group basic rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #99 June 30, 2005 Quote If we take religion out of this equation its about granting a minority group basic rights. If we leave religion in the equation it's still about basic rights. The question is whether the benefits accrued to marriage are rights or are they not rights, but just arbitrary benefits the government has put in place to encourage heterosexual unions. no one says everything is fair in the world - people don't pay the same taxes, people don't have ....... ad nauseum Again, make a giant list of the perceived "rights" from hetero-unions and go down it one at a time with a checkmark for each of those that make sense to extend to homo-unions and then define it that way. The knee jerkers will freak on this comment (and Bill will again put in the gratuitous and totally non-related black vs white analogy) with 'equal but different' boilerplate, but (example) what if a 'right' is free birth control? Does that also apply as an outrageous denial? This doesn't make sense in a broad sense, but I bet it would make sense in a line item by line item discussion. and I bet if done that way, we'd see a lot of agreement. etc etc edit: Frankly, I'd just as soon see the list go away since it's based on how married people are treated differently than singles. So it's already not a 'rights' discussion, but more of an 'affirmative action for the married' analogy ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #100 June 30, 2005 Quoteno one says everything is fair in the world - people don't pay the same taxes, people don't have ....... ad nauseum Of course things are not fair. We are not talking about taxes or pay scales. It's about the 1049 benefits marriage carrys with it. QuoteAgain, make a giant list of the perceived "rights" from hetero-unions and go down it one at a time with a checkmark for each of those that make sense to extend to homo-unions and then define it that way. There are 1049 with some states extending 350 plus more. Huge ass list. Some of the major ones though: Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Tax Breaks Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison. QuoteFrankly, I'd just as soon see the list go away since it's based on how married people are treated differently than singles That would be a pretty good debate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
