Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Labeling Pro-Marriage Groups as 'Hateful' Must End
Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 04:56 PM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 05:05 PM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question. You cant make it equal if it isnt equal. It doesnt work. If people in civil unions have the same government benefits that people in marriages have, then somehow that's not equal?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 05:17 PM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question. You cant make it equal if it isnt equal. It doesnt work. If people in civil unions have the same government benefits that people in marriages have, then somehow that's not equal? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. What difference does the name make if the benefits are the same?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 05:29 PM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question. You cant make it equal if it isnt equal. It doesnt work. If people in civil unions have the same government benefits that people in marriages have, then somehow that's not equal? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. What difference does the name make if the benefits are the same? I just told you that the 'benefits' are not the same. If people in a civil union and people in a marriage have the same government benefits, then what difference does the name of the relationship make?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 06:42 PM
If people in a civil union and people in a marriage have the same government benefits, then what difference does the name of the relationship make? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. One group has the benefit of calling it a 'marriage' while the other does not have that legal designation. So what? If the government benefits are the same, then why fuss about the name for the relationship?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 06:50 PM
If people in a civil union and people in a marriage have the same government benefits, then what difference does the name of the relationship make? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. One group has the benefit of calling it a 'marriage' while the other does not have that legal designation. So what? If the government benefits are the same, then why fuss about the name for the relationship? indeed. so why not let them call it marriage? That way they can have the same respect and dignity. Why would people in a civil union not have the same respect and dignity?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 07:06 PM
If people in a civil union and people in a marriage have the same government benefits, then what difference does the name of the relationship make? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. One group has the benefit of calling it a 'marriage' while the other does not have that legal designation. So what? If the government benefits are the same, then why fuss about the name for the relationship? indeed. so why not let them call it marriage? That way they can have the same respect and dignity. Why would people in a civil union not have the same respect and dignity? because we are told they may not call it marriage. We are told that they are not the same. Thats what it communicates. How does a "marriage" provide a person with more respect and dignity than a "civil union" does if both have the same government benefits? If both are treated the same way by the government, then what is the problem?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 07:23 PM
because the separation encourages comments like this: The love is not the same as it is physical pleasure only, they cannot create a child. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? My love with a woman can produce a child and has been defined as such for thousands of years. LBGT people are an abomination to the Lord and an aberration of nature as even wolves will tear a “gay” wolf to shreds. What you do in your privacy is yours, Yeah, I stood with the hundreds of thousands with Chick-fil-a on Wednesday, not the paltry handful on Friday. Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Allowing same sex to marry sends the message it is normal, which it is not, to young people. Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people? When LGBT can marry, marriage will be a sham. Apparently you are not seeking equal government benefits. Instead you are seeking approval of sexual behavior from people who have theistic beliefs.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sat 08/25/12 07:35 PM Edited by Dodo_David on Sat 08/25/12 07:45 PM
Im seeking rights of all people. Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love!) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart!) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own beliefs? One Love! What about the one heart? One Heart What about - ? Let's get together and feel all right It appears to me that your goal isn't equal rights, but rather, equal acceptance.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sat 08/25/12 07:57 PM
I just will ask one question, why are you people so threatened by two people who love each other wanting to marry for? Is that gonna REALLY affect your own marriages? Leave your dogma behind for a second, what they do is NOT gonna impact your lives unless you let them. Period. I've asked that before, but no one has given an actual answer that makes sense. Me too, and me either. thats because nothing anyone says will make sense in your eyes... you feel your right and anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong, period... i have discussed this with many of you, and all i got was how wrong i am and i need to keep up with the times. if the morality of the country is going to go down the toilet, values that brought us to once be a great country, then the country deserves to swim with ****. People wonder why the country is in the shape it is in now, maybe they should take at the values that were in place in the 30's and look at the values we have now... change is not always a good thing...

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sat 08/25/12 07:59 PM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question. You cant make it equal if it isnt equal. It doesnt work. If people in civil unions have the same government benefits that people in marriages have, then somehow that's not equal? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. thats stupid...

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sat 08/25/12 08:13 PM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question. You cant make it equal if it isnt equal. It doesnt work. If people in civil unions have the same government benefits that people in marriages have, then somehow that's not equal? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. What difference does the name make if the benefits are the same? What difference does it make if they use the word marriage? How does it change marriage for you? How does it lessen the meaning of marriage for you? how does it actually affect your personal life?

