so I had chick-fil-a this morning

[.blank cd]

Quote me where I made a biblical argument in this thread against homosexuality.

It won't let me tag quote that much.

You can't make an argument against gay marriage without using a religious subtext.

[Sinfix_15]

It won't let me tag quote that much.

You can't make an argument against gay marriage without using a religious subtext.

Make an argument against gay people being allowed to have civil unions with all the same benefits of being married?

[bu villain]

Make an argument against gay people being allowed to have civil unions with all the same benefits of being married?

I think many people would be pretty happy with that but it's such an indirect way of doing it. If you think commited gay couples should have the same rights as "married" people, why create a new term when for the purposes of the law means exactly the same thing. It's kind of like the idea of separate but equal. If they have equal rights, why is a separate term needed? Christians can still believe marriage is only between one man and one woman but they shouldn't get to tell the state how to define marriage just as the state doesn't get to tell churchs who they can and cannot perform ceremonies for.

[Sinfix_15]

I think many people would be pretty happy with that but it's such an indirect way of doing it. If you think commited gay couples should have the same rights as "married" people, why create a new term when for the purposes of the law means exactly the same thing. It's kind of like the idea of separate but equal. If they have equal rights, why is a separate term needed? Christians can still believe marriage is only between one man and one woman but they shouldn't get to tell the state how to define marriage just as the state doesn't get to tell churchs who they can and cannot perform ceremonies for.

You answered a question with a question and i can answer it with the same question i asked you to begin with. Why change a tradition that a large portion of christians hold sacred? Why arent gay people happy with civil unions? they can be together, they can live together, they get benefits? why arent that happy with that?

Because they want the title "married". The same way christians want that title to remain between a man and woman. Who's right? neither? both?.... so there needs to be a compromise.

[bu villain]

You answered a question with a question and i can answer it with the same question i asked you to begin with. Why change a tradition that a large portion of christians hold sacred? Why arent gay people happy with civil unions? they can be together, they can live together, they get benefits? why arent that happy with that?

Because they want the title "married". The same way christians want that title to remain between a man and woman. Who's right? neither? both?.... so there needs to be a compromise.

Because marriage is both a Christian tradition and a legal status. While they share the same name and roots, they are not the same thing. Gays aren't trying to change the Christian tradition, they are trying to change the legal status definition. That's why you don't see gays protesting church's for not marrying them. In the states where civil unions have been granted, they have not had ALL the benefits of heterosexual marriage. If they did, I personally think many gays would be more willing to compromise on the terminology.

[Sinfix_15]

Because marriage is both a Christian tradition and a legal status. While they share the same name and roots, they are not the same thing. Gays aren't trying to change the Christian tradition, they are trying to change the legal status definition. That's why you don't see gays protesting church's for not marrying them. In the states where civil unions have been granted, they have not had ALL the benefits of heterosexual marriage. If they did, I personally think many gays would be more willing to compromise on the terminology.

[bu villain]

Sure, many will not be happy with anything less than "marriage" because as I said, to have two different words under the law implies they are not the same as married people. You still haven't addressed the fact that the church's definition and the legal definition don't have to be the same.

[David88vert]

Because marriage is both a Christian tradition and a legal status. While they share the same name and roots, they are not the same thing. Gays aren't trying to change the Christian tradition, they are trying to change the legal status definition. That's why you don't see gays protesting church's for not marrying them. In the states where civil unions have been granted, they have not had ALL the benefits of heterosexual marriage. If they did, I personally think many gays would be more willing to compromise on the terminology.

Interestingly, they have not had any of our state congressmen submit a resolution calling for marriage to be re-defined. They have not tried to change the law in the correct legal way at all - instead, they have mounted a media blitz and have attempted to find a way to force the federal government to override the states' rights and go outside the correct legal process that everyone else has to follow.
Don't you think that if the majority of Georgian's wanted marriage to be redefined for same-sex marriages that it would be passed? The fact is that Georgians supported the Defense of Marriage Act in 2004 overwhelmingly.

[ItODDospeed]

Interestingly, they have not had any of our state congressmen submit a resolution calling for marriage to be re-defined. They have not tried to change the law in the correct legal way at all - instead, they have mounted a media blitz and have attempted to find a way to force the federal government to override the states' rights and go outside the correct legal process that everyone else has to follow.
Don't you think that if the majority of Georgian's wanted marriage to be redefined for same-sex marriages that it would be passed? The fact is that Georgians supported the Defense of Marriage Act in 2004 overwhelmingly.

This is the exact short-sighted comment I was speaking of. If some states still had slavery, and some didn't; what kind of mess between the states would exist. GA wanted slavery, and for the topic's sake let's say it still exists. Yet, in Ohio it isn't, does the slave now have new rights in Ohio, or is he still property of the slave owner in GA? It would be too muddled if it wasn't a United State's issue as a whole - as it became, and started the only war of with our own states. It's about human rights in a free society - our society to be exact. Gay marriage has to be approved in all states, so that the same rights are in each state. Otherwise, IMO, it goes back to the Civil War, and the foundation of what caused it - equality.

[David88vert]

I think many people would be pretty happy with that but it's such an indirect way of doing it. If you think commited gay couples should have the same rights as "married" people, why create a new term when for the purposes of the law means exactly the same thing. It's kind of like the idea of separate but equal. If they have equal rights, why is a separate term needed? Christians can still believe marriage is only between one man and one woman but they shouldn't get to tell the state how to define marriage just as the state doesn't get to tell churchs who they can and cannot perform ceremonies for.

Currently, it is legally defined in each state. Just get enough people to tell their state congressman to change the law. It's that simple, but the gay community doesn't seem to be interested in doing it the proper legal way.

[bu villain]

Currently, it is legally defined in each state. Just get enough people to tell their state congressman to change the law. It's that simple, but the gay community doesn't seem to be interested in doing it the proper legal way.

What exactly are they doing that is illegal? Much of our country's application of law is not based on popular vote. Shit, I wish I got to vote on the Citizens United decision.

[David88vert]

What exactly are they doing that is illegal? Much of our country's application of law is not based on popular vote. Shit, I wish I got to vote on the Citizens United decision.

As I stated, the marriage license laws are defined at a state level. Georgia has overwhelmingly voted to clarify the definition of marriage as man-woman in 2004. There are no resolutions being promoted in the state legislature to change that. Instead, the gay community wishes to have DC override the states area of management of marriage laws and redefine it from a federal level. This is not how the structure of government was setup, nor has ever been managed like this. it is against everything the founding fathers setup.

[ItODDospeed]

As I stated, the marriage license laws are defined at a state level. Georgia has overwhelmingly voted to clarify the definition of marriage as man-woman in 2004. There are no resolutions being promoted in the state legislature to change that. Instead, the gay community wishes to have DC override the states area of management of marriage laws and redefine it from a federal level. This is not how the structure of government was setup, nor has ever been managed like this. it is against everything the founding fathers setup.

Yeah, some of the founding father's owned slaves. How did that work out for us as a country? It's a federal matter, not a state matter, or we'd still have slavery. You really don't understand history that well.