Virginia Colleges Can´t Ban Discrimination Against Gays, Says Attorney General
The Republican attorney general of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli, advised the state´s public colleges to repeal policies that protect gay people from discrimination, saying that only the state legislature can set public non-discrimination policies.
Proposals before the Virginia General Assembly to ban discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation have repeatedly failed to pass. Cuccinelli argues that state institutions can´t adopt policies rejected by the legislature.
The chairman of Virginia´s Democratic Party argues that state colleges are allowed to set their own policies. Meanwhile, gay rights groups warn that repealing anti-discrimination policies could cost Virginia´s schools good students and faculty.
Gays, Gays, Gays, Gays,!! I am just sick and freaking tired of reading about Gays. It is as though we are talking about an alien species. These are human beings and FFS whats with all these double standards America? Grow f**ng up. Either ban them and make it a crime, or live them alone, because they are a human being with a different sexual life style and funky thing is, they are so many of them, who has the right to say anything? BAH <^O^>
I´m fine with leaving them alone. The problem is, they are always pushing themselves on others. Great example: Marriage. Leave marriage alone. If they want to get married, fine, JUST CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE to distinguish between traditional hetero and homo marriage. That´s the problem: they are messing with OTHERS rights and morals, but they want to "be left alone" and be treated the same, when clearly they are not the same when it comes to marriage. Again, just for those of you who are going to knee jerk and missed my point: let them get "married", just CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE!!! That way, ***nobody is messing with anybody else***, correct???
Word marriage means synchronize, or officially it means two people who have pledged to be one unit metaphorically. That´s all. I dont see any reason why it should be exclusively used to define marriage as between man and a woman?
I can only agree with one thing only and I can explain.
Marriage amongst gays should be accepted and their vows taken seriously in the town hall and NOT the church. WHY?
Because a government is secular, church is not. One should not interfere with the other one. Thats why.
So, when gays want to get married and have all the perks and benefits, they can go to the registrar and have it done with, when they start fighting churches and synagogues thats when shit hits the ceiling, which I draw the line, for their own sake.
They are messing with my tradition, and millions of other straight Americans tradition, by using the same "word". Call it something else, perhaps just plain "mariage" with a singular "r" since marriage is from:
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry.
They could have the same rights, everything else, under "mariage". But they continue to antagonize. But you cannot DEMAND respect, you cannot DEMAND acceptance, especially when you are being antagonistic.
A boy who is allowed to join the Girl Scouts can demand to be called a Girl Scout, but has that boy really achieved the respect and acceptance that he is seeking?
Sorry you feel that way. Your traditions did not start yesterday, nor homosexuality. But your traditions have been oppressing a segment of people whom you call nontraditional from the beginning of time.
Second thought, which may seem confrontational is. Who gave you the rights to dictate whats right and wrong over another human being? You live in a country that has equal rights for all human beings.
Religious zealots on the other hand think that, numbers of people of the same religion, make up the rights and wrongs law pertinent to their religion and then shove it on the others to follow! Who the hell are you to say call it whatever you want as long as, it is not the same as tradition.
It seems like you have been brainwashed to believe what you believe in, and would not budge. You have no right on the merits of gays and lesbians, your country is secular, unless if you live in Vatican, where paedophiles roam free.
Wow are you full of it. Everything has limits, everything has boundaries. You can´t make a boy into a Girl Scout and you didn´t address this fact.
By insisting, as you are, that a totally equal institution, separate but equal, is not an acceptable alternative just proves that you are the intolerant one. Perhaps you are just a militant gay who cares about nothing and nobody except you and your own agenda.
"Equal rights" is exactly what I am suggesting. The fact that you ignore this fact suggests you have a severe deficit in logic.
Furthermore, while you suggest I am "brainwashed" for suggesting a fair compromise which would give the gay community 99.9% of what they desire, everything except a "word" or a "name", proves that you and your gay friends won´t accept anything less than domination over the straight community.
Then you go on and (once again) INSULT the Catholic church with your disgusting innuendo, is clear typical behavior from an intolerant, non boundary observing militant homosexual.
I offer compromise, you don´t get 100% of your demands and are antagonistic. You are the zealot, not me, and I´ve exposed you.
skcusswentrohs, you are a hypocrite as well. You stated "marriage is just a Word" but you won´t settle on a 99.9% compromise because you can´t have the Word as well. You are a flaming hypocrite.
