What's new
By:

The 473

Stoked said:
Which is where I get into civil unions and marriages. Marriage should be the domain of religions only and be recognized by the government as equal to a civil union.

Civil Unions should be done but the government, instead of marriages. They should grant all the legal rights and privileges that a marriage currently does. Any group of consenting adults, regardless of relation, sexual orientation or any other clarification should be eligible for civil unions.

Now if a homosexual (or even a random group of 3 or more) couple find a recognized religion that will marry them than good for them. They are married.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. If you leave governmentally protected constitutions' destiny to the hand of religious biases, the outsiders are ****ed.
 
Mrs. Wells and I both got calls from Grenada about three weeks ago. We both missed them. I tried calling back... like five times.

I didn't get any charges on my last bill; I'll keep you all posted when I get my next one.



p.s. One day in the near future, Colton's kids are going to look back on this thread and wonder how their father could have been such an embarrassing bigot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
E.J. Wells said:
Mrs. Wells and I both got calls from Grenada about three weeks ago. We both missed them. I tried calling back... like five times.

I didn't get any charges on my last bill; I'll keep you all posted when I get my next one.



p.s. One day in the near future, Colton's kids are going to look back on this thread and wonder how their father could have been such an embarrassing bigot.
Click to expand...

trout vs Colton beef incoming
 
addictionary said:
I strongly disagree. If you leave governmentally protected constitutions' destiny to the hand of religious biases, the outsiders are ****ed.
Click to expand...

They are not left in the hand of religion. They are still completely obtainable thru civil unions.
 
addictionary said:
And who will choose which one of those religions and civil unions the government will favor or will not favor? The majority?
Click to expand...

You must have misunderstood me. Under my idea a civil union can be obtained by any group of consenting adults. A civil union would grant the exact same privileges as a marriage. The government just recognizes a marriage (done by a denomination/religion) the same as a civil union.

Under this idea my wife and I would be a civil union.

What rights is either group losing?
 
addictionary said:
The government's blessing is necessary but not for the sake of their power over the constitution of marriage but to protect people's rights in gavibg their own world and building it out of harm's way and to benefit the same rights.
Click to expand...

I understand that. My comment was simply questioning Gameface's statement that families were created and now the AG is trying to dismantle them. I'm sure they considered themselves families before gay marriage was legal and I'm sure they would consider themselves families if gay marriage is rescinded. It's not like the AG is sending in the police to physically dismantle and separate people from each other.
 
Scat said:
I understand that. My comment was simply questioning Gameface's statement that families were created and now the AG is trying to dismantle them. I'm sure they considered themselves families before gay marriage was legal and I'm sure they would consider themselves families if gay marriage is rescinded. It's not like the AG is sending in the police to physically dismantle and separate people from each other.
Click to expand...

Not yet, anyway. Give it time. Colton and his minions of family wreckers will eventually get their way; it's the Utah Way.
 
Stoked said:
You must have misunderstood me. Under my idea a civil union can be obtained by any group of consenting adults. A civil union would grant the exact same privileges as a marriage. The government just recognizes a marriage (done by a denomination/religion) the same as a civil union.

Under this idea my wife and I would be a civil union.

What rights is either group losing?
Click to expand...


Oops. Sorry. Foreign language knowledge malfunction. I thought the civil union concept was something similar to the cults that we have a ****load of in Turkey. In here, gay marriage is not even a topic for the government. But their community is asking for their rights in more and more numbers everyday as more gay individuals find themselves supported by the ones that share the same unfair feeling with them.
 
Scat said:
I understand that. My comment was simply questioning Gameface's statement that families were created and now the AG is trying to dismantle them. I'm sure they considered themselves families before gay marriage was legal and I'm sure they would consider themselves families if gay marriage is rescinded. It's not like the AG is sending in the police to physically dismantle and separate people from each other.
Click to expand...


Oh, OK.

Pretty valid points. A family is something above the government and constitutions. It recreates the social structure. And by doing that, it recreates the ideology that dwells in every action of the government, the power. So if there emerges a family union that is slightly in contrast to the mainstream values and acceptances, I think the little structure of this new form of family will transform the stable body of the mainstream into something else. Even if it has to lead to much pain and suffering. Like from slavery to a black president.
 
