State Laws/ Propositions

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by JCC

Being infected with a chemical? Am I misinterpreting you, or is that just a strange analysis of the cause of homosexuality?

On a cellular level genes interact with chemicals all of the time. Let me use the example of an experiment done with a Himalayan rabbit. Its genes determine its coloration but it is an enzyme that stimulates the production of melanin which produces the actual color. The enzyme is heat-sensitive and as a result the cooler parts of the rabbit are dark but the warmer parts are light but if the warmer parts are shaved and cooled (in this experiment a cooling pack was used) then the fur grows back dark. Is that making any sense? If not I'll crack open my bio book and see if I can come up with something that does (look what you are doing to me, I may actually have to learn something)

Originally Posted by JCC

I'm sure I read in one of the links in this thread that there was a difference in hormones between hetero and homosexual men, but my question applies to all areas of neurology really.

hm...I don't recall reading that and I'm not sure how the cause of the hormone levels was found and environmental stimuli sounds just as plausible as a genetic cause, unless the hormone levels were found to be similar in genetically similar people raised apart and not in genetically different people raised together. I would have to look at the like to give you a better answer than that.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

Thank you homophobic religious freaks. Thank you SO much for ruining someone else's happiness and domestic stability because you can't justify to yourself a union that doesn't follow your poorly interpreted antiquated moral code.

Thank you for saying that.

I was too busy yesterday to be able to follow any of the debates on this board. Apparently I missed quite a bit.

[x-deviant-x]

I got this in my e-mail yesterday from the president of HRC. I thought others here, who actually DO support equality, would appreciate it:

*****

On Tuesday night, our community felt the emotions of electing a pro-equality President and expanding our numbers in Congress and state houses across the country, but the next morning our hearts were broken as the dust settled and it was clear we lost the marriage ballot measures in California, Florida and Arizona. I will certainly provide you with further insight in the coming days to how we effectively organized and motivated LGBT voters in elections throughout the country, but today, as we find ourselves in this agonizing intersection of victory and defeat, I felt it was important to try and give some perspective about our losses.

I've drafted the following op-ed that I wanted to share with you. I know that mere words aren't enough to provide the salve for our wounds that we desperately need but perhaps they will begin to shape a path for how we move forward. And for those of you who gave your time and resources, your sacrifices were not in vain. You've helped lay the foundation for the victory that will one day be ours. And I thank you.

You can't take this away from me: Proposition 8 broke our hearts, but it did not end our fight.

Like many in our movement, I found myself in Southern California last weekend. There, I had the opportunity to speak with a man who said that Proposition 8 completely changed the way he saw his own neighborhood. Every "Yes on 8" sign was a slap. For this man, for me, for the 18,000 couples who married in California, to LGBT people and the people who love us, its passage was worse than a slap in the face. It was nothing short of heartbreaking.

But it is not the end. Fifty-two percent of the voters of California voted to deny us our equality on Tuesday, but they did not vote our families or the power of our love out of existence; they did not vote us away.

As free and equal human beings, we were born with the right to equal families. The courts did not give us this right—they simply recognized it. And although California has ceased to grant us marriage licenses, our rights are not subject to anyone's approval. We will keep fighting for them. They are as real and as enduring as the love that moves us to form families in the first place. There are many roads to marriage equality, and no single roadblock will prevent us from ultimately getting there.

And yet there is no denying, as we pick ourselves up after losing this most recent, hard-fought battle, that we've been injured, many of us by neighbors who claim to respect us.

By the same token, we know that we are moving in the right direction. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 by a margin of 61.4% to 38.6%. On Tuesday, fully 48% of Californians rejected Proposition 8. It wasn't enough, but it was a massive shift. Nationally, although two other anti-marriage ballot measures won, Connecticut defeated an effort to hold a constitutional convention ending marriage, New York's state legislature gained the seats necessary to consider a marriage law, and FMA architect Marilyn Musgrave lost her seat in Congress. We also elected a president who supports protecting the entire community from discrimination and who opposes discriminatory amendments.

