Letters from readers: Equal, not special, rights

Letters of about 200 words are preferred. Longer letters will be edited for space. Full Story

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#109 Jun 10, 2012
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the civil, not religious, act of marriage that most homosexuals want.
You are not considered married by any state or the federal government until you receive a marriage license. A religious ceremony is not required by any state to have a valid marriage.
Ever heard a minister say "by the powers invested in me by the state of ______ I now pronounce you...."? The person officiating over the ceremony is acting as a agent of the state.
Robert
And the reason why they want the civil act of marriage rather than a civil act of union would be...?

Assuming all legal rights and responsibilities were exactly the same in a civil union and a civil marriage, why fight for the right to be married versus the right to be partners?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#111 Jun 10, 2012
equalityboy81 wrote:
If marriage is a religious institution then why do you have to go to a COURTHOUSE to get a marriage licenses? Why doesn't the church sell marriage licenses then?
A) Because the government wants to get money. Same reason one needs to get a license for their dog or operate a business. That's why I've said that if the effort had been put into the civil union laws this wouldn't be a big deal because the government would take money from everyone.

B) Licenses come from the state. You can't get a business license from another business or a license to drive from an auto dealer.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#112 Jun 10, 2012
equalityboy81 wrote:
<quoted text>
Children are more tolerant and liberal than their parents. My parents are more liberal in views than their parents. I'm sure you've seen the programs on TV where Amish teens are banished from their family because they have questioned and defied the way things are. I've met pro-gay people who are straight that have anti-gay parents.
Children have always been more tolerant and liberal than their parents.
""The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates (circa 400 BC)

Then some grow up and face the realities of life while others continue to simply be larger, older children.

And no, I've never seen a show where children of the Amish are "banished" because they no longer accept the Amish ways. Are you thinking of Rumspringa? I'm sure that one could not live among the Amish without accepting their ways because of the rules regarding cars, electricity, etc. If I was Amish and my kids wanted to drive a car and own a cell phone, I don't see how they could live with me so they would have to leave.
Robsan5

United States

#113 Jun 10, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
And the reason why they want the civil act of marriage rather than a civil act of union would be...?
Assuming all legal rights and responsibilities were exactly the same in a civil union and a civil marriage, why fight for the right to be married versus the right to be partners?

With 50 states having 50 different versions of civil union, it would never be exactly as a civil marriage.
Why don't straights settle for civil unions? Separate but equal is never equal. There is no valid secular reason against same-sex marriage. Just like blacks didn't settle for Jim Crow laws, homosexuals (in my view) shouldn't settle for anything less than equal treatment under the law.
Robert
noshellswill

Saint Augustine, FL

#114 Jun 10, 2012
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
With 50 states having 50 different versions of civil union, it would never be exactly as a civil marriage.
Why don't straights settle for civil unions?

<clip>
Straight couples don't "settle" for state-encumbered civil unions, since straight couples invented, asserted and owned the marriage society long before the existence of "states/nations/Gub'mnts ". The Church says it as well as any ... hetero-couples marry each-other and the Church serves as faithful witness.

Vis' marriage your statist views crumble. Gub'mnts **horned in** on the marital society to weaken "priestly" class power (shamans always had a hand in marriage-rites) and also to reward those hetero-couples who by marrying most benefited the power of the klan/state/nation.

French 18-th Century secularists and Soviet Stalinist claimed state dominance over marriage, but such is a perversion both of history and of well-found behavior.

Robsan5

United States

#115 Jun 10, 2012
noshellswill wrote:
<quoted text>
Straight couples don't "settle" for state-encumbered civil unions, since straight couples invented, asserted and owned the marriage society long before the existence of "states/nations/Gub'mnts ". The Church says it as well as any ... hetero-couples marry each-other and the Church serves as faithful witness.
Vis' marriage your statist views crumble. Gub'mnts **horned in** on the marital society to weaken "priestly" class power (shamans always had a hand in marriage-rites) and also to reward those hetero-couples who by marrying most benefited the power of the klan/state/nation.
French 18-th Century secularists and Soviet Stalinist claimed state dominance over marriage, but such is a perversion both of history and of well-found behavior.
"Shamans"? Really? You just don't any valid secular reasons against same-sex marriage, do you?
If you can't differentiate between the secular justification for a group to assert it's civil rights and a religious dogma that represses the exercise of that right, perhaps you need to review the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Robert

