|
|
Palin and Biden essentially said they agreed on this point.
However, I am in need of some clarity:
What is the difference between gay "marriage" and a gay "civil union" which provides the same rights as a "marriage"? Is this a legal issue or is this something that is to be taken up with Merriam-Webster?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Here is a good link that defines the two:
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
I think I can clear this up for you. A gay marriage is where you have a definite, dominate, male "role" played between the two parties and a lesser, submissive role taken by the other person in the relationship. A civil union on the other hand is where neither party in the relationship has assumed the traditional "male" role and neither is comfortable in the "female" role either. In the first example the couple is geniunely happy thus the term "gay marriage". In the latter example, the couple has obvious issues and are not yet "gay". Therefore there can be no gay marriage. In laymans terms it would actually be an "un-gay" marriage. I hope that helped.
Well then, beautifully summed up if I do say so myself.Originally Posted by personofbluecolor
<------the hoff approves of your post.
I think benefits come in to play to, work insurance, multiple car discount car insurance, etc , , ,
Hey, God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve. I have no pity on gays, its a bad choice that they choose to make. They should NOT be entitled to the benefits of a maariage, . . . benefits, etc . . .
“Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.”
Lou Holtz - Football Coach
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
"Bring back the rotary phone so we don't have to press 1 for English."
www.casadice.com
Out of curiousity, were you raised on a farm?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Why shouldn't they? They're human just like you, they probably give back to society just like you.. why can't they have their slice of what the American Dream means to them?
Because God said so???
Marriage shouldn't be regulated by ANY government in the first place.
This should be moved to the flamer's pit. No pun intended, but I just can't believe people STILL have these views.
I started this thread because of a serious question. It sounds like Biden/Palin support gays having the EXACT same rights as married couples but that they do not want to "change the definition of marriage." If that is TRUE, it just seems like this is a distinction without consequence.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
I'm pretty sure you can add Barack Obama to the list of folks against gay marriage but for civil unions.
What's so surprising to you? That some folks believe man and woman marry, not man and man or woman and woman? Contractually, man and man or woman and woman can do virtually anything man and woman can do. Help me out here.
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
Not sure it is completely. What a lot of people object to is the idea that the government is endorsing the behavior -- marriage. Allowing the same benefits without giving that endorsement seems a reasonable allowance to balance rights and the will of the people.
Here's the big problem with saying it's no different from regular marriage. It seems like a huge step toward a position that would essentially equate homosexual behavior with race or sex. Should a religious school, for instance, lose its tax exemption for standing on what it believes? That's where a lot of people see a danger if "gay marriage" is defined into law.
I think that is largely true, at least from a legal perspective. Obviously, though, there are still those that find the distinction to be very important because they believe it upholds the moral notion that homosexuals are second-class citizens.
From a political perspective, I think it is a very clever, one-size-fits-all position. The liberals can point to the fact that in practice such a perspective removes the equal-access barriers to the civil benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Conservatives, in turn, can point to the fact that they have not conceded the point that "marriage" can only be between one man and one woman.
"MARRIAGE"......
Is suppose to be a MAGICAL word connoting a god blessing of bliss and harmony on a "until death we do part" sacred relationship.
"MARRIAGE" as a reality, however......
Ignores the FACT that a goodly percent of these mythical sacred relationships currently end in divorce.
Ignores the FACT that prior to significant divorce rates...... "MARRIAGE" routinely resulted in a goodly percent of married couples living in painful and hateful relationionships.
And ignores the FACT that "MARRIAGE" was historically more a matter of CERTAIN property rights, rather than VAGUE love.
"MARRIAGE" has also been and remains an easy asylum for spousal abuse, a convenient place for closet gays to hide, a requirement for infidelity, and lots of other STUFF that does not flatter the "MARRIAGE" myth.
But the "MARRIAGE" MYTH continues as a heterosexual haven......
Just as the GAY MYTH continues as a heterosexual phobia.
ERGO...... CIVIL UNIONS!
The DIFFERENCE is that NONE of the christian gods......
Not the catholic god, or any of the hundreds of protestant gods......
BLESS any unholy civil union.
I could easily continue if you need more.
Cheers.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said...... But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