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sat 08/25/12 08:20 PM Edited by singmesweet on Sat 08/25/12 08:23 PM
I just will ask one question, why are you people so threatened by two people who love each other wanting to marry for? Is that gonna REALLY affect your own marriages? Leave your dogma behind for a second, what they do is NOT gonna impact your lives unless you let them. Period. who feels 'threatened' Im not threatened by someone else eating chocolate cake all day , but that doesnt mean I would support the government promoting, encouraging, or supporting such a choice relationships are a choice, encouraging men and women to commit to each other sets a strong foundation for future children, families, and communities that will arise out of a man and a woman sharing a physical moment,,,, nothing else is 'the same', nothing else needs to be encouraged or promoted with the same passion or commitment,,,, But not everyone WANTS or has the desire to commit to the opposite sex! You are in effect telling them their love is not as good as yours because they don't love the same way, and trying to use YOUR morality to dictate what they legally can or cannot do. I don't care how you wanna try and justify it, it is flat wrong. Live and let live, it's not hard. Their love is not the same in my eyes. Why are they so threatened they have to tear down my definition of marriage? Why do you think the love between two consenting adults (who are not related) is not the same if they are the same sex? Who are you to judge what their love means, or assume it's not the same as love you could have with a woman? What makes your love with a woman mean more than a same sex couple? And since when do you own the definition of marriage? How is it changing anything for you if two people you don't approve of are allowed to marry? Does it make marriage less important for you? Does it mean less to you if you get married? The love is not the same as it is physical pleasure only, they cannot create a child. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? My love with a woman can produce a child and has been defined as such for thousands of years. LBGT people are an abomination to the Lord and an aberration of nature as even wolves will tear a “gay” wolf to shreds. What you do in your privacy is yours, Yeah, I stood with the hundreds of thousands with Chick-fil-a on Wednesday, not the paltry handful on Friday. Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Allowing same sex to marry sends the message it is normal, which it is not, to young people. Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people? When LGBT can marry, marriage will be a sham. So anyone who cannot create a child (there are straight people who cannot) can't have the same love you do? Their love means less than yours does because you could possibly create a child? Why? What about those who choose not to have children? Does their love mean less as well? Also, keep in mind that just because someone stands up for gay rights like I do, doesn't mean we're all gay. Do you think I'm gay simply because I stand up for their equal rights? Good to know I disgust you because I think for myself, rather than what the bible tells me to think. And apparently you think people like me should not be allowed to marry? Because I stand up for equal rights?

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sat 08/25/12 08:21 PM
Were you called an abomination when you were married Sir Dodo? If you did not reproduce, were you told your love was not as valuable? Were you ever called immoral when you wanted to devote yourself to the one you loved for the rest of your life? Apparently I (and those like me, like you) are an abomination and immoral and will make marriage a sham simply because we stand up for equal rights.