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#116 Jun 10, 2012
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
With 50 states having 50 different versions of civil union, it would never be exactly as a civil marriage.
Why don't straights settle for civil unions? Separate but equal is never equal. There is no valid secular reason against same-sex marriage. Just like blacks didn't settle for Jim Crow laws, homosexuals (in my view) shouldn't settle for anything less than equal treatment under the law.
Robert
1) Marriage laws aren't the same in all 50 states. If they were Las Vegas wouldn't have so many drive-thu marriage places (with Elvis as your attendant!). And just as importantly, divorce laws are very different throughout the US. The basic "rights" that you are talking about are legal rights, such as hospital visitation, consent and other things that could have been adjusted 20+ years ago.

2) Straights do settle for actually less than CU's. In several states they have "common law marriage" laws that reflect two people living together but not married. In those cases the state has intervened and said that even if two people haven't gotten "married" the fact that they have lived together for X years is just as good. However, the state does it for tax purposes especially in the cases of divorce or death. Honestly the state doesn't care about things like hospital visits because they don't make any money.

3) There are several valid secular reasons against same sex marriage. I've mentioned several. There are no valid secular reasons for same sex marriage except the 6 year "that's not fair" argument. We are over 100 posts on this and there hasn't been one post giving a real reason for allowing same sex marriage. If you have an adult reason, I'd love to hear it. You would be the first.

4) Same sex marriage isn't about civil rights and the President's position has upset a lot of people because he's equated same sex marriage with Martin Luther King Jr. MLK would not be on the side of the gay community.

5) I don't have a problem with homosexuals wanting equal treatment under the laws. The problem is they don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment. A pedophile is making a sexual choice. A necrophilac is making a sexual choice. One of the issues, that you keep loosing is that a homosexual is making the same choice as a heterosexual. Given (as I've posted) homosexuality is less than 3%, it's nothing like heterosexuality. Choose something in the 2% range, not the 97% range.
noshellswill

Saint Augustine, FL

#117 Jun 10, 2012
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Shamans"? Really? You just don't any valid secular reasons against same-sex marriage, do you?
If you can't differentiate between the secular justification for a group to assert it's civil rights and a religious dogma that represses the exercise of that right, perhaps you need to review the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Robert
You really are stupid aren't you ... or crudely mendacious, implying a false dichotomy. You presume that Church **recognition** corresponds to Church "causation". As if the Church recognizing 2+2 = 4 causes the operation and the sum! Nice twisty try. Better to say that the Church recognizes the power of hetero-couples to generate a mutually binding marriage contract.

**Marriage rights**, duties and privileges supervene on native association behaviors of hetero-sexual couples. "Native" as in natural, un-schooled, proto-social.

There is at base nothing **civil** or Governmental or societal about those hetero-couple marriage rights, except that the hetero-couple union is the most basic unit of all society.

Marriage is closer a "binary" biological power than a Gub'mnt enforced civil privilege. Really ... your sophmoric chirping to the faaagboyz and dikdyke agenda speaks poorly for your powers of evaluation.

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

#118 Jun 10, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
You should read my arguments, very few, none in fact have to do with religion unless I'm responding to someone. I also realize that the world doesn't begin at the 49th parallel. I've been way beyond that. Would you like to talk about homosexual marriage in larger countries like China? How about wealthy countries like Saudia Arabia? Or a modern but ancient country like Japan? There are almost 200 countries in the world and less than a dozen allow same-sex marriage.
While you may not agree with my arguments, at least I have some. The counter position is basically just an opinion without any reason or logic to back it up. The other side seems to be the childish "it's not fair" argument.
The childish "it's not fair" argument?

Where were you in the 60's, under a rock?? Has the last century of social progress taught you NOTHING?

You may be satisfied by maintaining the status quo - those who are chauvinistic, entitled, str8 and male tend to, as it maintians there illusion of superior social status - but the rest of the world is not!