Sorry to keep the gay marriage discussion alive when I intended to leave it with my remarks above. But I decided to post this link since this editorial in today's Deseret News did a great job of summarizing many of my own feelings on the topic as I continue to support and defend traditional marriage.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...l-marriage-does-not-being-against-anyone.html

By Michael and Jenet Erickson

In the days since Utah’s Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman was struck down, Utah voters have not taken to the streets in angry protest. Some national media are concluding that Utahns are not “too upset about it” and that even “in a red state, even in a state that’s the second most religious in the country, people are OK with this.” But there’s a better explanation.

Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be. Utahns have shown in word and deed that you do not have to be against anyone to affirm the purpose of marriage — to unite children with the man and woman who made them. As one Utahn told the LA Times, “we have a message to the gay and lesbian people who live among us—we don’t hate you, it’s nothing like that. But we believe what we believe. And our conviction is strong.”

Contrast that respectful response to the angry mob that hurled insults and threats at 6-year old Ruby Bridges while U.S. Marshals escorted her to an all-white elementary school after federal courts ruled that “separate but equal” schools were unconstitutionally discriminatory. Although the gay-marriage movement is often analogized as the “civil rights issue of our day,” Utahns did not support Amendment 3 to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and their response to it being struck down shows that.

Rather than taking to the streets during the Christmas holiday, supporters of traditional marriage gathered with their families. And for most of them, the overwhelming reaction to the news about Amendment 3 was one of sadness, not anger at gays and lesbians.

Sadness for what it means to redefine — to change — the meaning of marriage from its transcendent roots across cultures and time as the union of complementary halves — the Biblical “one flesh” — to a fundamentally genderless institution.

Sadness for children, who rely on marriage as the only means to tie their fathers to their mothers and to themselves, preserving their “historical and genealogical identity in this world”

Sadness that society would assume children don’t need a mother and a father. This, in spite of the fact that decades of our best research show that children not raised by their married biological parents (e.g., divorced, step-parent, cohabiting) have, on average, twice the levels of risk for problems. And though there are few scientifically rigorous studies of same-sex parenting, larger sample studies suggest similar cause for concern.

Sadness that in changing the age-old purpose of marriage from uniting men and women, society undermines the pillars of marital prevalence, permanence and monogamy, each vital to creating a bond strong enough that “a child’s heart can rely upon it.” For though many gay and lesbian couples earnestly desire a marriage of fidelity and commitment, some advocates admit, “We lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change”

Sadness that we who are concerned about redefining marriage are publicly branded as bigots whose sole motivations are animus and malice against gays and lesbians.

Sadness that as a result, religious believers must violate their conscience or have civil claims brought against them. Take Cynthia Gifford, who rents her farm for private events. She has gay employees and once hosted a birthday party for a young man with lesbian parents. She is clearly not prejudiced. But Gifford is now being sued because she politely declined, for religious reasons, to host a same-sex marriage. Other business owners have already been punished in other states, including, for example, Oregon, New Mexico, and Colorado. A judge in New Mexico called it the “price of citizenship.”

We are conscious in writing that some may read these words and ask, “But what about the sadness that I have felt for so many years? For my loneliness and fear of being rejected before I told my family and friends that I felt attracted to the same sex? For the insults and the jokes and the careless insensitivity at school, at church, at work, and, worst of all, at home? For the noisy harangue that ‘those people’ — me — were destroying society? For tempting, debilitating thoughts that I was never good enough and that God did not love me?”

To any who may ask such questions themselves or on behalf of a loved one, we emphatically agree that must change. You or your loved ones deserve better. All are owed dignity and respect. We are grateful that much of the prejudice and mean-spirited attitudes we witnessed in our youth have diminished significantly. We also recognize that there is a long way to go.

But changing marriage is not the way. Let us work together and find the path that is. With all of the love that we can muster, we say with a clear conscience: To be for marriage, you do not have to be against anyone. There is something unique, special, and sacred about the legal union of a man and a woman. Amendment 3 codified that principle in Utah’s Constitution. To be for it, Utahans need not be against anyone.
Click to expand...
 
tl;dc

I'm sure it was very passionate and heartfelt; along the lines of Mein Kampf, tbbfhwy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
E.J. Wells said:
tl;dc

I'm sure it was very passionate and heartfelt; along the lines of Mein Kampf, tbbfhwy.
Click to expand...

Trout's tips for internet debate/discussion

1) Proclaim your own inability/lack of desire to read.

2) Compare your opponent to Hitler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top