Yet on Proposition 8 we lost at the ballot box, and I think that says something about this middle place where we find ourselves at this moment. In 2003, twelve states still had sodomy laws on the books, and only one state had civil unions. Four years ago, marriage was used to rile up a right-wing base, and we were branded as a bigger threat than terrorism. In 2008, most people know that we are not a threat. Proposition 8 did not result from a popular groundswell of opposition to our rights, but was the work of a small core of people who fought to get it on the ballot. The anti-LGBT message didn't rally people to the polls, but unfortunately when people got to the polls, too many of them had no problem with hurting us. Faced with an economy in turmoil and two wars, most Californians didn't choose the culture war. But faced with the question—brought to them by a small cadre of anti-LGBT hardliners – of whether our families should be treated differently from theirs, too many said yes.

But even before we do the hard work of deconstructing this campaign and readying for the future, it's clear to me that our continuing mandate is to show our neighbors who we are.

Justice Lewis Powell was the swing vote in Bowers, the case that upheld Georgia's sodomy law and that was reversed by Lawrence v. Texas five years ago. When Bowers was pending, Powell told one of his clerks "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual." Ironically, that clerk was gay, and had never come out to the Justice. A decade later, Powell admitted his vote to uphold Georgia's sodomy law was a mistake.

Everything we've learned points to one simple fact: people who know us are more likely to support our equality.

In recent years, I've been delivering this positive message: tell your story. Share who you are. And in fact, as our families become more familiar, support for us increases. But make no mistake: I do not think we have to audition for equality. Rather, I believe that each and every one of us who has been hurt by this hateful ballot measure, and each and every one of us who is still fighting to be equal, has to confront the neighbors who hurt us. We have to say to the man with the Yes on 8 sign—you disrespected my humanity, and I am not giving you a pass. I am not giving you a pass for explaining that you tolerate me, while at the same time denying that my family has a right to exist. I do not give you permission to say you have me as a "gay friend" when you cast a vote against my family, and my rights.

Wherever you are, tell a neighbor what the California Supreme Court so wisely affirmed: that you are equal, you are human, and that being denied equality harms you materially. Although I, like our whole community, am shaken by Prop 8's passage, I am not yet ready to believe that anyone who knows us as human beings and understands what is at stake would consciously vote to harm us.

This is not over. In California, our legal rights have been lost, but our human rights endure, and we will continue to fight for them.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
President, Human Rights Campaign

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

You're right. It is based on religious belief and that alone.

Deviant- perhaps rather than asking people what good reason there is, that doesn't involve religion...maybe you should ask whichever God you pray to.

Auriel, I don't feel the need to pray to any god. I never have. I don't claim to be a part of, nor feel partial to, any form of religious beliefs. (That doesn't mean I don't believe in the existence of Gods, just that my definition is likely very different than yours, and the majority of others, so please do not call me an atheist). My personal opinion is that religion is archaic and useless in today's society -- not only is it useless, but detrimental, as it only serves to oppress others who do not subscribe to the religious doctrines of the masses. I know that I come across as being over-critical of christians. It's not because I dislike christians any more or less than any other religion, because to me they're all the same - oppressive.

However, that doesn't mean I have the right to dictate to you what you should or should not believe in. It doesn't matter to me whether you, personally, accept or approve, of homosexuality, or of any other way of life that goes against your personal beliefs, opinions, etc. It is your choice and your RIGHT to believe and live the way you feel most comfortable. The world would be a very boring place if everyone thought and felt the same as everyone else. No one has the right to try taking away your beliefs, regardless of what they are.