Men of quality are not threatened by those seeking equality.

Besides, north of the Great Lakes, gays are getting married daily. Your arguments reduce themselves to a simple "not in my backyard" mentality, it may be fine for others elsewhere, but not HERE, if I have anything to say about it... which only speaks to your desire to control and limit others.

Poor man - you fall for the silliest red herrings in your other posts, which only exposes you for what you are. You lump gays in with pedophiles, bestialists and polygamists, as if children, animals and women in such closed communities have a voice or a choice. Gay marriage is about two adults pledging to each other in an informed, equal way. The fact that you can't grasp that obvious concept only speaks to your willful ignorance.

Again, what do you care if two guys (let's leave the Lesbians out of it for now, as too many pornos feature women scenes for str8 male enjoyment, which is only a glaring double standard) get married? Doesn't that leave more females free for your attentions (assuming any would have you, that is)?

Or are you really afraid of what women have had to deal with since time began: the fear of being overpowered and raped by someone stronger than you?

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

#119 Jun 10, 2012
spelling: should read "their", not "there"...
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#120 Jun 10, 2012
noshellswill wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are stupid aren't you ... or crudely mendacious, implying a false dichotomy. You presume that Church **recognition** corresponds to Church "causation". As if the Church recognizing 2+2 = 4 causes the operation and the sum! Nice twisty try. Better to say that the Church recognizes the power of hetero-couples to generate a mutually binding marriage contract.
**Marriage rights**, duties and privileges supervene on native association behaviors of hetero-sexual couples. "Native" as in natural, un-schooled, proto-social.
There is at base nothing **civil** or Governmental or societal about those hetero-couple marriage rights, except that the hetero-couple union is the most basic unit of all society.
Marriage is closer a "binary" biological power than a Gub'mnt enforced civil privilege. Really ... your sophmoric chirping to the faaagboyz and dikdyke agenda speaks poorly for your powers of evaluation.
When you sober up, please repost your thoughts.

Robert

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#121 Jun 10, 2012
Leftatalbuquerque wrote:
<quoted text>The childish "it's not fair" argument?

Where were you in the 60's, under a rock?? Has the last century of social progress taught you NOTHING?

You may be satisfied by maintaining the status quo - those who are chauvinistic, entitled, str8 and male tend to, as it maintians there illusion of superior social status - but the rest of the world is not!

Men of quality are not threatened by those seeking equality.

Besides, north of the Great Lakes, gays are getting married daily. Your arguments reduce themselves to a simple "not in my backyard" mentality, it may be fine for others elsewhere, but not HERE, if I have anything to say about it... which only speaks to your desire to control and limit others.

Poor man - you fall for the silliest red herrings in your other posts, which only exposes you for what you are. You lump gays in with pedophiles, bestialists and polygamists, as if children, animals and women in such closed communities have a voice or a choice. Gay marriage is about two adults pledging to each other in an informed, equal way. The fact that you can't grasp that obvious concept only speaks to your willful ignorance.

Again, what do you care if two guys (let's leave the Lesbians out of it for now, as too many pornos feature women scenes for str8 male enjoyment, which is only a glaring double standard) get married? Doesn't that leave more females free for your attentions (assuming any would have you, that is)?

Or are you really afraid of what women have had to deal with since time began: the fear of being overpowered and raped by someone stronger than you?
And again, the best argument for same sex marriage is no logical points just meaningless insults.