GreenEyes48 Joined Thu 08/26/10 Posts: 1319	Sat 08/25/12 10:36 PM
When a culture is steeped in longheld traditions and customs it's not easy to push for changes. (Of any kind.) The groups who have been in power fight "tooth and nail" to keep things the "same."...And the groups who push for changes are labeled radicals and intimidated and belittled etc...There are predictions of "dire consequences" if these groups gain any power or rights...It's been the same old story all throughout history...I'll be 64 in a few months and I've sure seen a lot of changes and revolutions during my lifetime...When the notion of change is first introduced the groups who have been in power for a long time push for "prohibition" type of laws. (To "outlaw" what they fear and detest...And to make sure they remain the "ruling class!")...But once the "train of change" starts climbing up the hill there is no "turning back." Of course the ride up won't be smooth. It will be full of "bumps" and temporary "backslides" along the way...But now that some states allow same-sex marriages it won't be easy to "stuff" everyone back in the "closet!"....It might take a lot of "kicking and screaming" and many more decades to come but at some point same-sex marriages will be commonplace across the nation. The revolution has started.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 12:05 AM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question. You cant make it equal if it isnt equal. It doesnt work. If people in civil unions have the same government benefits that people in marriages have, then somehow that's not equal? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. What difference does the name make if the benefits are the same? What difference does it make if they use the word marriage? How does it change marriage for you? How does it lessen the meaning of marriage for you? how does it actually affect your personal life? it doesnt affect my personal life if the government passed a law banning lies either, so long as Im not planning on lying but I can care about the 'bigger' picture beyond what directly or immediately affects me,,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 12:09 AM
I just will ask one question, why are you people so threatened by two people who love each other wanting to marry for? Is that gonna REALLY affect your own marriages? Leave your dogma behind for a second, what they do is NOT gonna impact your lives unless you let them. Period. who feels 'threatened' Im not threatened by someone else eating chocolate cake all day , but that doesnt mean I would support the government promoting, encouraging, or supporting such a choice relationships are a choice, encouraging men and women to commit to each other sets a strong foundation for future children, families, and communities that will arise out of a man and a woman sharing a physical moment,,,, nothing else is 'the same', nothing else needs to be encouraged or promoted with the same passion or commitment,,,, But not everyone WANTS or has the desire to commit to the opposite sex! You are in effect telling them their love is not as good as yours because they don't love the same way, and trying to use YOUR morality to dictate what they legally can or cannot do. I don't care how you wanna try and justify it, it is flat wrong. Live and let live, it's not hard. Their love is not the same in my eyes. Why are they so threatened they have to tear down my definition of marriage? Why do you think the love between two consenting adults (who are not related) is not the same if they are the same sex? Who are you to judge what their love means, or assume it's not the same as love you could have with a woman? What makes your love with a woman mean more than a same sex couple? And since when do you own the definition of marriage? How is it changing anything for you if two people you don't approve of are allowed to marry? Does it make marriage less important for you? Does it mean less to you if you get married? The love is not the same as it is physical pleasure only, they cannot create a child. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? My love with a woman can produce a child and has been defined as such for thousands of years. LBGT people like you are an abomination to the Lord and an aberration of nature as even wolves will tear a “gay” wolf to shreds. What you do in your privacy is yours, but you and your ilk disgust me and will have to wait until us baby boomers die to get your abnormal ways defined as marriage. Yeah, I stood with the hundreds of thousands with Chick-fil-a on Wednesday, not the paltry handful on Friday. Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Allowing same sex to marry sends the message it is normal, which it is not, to young people. Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people? When LGBT like you can marry, marriage will be a sham. Take your immoral views, rather you believe in God or not, and preach it to more sympathetic ears. So anyone who cannot create a child (there are straight people who cannot) can't have the same love you do? Their love means less than yours does because you could possibly create a child? Why? What about those who choose not to have children? Does their love mean less as well? Also, keep in mind that just because someone stands up for gay rights like I do, doesn't mean we're all gay. Do you think I'm gay simply because I stand up for their equal rights? Good to know I disgust you because I think for myself, rather than what the bible tells me to think. And apparently you think people like me should not be allowed to marry? Because I stand up for equal rights? no, the issue isnt INDIVIDUAL physical limitations, its GENDER limitations children can NEVER be made with homosexual activity,, children are ONLY created by heterosexual activity just like STDS Cant be passed through abstinence, STDS are ONLY created by Sex therefore, we take sex in a GENERAL sense as something to use precautions with even though not EVERYONE engaging in it will catch an STD we likewise, take HETEROSEXUAL relations, in a general sense, as something to be supported as a commitment and foundation for children even though not EVERYONE having heterosexual relations will create children,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 12:11 AM
When a culture is steeped in longheld traditions and customs it's not easy to push for changes. (Of any kind.) The groups who have been in power fight "tooth and nail" to keep things the "same."...And the groups who push for changes are labeled radicals and intimidated and belittled etc...There are predictions of "dire consequences" if these groups gain any power or rights...It's been the same old story all throughout history...I'll be 64 in a few months and I've sure seen a lot of changes and revolutions during my lifetime...When the notion of change is first introduced the groups who have been in power for a long time push for "prohibition" type of laws. (To "outlaw" what they fear and detest...And to make sure they remain the "ruling class!")...But once the "train of change" starts climbing up the hill there is no "turning back." Of course the ride up won't be smooth. It will be full of "bumps" and temporary "backslides" along the way...But now that some states allow same-sex marriages it won't be easy to "stuff" everyone back in the "closet!"....It might take a lot of "kicking and screaming" and many more decades to come but at some point same-sex marriages will be commonplace across the nation. The revolution has started. I agree, they will become as commonplace as deadbeat dads, or drug addictions,,,,once the responsibility and risks are downplayed long enough and the issue of personal 'rights' is highlighted long enough to those who wish to partake in those lifestyles,,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 12:13 AM
sidenote women fought for equal rights to men and blacks fought for equal rights to whites YET, they were able to do it without insisting they be given the same label or insisting society dont aknowledge any differences,,,, a civil union would have the 'equal' rights of a marriage, but it would not be the SAME as a marriage (Which involves a legally expected sexual element)

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 07:32 AM
sidenote women fought for equal rights to men and blacks fought for equal rights to whites YET, they were able to do it without insisting they be given the same label or insisting society dont aknowledge any differences,,,, a civil union would have the 'equal' rights of a marriage, but it would not be the SAME as a marriage (Which involves a legally expected sexual element) Thats not true. This country attempted 'separate but equal' and it didnt work. what does seperate but equal have to do with what was posted? seperate but equal was a misnomer, there was not 'equal' treatment but when rights were won,, the definition of 'white' wasnt changed to include blacks the definition of 'male' wasnt changed to include females either having a distinct name doesnt negate equality of treatment...