You claim that you are accepting of your gay friends and their "choice of lifestyle", yet in the same breath you support banning gay marriage. That does not make sense to me. You say it is for religious purposes and you agree that there is no other valid reasoning behind it outside of religious beliefs. Fine. I can accept that your position against it is strictly religious and I have no problem with that. My question is, do you feel it is your right to force your beliefs on other people? Everything I've read you post here says you don't feel the right to force your beliefs on others, but you are doing exactly that by supporting a ban on gay marriage. This leads me to question what exactly your definition of marriage is. (Yours and others who believe similarly as you do, though I know you can only provide your own interpretation). I'm very curious to know, because there's a huge difference between spiritual marriage and legal marriage. Unfortunately our current government does not fully recognize those differences.

Are you against civil unions as well? Are you against the idea of a gay couple being able to benefit from one another's estates and legal rights, as they would had they been a straight couple? And if so, why?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

You just clearly don't get it. Maybe you should study my previous posts, particularly the one to Saya that explains where my beliefs come from, and then try to post and intelligent and mature response. Whether you believe in Karma or not, what goes around comes around and stating that my beliefs are "trendy" is going to bite you in the ass one day sooner or later. I hope you remember this conversation when it does.
.

Karma is total bullshit. Bad things happen to good people unwarranted. If you believe otherwise than you think everyone poor and suffering in the world did something wrong. If that's true I hope that when you have a child, it jumps out of the womb and strangles you with the umbilical cord.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Auriel, I don't feel the need to pray to any god. I never have. I don't claim to be a part of, nor feel partial to, any form of religious beliefs. (That doesn't mean I don't believe in the existence of Gods, just that my definition is likely very different than yours, and the majority of others, so please do not call me an atheist). My personal opinion is that religion is archaic and useless in today's society -- not only is it useless, but detrimental, as it only serves to oppress others who do not subscribe to the religious doctrines of the masses. I know that I come across as being over-critical of christians. It's not because I dislike christians any more or less than any other religion, because to me they're all the same - oppressive.

First and foremost I would like to applaud your maturity and tolerance for my differing opinion. You have shown much stronger character and integrity than some others.

The whole praying bit was just a loose suggestion on my part. While I don’t agree that religion is useless, I understand how you feel about most religions being oppressive. They aren’t just oppressive towards homosexuals either. There is FAR too much corruption in the church and that is largely why I don’t go. Plus my ideas of re-incarnation and daily practice of religion with or without the church wouldn’t sit well with Father So-and-So.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

However, that doesn't mean I have the right to dictate to you what you should or should not believe in. It doesn't matter to me whether you, personally, accept or approve, of homosexuality, or of any other way of life that goes against your personal beliefs, opinions, etc. It is your choice and your RIGHT to believe and live the way you feel most comfortable. The world would be a very boring place if everyone thought and felt the same as everyone else. No one has the right to try taking away your beliefs, regardless of what they are.

Thanks for that. That is proof that your personal integrity and character are far more developed than some.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

You claim that you are accepting of your gay friends and their "choice of lifestyle", yet in the same breath you support banning gay marriage. That does not make sense to me. You say it is for religious purposes and you agree that there is no other valid reasoning behind it outside of religious beliefs. Fine. I can accept that your position against it is strictly religious and I have no problem with that. My question is, do you feel it is your right to force your beliefs on other people? Everything I've read you post here says you don't feel the right to force your beliefs on others, but you are doing exactly that by supporting a ban on gay marriage. This leads me to question what exactly your definition of marriage is. (Yours and others who believe similarly as you do, though I know you can only provide your own interpretation). I'm very curious to know, because there's a huge difference between spiritual marriage and legal marriage. Unfortunately our current government does not fully recognize those differences.