Go back to the original post, read through all the posts and then make your case. Otherwise you are simply a drunk troll from Canada and your opinion is meaningless.
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#122 Jun 10, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Marriage laws aren't the same in all 50 states. If they were Las Vegas wouldn't have so many drive-thu marriage places (with Elvis as your attendant!). And just as importantly, divorce laws are very different throughout the US. The basic "rights" that you are talking about are legal rights, such as hospital visitation, consent and other things that could have been adjusted 20+ years ago.
2) Straights do settle for actually less than CU's. In several states they have "common law marriage" laws that reflect two people living together but not married. In those cases the state has intervened and said that even if two people haven't gotten "married" the fact that they have lived together for X years is just as good. However, the state does it for tax purposes especially in the cases of divorce or death. Honestly the state doesn't care about things like hospital visits because they don't make any money.
3) There are several valid secular reasons against same sex marriage. I've mentioned several. There are no valid secular reasons for same sex marriage except the 6 year "that's not fair" argument. We are over 100 posts on this and there hasn't been one post giving a real reason for allowing same sex marriage. If you have an adult reason, I'd love to hear it. You would be the first.
4) Same sex marriage isn't about civil rights and the President's position has upset a lot of people because he's equated same sex marriage with Martin Luther King Jr. MLK would not be on the side of the gay community.
5) I don't have a problem with homosexuals wanting equal treatment under the laws. The problem is they don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment. A pedophile is making a sexual choice. A necrophilac is making a sexual choice. One of the issues, that you keep loosing is that a homosexual is making the same choice as a heterosexual. Given (as I've posted) homosexuality is less than 3%, it's nothing like heterosexuality. Choose something in the 2% range, not the 97% range.
I guessing that your take on the errors and mistakes that the homosexual community have made and are making is pretty irreverent to them.
When it comes up to a vote, please vote the way you want to.

Robert

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#123 Jun 10, 2012
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>I guessing that your take on the errors and mistakes that the homosexual community have made and are making is pretty irreverent to them.
When it comes up to a vote, please vote the way you want to.

Robert
No, I don't think the errors are irreverent. I think the errors they are making are because they refuse to accept the reality of the human condition, the nature of politics and the false fantasy of "should" and "fair".

They planted their flag on a hill that can't be defended. Go back through the posts and you'll find no rational arguments for same sex marriage nor arguments against evolution theory regarding sexual choice.
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#124 Jun 10, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think the errors are irreverent. I think the errors they are making are because they refuse to accept the reality of the human condition, the nature of politics and the false fantasy of "should" and "fair".
They planted their flag on a hill that can't be defended. Go back through the posts and you'll find no rational arguments for same sex marriage nor arguments against evolution theory regarding sexual choice.
How many countries and states had same-sex marriage 20 years ago?
How many have it now?
You are on the wrong side of history.

Robert
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#125 Jun 10, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think the errors are irreverent....
I said what you think of their errors are irrevelant.

Robert
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#126 Jun 10, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
.... Go back through the posts and you'll find no rational arguments for same sex marriage ...
The 14th Admendment.

Robert

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#127 Jun 10, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>

4) Same sex marriage isn't about civil rights and the President's position has upset a lot of people because he's equated same sex marriage with Martin Luther King Jr. MLK would not be on the side of the gay community.
actually, you're quite wrong with this. both dr. king and his wife, correta scott king, stated that they fully supported the gay rights issues, and the black civil rights issues and that they were the same issue, exactly. it was the gays who marched into washington with dr. king, and stood right beside him in selma, alabama and dr. king called them brothers in the war against bigotry.

and correta scott king said:

I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation.

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.
SHADOW

Bulverde, TX

#128 Jun 11, 2012
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many countries and states had same-sex marriage 20 years ago?
How many have it now?
You are on the wrong side of history.
Robert
How many states with same sex were the result of the people's vote and not some political hack or queer judge?
Exactly how many "countries" would you be willing to give up your American citizenship for? Who cares what other countries are doing or not doing.
SHADOW

Bulverde, TX

#129 Jun 11, 2012
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
And the reason why they want the civil act of marriage rather than a civil act of union would be...?
Assuming all legal rights and responsibilities were exactly the same in a civil union and a civil marriage, why fight for the right to be married versus the right to be partners?
Just looking for a few "special rights" there is actually no other reason.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 10 min Edmond Pulpo 12,121
Cyprus Editorial: They should ALL resign in Paphos 13 min Dervis Eroglu 3
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 2 hr eyeful 2,933
Driving While Black - And Poor 2 hr ATVrider 52
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr hal 26,797
Let's have a balanced plan for producing the el... 3 hr Earthling-1 59
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 3 hr Springboro Resident 31,518
More from around the web