I understand your confusion on this one. Basically what it boils down to is this: while I am against gay/lesbian marriages, I also believe in tolerance for others regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Their names are Tim and Jeff. We have had many conversations regarding this matter. They aren’t happy about my belief. But what’s more important is that I don’t judge them, treat them differently than any other person, and I accept them for who they are. They respect me for this, and also because I respect their right to live their lives the way they see fit. I don’t shake my finger at them, I don’t tell them to stop kissing or holding hands. I don’t tell them that it is wrong for them to live together and share the same bed. I respect freewill.
As far as being against gay marriage…my vote is one (though I don’t live in California so nothing of the like was on the ballot here in Michigan). There are millions of other votes. I could very well find myself on the losing side. Should that happen, I’m not going to get all pissed off about it.
My definition of Marriage? That’s tough because it’s such a broad topic. But I think to answer your question; when I’ve discussed this with Tim and Jeff, I’ve said that marriage is an increase in the depth of commitment towards one another. I don’t think two people need a piece of paper (legal marriage) to achieve that depth (spiritual marriage). They agreed with me, but still desire a legal union.
.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Are you against civil unions as well? Are you against the idea of a gay couple being able to benefit from one another's estates and legal rights, as they would had they been a straight couple? And if so, why?

You know I’ve been dying for someone to bring this up. This is largely the reason I feel such a need to defend myself. I think marriage was a sacred union created by God to exist between a man and a woman, and it should remain that way. Civil Unions on the other hand, are different (however small the difference is). I think Civil Unions should be made available to everyone. I look at it this way: You spend your life with someone, regardless of hetero or homo couples. One of you is eventually going to pass away. When you devote your life to someone and then turn around and get screwed out of everything you built together? That’s not right. Those years would be a large part of your life too. So for example, you purchased a house together. You spent years paying on the mortgage along with your partner. But the house is in your partner’s name and they pass away. Without a will, possessions go to the next of kin, let’s say that’s his sister. She now owns the house, despite the money and sweat you put into it, she decides to sell it, and you’re not entitled to a dime. That’s extraordinarily unfair.

I hope this answers your question, and maybe clarifies my standpoint a little better for you.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Karma is total bullshit. Bad things happen to good people unwarranted. If you believe otherwise than you think everyone poor and suffering in the world did something wrong. If that's true I hope that when you have a child, it jumps out of the womb and strangles you with the umbilical cord.

I DO have a child and a very happy one at that.

Why don't you grow up?

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

You know I’ve been dying for someone to bring this up. This is largely the reason I feel such a need to defend myself. I think marriage was a sacred union created by God to exist between a man and a woman, and it should remain that way. Civil Unions on the other hand, are different (however small the difference is). I think Civil Unions should be made available to everyone. I look at it this way: You spend your life with someone, regardless of hetero or homo couples. One of you is eventually going to pass away. When you devote your life to someone and then turn around and get screwed out of everything you built together? That’s not right. Those years would be a large part of your life too. So for example, you purchased a house together. You spent years paying on the mortgage along with your partner. But the house is in your partner’s name and they pass away. Without a will, possessions go to the next of kin, let’s say that’s his sister. She now owns the house, despite the money and sweat you put into it, she decides to sell it, and you’re not entitled to a dime. That’s extraordinarily unfair.

Just so you know the legal benefits of marriage and civil unions are not the same. Yes civil unions are better than nothing but they are not as good as a marriage.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

I think marriage was a sacred union created by God to exist between a man and a woman

Well then you're fucking stupid. Marriage is a way to transfer property (the wife) from her father's possession to her husbands.

Dowry (payment): Today it's the father of the bride paying for the wedding, it used to be cash or a cow or some such.
Wedding Ring: Symbol that the particular woman is now owned by her husband and not for sale.
Adopting husband's last name and leaving father's last name: Another symbol of the transferal of property.
Marriage License: Bill of Sale

In older days, marriage was a business and political action. It joined families, sent peace between groups and sometimes nations, and was occasionally simply to be used as a method of payment. Women were considered both a burden and property, and in a large majority of cultures (the ones that practice your religion anyway) women were always inferior.


Your beliefs are outdated and wrong.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Well then you're fucking stupid. Marriage is a way to transfer property (the wife) from her father's possession to her husbands.

Dowry (payment): Today it's the father of the bride paying for the wedding, it used to be cash or a cow or some such.
Wedding Ring: Symbol that the particular woman is now owned by her husband and not for sale.
Adopting husband's last name and leaving father's last name: Another symbol of the transferal of property.
Marriage License: Bill of Sale

In older days, marriage was a business and political action. It joined families, sent peace between groups and sometimes nations, and was occasionally simply to be used as a method of payment. Women were considered both a burden and property, and in a large majority of cultures (the ones that practice your religion anyway) women were always inferior.


Your beliefs are outdated and wrong.

Quoted for truth. I would like to get married some day, but it is traditionally transfering a virgin bride from her family to a new one. In the Bible if a girl is ***** her rapist had to pay the father, and then marry the daughter, since she was "damaged goods" no one else would marry her after that. This is also the principle behind female genital mutilation, to keep the girl a virgin, otherwise no man would want to marry her.

Anyway, the modern definition of marriage is a union of two people recognized by law, its a contract. My father was married by a judge, not a priest. And we can't define it by religion because what are you going to say to an athiest couple? A Hindu couple?

[Toy Killer]

In fact, the Brittish Nobles used to call women 'bitches' as saying they were 'bought' with no other use but reproducing, as you would a blood hound.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Saya

Quoted for truth. I would like to get married some day, but it is traditionally transfering a virgin bride from her family to a new one. In the Bible if a girl is ***** her rapist had to pay the father, and then marry the daughter, since she was "damaged goods" no one else would marry her after that. This is also the principle behind female genital mutilation, to keep the girl a virgin, otherwise no man would want to marry her.

Anyway, the modern definition of marriage is a union of two people recognized by law, its a contract. My father was married by a judge, not a priest. And we can't define it by religion because what are you going to say to an athiest couple? A Hindu couple?

Furthermore, a priest has to receive a LICENSE to marry people in the state he marries them in. Religion is unrelated and should stay that way.

[viscus]

This is all what I was getting at with my rant about traditional marriage about 5 pages back. And the truth is, a number of the assholes behind the Yes on 8 campaign probably would like to see some of those elements return.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

First and foremost I would like to applaud your maturity and tolerance for my differing opinion. You have shown much stronger character and integrity than some others.

I try my best to tolerate everyone. Unfortunately some just make it much more difficult than others. I have a militant side too, and it's been clawing at the door as of late. Every day that passes its becoming more difficult to keep it at bay...

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

The whole praying bit was just a loose suggestion on my part. While I don’t agree that religion is useless, I understand how you feel about most religions being oppressive. They aren’t just oppressive towards homosexuals either. There is FAR too much corruption in the church and that is largely why I don’t go.

To be completely honest, I actually enjoy reading portions of the bible. It is very interesting literature. (don't tell anyone I said that though). I just don't look at it from a religious point of view. I adore mythology, and consider the bible in the same light. I don't mean that in any condescending way. It's obvious you are quite passionate about it, and I don't really see anything wrong with that. The only time I really have a problem is when people start preaching to me. Then all I want to do is set their bibles on fire and shove it down their throats, or up their asses, though often times it's difficult to distinguish between the two. Extreme evolutionists have a similar effect on me. Now there's a conundrum for ya.

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Plus my ideas of re-incarnation and daily practice of religion with or without the church wouldn’t sit well with Father So-and-So.

On a side note, it might be interesting to hear your thoughts on re-incarnation some time, as I have similar ideas myself...

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Thanks for that. That is proof that your personal integrity and character are far more developed than some.

I understand your confusion on this one. Basically what it boils down to is this: while I am against gay/lesbian marriages, I also believe in tolerance for others regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Their names are Tim and Jeff. We have had many conversations regarding this matter. They aren’t happy about my belief. But what’s more important is that I don’t judge them, treat them differently than any other person, and I accept them for who they are. They respect me for this, and also because I respect their right to live their lives the way they see fit. I don’t shake my finger at them, I don’t tell them to stop kissing or holding hands. I don’t tell them that it is wrong for them to live together and share the same bed. I respect freewill.

That is commendable, and I can't criticize you for it.

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

As far as being against gay marriage…my vote is one (though I don’t live in California so nothing of the like was on the ballot here in Michigan). There are millions of other votes. I could very well find myself on the losing side. Should that happen, I’m not going to get all pissed off about it.

Some day it will be on your ballot though, if it hasn't been yet. When that day comes, I hope you will take into consideration those of us that it does affect. Legislators are notorious for wording things in ways that seem harmless on ballots --I'm sure you're aware of this-- when in fact they're completely detrimental to years of hard work by those of us that are just trying to be treated equally and fairly. It's not a matter of asking you to change your beliefs, or even make exceptions for them. Just be sure what exactly it is you're voting on when you do cast your ballot, and how many lives it could permanently alter should it be passed. You seem to be a compassionate person. Compassion doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs.

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

My definition of Marriage? That’s tough because it’s such a broad topic. But I think to answer your question; when I’ve discussed this with Tim and Jeff, I’ve said that marriage is an increase in the depth of commitment towards one another.

Absolutely. So why should gender have any bearing on that depth? Surely you don't believe that two men or two women aren't capable of being as completely in love and devotion, physically, emotionally and spiritually, to one another as a man and a woman, do you? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

I don’t think two people need a piece of paper (legal marriage) to achieve that depth (spiritual marriage).

Neither do I, nor does the guy I've spent the last 3 years of my life with. He's mostly against marriage, gay or straight, (which has lead to many disagreements between the two of us), but he doesn't believe that it should be a privilege granted to heterosexuals and denied to homosexuals. In doing so, I believe that it creates an elitist mentality, as if to say heterosexuals are more pure in the eyes of god, when, once again, god should have nothing to do with it, as far as the modern, legal concept of marriage goes. As it currently stands, heterosexuals are more pure in the eyes of government, and christian fundamentalists, like fred phelps, whose name I will not give the honor of capitalizing, who would love nothing more than for us to be burned in piles like nazi germany (how many people today realize that's where the term 'f. agot' originates from?), use this to their advantage. They don't cast their Yes on 8 votes for the same reasons you do, they cast them out of pure hatred.

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

You know I’ve been dying for someone to bring this up. This is largely the reason I feel such a need to defend myself. I think marriage was a sacred union created by God to exist between a man and a woman, and it should remain that way. Civil Unions on the other hand, are different (however small the difference is).

The difference is quite huge, actually, and still very discriminatory.

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

I think Civil Unions should be made available to everyone.

As do I. However, they should not be regarded as a substitution for marriage, but instead an alternative. They don't provide the same benefits and securities as marriage does and are not recognized by the federal government. There are very few states even, that acknowledge civil unions, regardless of sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

I look at it this way: You spend your life with someone, regardless of hetero or homo couples. One of you is eventually going to pass away. When you devote your life to someone and then turn around and get screwed out of everything you built together? That’s not right. Those years would be a large part of your life too. So for example, you purchased a house together. You spent years paying on the mortgage along with your partner. But the house is in your partner’s name and they pass away. Without a will, possessions go to the next of kin, let’s say that’s his sister. She now owns the house, despite the money and sweat you put into it, she decides to sell it, and you’re not entitled to a dime. That’s extraordinarily unfair.

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

I hope this answers your question, and maybe clarifies my standpoint a little better for you.

It does clarify your standpoint. Had you mentioned anything about civil unions earlier on, this may not have become quite so hostile. However, I do hope that you understand civil unions and marriage are very, very different, to the tune of nearly 1,200 reasons why they are different, and therefore can never be considered equality when it comes to civil rights. If it were equality, there wouldn't be 18,000+ married couples in CA, not to mention the countless others that didn't make it through the door, who are extremely pissed off and feeling very much betrayed by their government right now. Civil unions have been legal in CA since 2000(ish).

So why is gay marriage such a huge issue there, if civil unions are legal? Because they are not the same as legal marriage and do not provide the same protections or benefits. Why take the time, man power, energy, money and paperwork to change 1,200 laws, when all they have to do is expand one to create equality? Where is the logic in that? Civil unions do not reach beyond the boarders of the state(s) in which they are granted.

And if/when those 1,200 laws ever do get changed, it will boil down to a discrepency over the word 'marriage' and the phrase 'civil union', as though one or the other should be worn as a badge.

[x-deviant-x]

No one can argue that the biblical concept of marriage is between a man and a woman. Biblical being the key word. Therefore, if you're going to argue the bible, (I say you figuratively speaking), which you have to when discussing marriage and laws created for or against it, then marriage should only be regarded as a religious institution, by those who follow God's word, in whatever interpretive format they choose. Therefore any couple who is not religious should not be married, in the biblical sense, in the eyes of the government or the church. Further, the biblical sense of marriage should provide absolutely no legal benefits. This is what my boyfriend believes, that it should be completely removed from the hands of government. I tend to agree.

This will never happen. Why? There's far too many reasons to go into right now, but one of the glaring reasons I see is because too many people are incapable of separating the biblical concept of marriage from the modern-day legal concept of marriage -- two very different concepts. The bible doesn't talk about insurance benefits, property ownership, child custody or wills, at least not to this extent. Imagine trying to tell the millions of married couples across this country that the government no longer recognizes their marriage, and instead they now have civil unions. If it ever made it to any ballot, it would be revolted against by the majority of the population.

On top of all of this, for years now LGBT people have been accused over and over for trying to demand special rights for being LGBT, when this has never been the case. All we've ever asked for is equality. Creating entirely new sets of laws like civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., is creating special rights for LGBT people, and creates a hell of a lot more headache than simply expanding our current existing laws to recognize us as equal.

Reverting back to religion for a moment -- there are a plethora of LGBT people who consider themselves to be very devout christians in this country, along with gay churches all across the country that recognize their rights to be christians. Many would argue it's not possible for LGBT people to be christian, but that is for no one to decide other than those people. Its the equivalent of arguing whether baptists or catholics have the right to call themselves christians, as they interpret things differently from one another.

[raggedyanne]

Auriel, your lack of knowledge of how Civil Unions are not equal to marriage worries me greatly. It is people like you, who subscribe to an antiquated definition of marriage, who are preventing the LGBT community from inheriting property, dealing with their partners medical issues, adopting children, or just feeling equal.

Do you believe that people of different races should be allowed to marry? Up until the 50's, it was not legal in California. People quoted the bible in support of keeping marriage segregated. Now misguided people like you are quoting the bible to support you stance against gay marriage. Your opposition to it is based on opinion, not religion, and you are driving people away from the church and away from you by insinuating that your religion makes straight people like you "better" than gay people, just like your predessesors used god as evidence of why whites were "better" than colored people. Are either OPINIONS right? Are either of them legal? Do either of them have any basis in fact? The answer to all these questions is no. I grudgingly respect your opinion that you think gays should not be allowed to marry or share the shame basic legal rights as heterosexual couples do, but that does not mean you can drag your god out to validate your opinion. Please do not shame your religion or yourself any further by doing so.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

you think gays should not be allowed to marry or share the shame basic legal rights as heterosexual couples do, but that does not mean you can drag your god out to validate your opinion. Please do not shame your religion or yourself any further by doing so.

I don't think she ever said specifically that we should not be allowed to share the same legal rights. If she did, I missed it. In fact, she was trying to explain her views on civil unions in response to my earlier posts above.
I'm not targeting anything you specifically said raggedyanne, but can people show some level of maturity and stop attacking her maliciously please? I kind of feel bad because I did at first, but you can express a difference of opinion without throwing insults unnecessarily. Your voice is heard better when you speak like an adult. Whether I or anyone else agrees with her views, she is one of the more eloquent and mature speakers on here, and I think she deserves the respect we would expect ourselves. You don't have to agree with her to be respectful or polite. I'm just pointing out, there's no reason for name-calling from anyone... well, unless they start it first... but even then, not really...

Whether she fully understands the vast differences between civil unions and marriage or not, it doesn't justify rude responses.

.

[raggedyanne]

I apologize if I was too harsh, but it really annoys me when people let their religious views interfere with politics and other people's lives. Just because she believes something is wrong does not mean that the rest of us should have to suffer

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Just so you know the legal benefits of marriage and civil unions are not the same. Yes civil unions are better than nothing but they are not as good as a marriage.

It's like tossing scraps to the negro slaves who aren't worthy of eating the real food. Harsh comparison, but valid none the less.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

I apologize if I was too harsh, but it really annoys me when people let their religious views interfere with politics and other people's lives. Just because she believes something is wrong does not mean that the rest of us should have to suffer

Your comments weren't really harsh, but Joker is pissing me off. He makes a lot of very valid points, which I'm sure are appreciated by more than just me, but his name-calling is unnecessary. She hasn't done that to him. Or her, or whatever he/she is...

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

On top of all of this, for years now LGBT people have been accused over and over for trying to demand special rights for being LGBT, when this has never been the case. All we've ever asked for is equality.

Wrong. Hate-crimes legislation. If someone kills a gay, that person will be considered more nefarious than if some kills, say, me.

Of course, this doesn't just apply to gays, also to some other minorities, but if you want to kill someone with the least legal ramification possible, kill a poor, heterosexual, white male.

[JCC]

Or kill a middle class black homosexual for something other than the fact that that he's black and gay and it's no longer a hate crime.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I don't think she ever said specifically that we should not be allowed to share the same legal rights. If she did, I missed it. In fact, she was trying to explain her views on civil unions in response to my earlier posts above.
I'm not targeting anything you specifically said raggedyanne, but can people show some level of maturity and stop attacking her maliciously please? I kind of feel bad because I did at first, but you can express a difference of opinion without throwing insults unnecessarily. Your voice is heard better when you speak like an adult. Whether I or anyone else agrees with her views, she is one of the more eloquent and mature speakers on here, and I think she deserves the respect we would expect ourselves. You don't have to agree with her to be respectful or polite. I'm just pointing out, there's no reason for name-calling from anyone... well, unless they start it first... but even then, not really...

Whether she fully understands the vast differences between civil unions and marriage or not, it doesn't justify rude responses.

.

Thanks for that. I don’t understand why some people need to stoop to insults to prove a point...it actually doesn’t prove anything other than they are immature.
Well, I looked into civil unions a little further, and you’re right they’re not as close as I thought they were. This site was the most helpful:
http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html
Being as that I thought they were far more similar than they actually are, my point was to basically find a balance between preserving the sacrament of opposite sex marriages, while providing same sex couples with a similar alternative.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Thanks for that. I don’t understand why some people need to stoop to insults to prove a point...it actually doesn’t prove anything other than they are immature.
Well, I looked into civil unions a little further, and you’re right they’re not as close as I thought they were. This site was the most helpful:
http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html
Being as that I thought they were far more similar than they actually are, my point was to basically find a balance between preserving the sacrament of opposite sex marriages, while providing same sex couples with a similar alternative.

You know what else is immature? Crying that you're against intolerance, then saying you're against gay marriage because homosexuality is morally wrong and then when people criticize you, claiming that they're attacking your religion when really they're criticizing your hateful beliefs.

Hypocrite

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Wrong. Hate-crimes legislation. If someone kills a gay, that person will be considered more nefarious than if some kills, say, me.

Of course, this doesn't just apply to gays, also to some other minorities, but if you want to kill someone with the least legal ramification possible, kill a poor, heterosexual, white male.

No, you are wrong BECAUSE, hate crime legislation has been passed for every other minority EXCEPT homosexuals.

The Matthew Sheppard Act has been defeated every time. If you kill a black man, or a latino man, its a hate crime. If you kill a homosexual it isn't. How is that fair? I'm not necessarily for or against hate crime legislation, however, if it's going to be passed into law for any minority, then every minority deserves to be treated fairly, or none at all.

If you think gays are asking for special rights, then so are blacks, hispanics, etc.

.