Dude if I am gay, does that mean you are already on your knees and elbows and ready to be spat on? seriously at first I thought you are a sane person who can understand the ideology of equality. Now I realize that. I will be simply wasting my time, to make you realize, as a human being you have absolutely no say on how others conduct themselves, because you are present.
Nonetheless, I regress to follow this idiotic conversation and will leave you with your 99.999% stupidity alone.
Take a letter out and everything is OK to satisfy you!!? Are you out of your mind!?
you are an uncompromising arse, and don´t know the meaning of compromise. You´re the one out of your mind because you don´t even see your own hypocrisy. I compromise, then you say I "as a human being you have absolutely no say on how others conduct themselves, because you are present" yet WE should all bow down to what YOU SAY? LOL you just did more harm for your cause that any help.
Oh yeah, and before you put down the Catholic church, the same church you and your homosexual friends want to be married in. Another hypocrisy.
Go pound sand. And thanks for showing everyone who reads this thread how uncompromising you and your militant friends are.
I wonder, can you articulate the reason why you believe homosexuals who use two r´s to describe their marriage will affect you, me or any other heterosexual who is married?
I don´t think you can... not because you´re stupid, arrogant or bigoted, just because it can´t be done.
I´d like you to explain why you feel that gay people don´t deserve to use the word "marriage" simply because they´re gay. That seems like you´re advocating for one segment of society (heterosexuals) to have rights denied to another segment (homosexuals). Do you not believe in equal rights?
@mox "And I am also sick of Gay culture trying to force their beliefs down everyone´s throats." The aspect of whose ideals are forced on whom comes down to inconvenience. I would imagine you´d agree that gay people are inconvenienced by being denied marriage. Heterosexuals are not affected in the slightest by gay marriage. EVERYTHING remains the same for them. Gay people want the same rights given to all other citizens. So who´s actually having ideals forced on them in this scenario?
@The IT "They are messing with my tradition" Your "tradition"(which predates Christianity, incidentally) once included preventing blacks and whites from marrying. The Bible doesn´t even allow for non-virgin women to marry. Are you fine with these too? Traditions adapt to the times. Don´t think that marriage is an immutable concept.
"Oh yeah, and before you put down the Catholic church, the same church you and your homosexual friends want to be married in. Another hypocrisy." Actually, believe it or not, marriages can occur OUTSIDE a Christian church! You´ll find that the vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage aren´t trying to get married in a church. I fully agree that a church should retain every right to not perform any marriage they feel is inappropriate(including heterosexual marriages). This is primarily a governmental issue, since that´s where all the rights come from.
Oh, and the idea of changing one letter? What´s the point? Aside of a way to segregate a group of people using superfluous alterations?
I´ll bet you´d have different views if you had a homosexual kid.
All I´m going to say, because everyone here knows it´s right, and that you´re just a bigot trying to push at the very least SOME of your ideals against the Gay populace.
I´ve lived in the South all my life and I know for a fact that a lot of Southerners just have to have someone to hate and belittle to make themselves feel superior. Black people and gays have felt their bigotry, hatred and stupidity forever. They´ll never change; it´s in their DNA.
Just pointing out how much hate we as human have, if it is not one thing it is something else. Just a reminder how, not too long ago Blacks had no rights. less then 100 years ago Native Americans weren´t even considered Human and were slaughtered, for fun even at many places. How about the Women´s rights didn’t they just earned voting rights less then a 100 years ago. So what´s next..... Gays! Gays! Gays! Sexual orientation is in our head, it is how we perceive it.... the act of sex is meaningless if one is gay straight or what ever, it is how they engage in the act that we have put a label on .... Most every one masturbates.... dose that make him/her gay as well? think about it......
@The IT Marriage is lot older then your religion or most religion.... Marriage is a union between 2 individuals "blessed" by a few ugga bogga spells (religious or legal contracts) this has been in every culture and every religion for tens of thousands of years. So please tell me how this became specifically your tradition and who gave you authority to be the "desider" of all thing marriage. It seems more and more the folks who are staunch gay bashers are closet homo´s any way. Is this your case? So before you accuse and or condemn some one else for something you hate please consider did your religion teach you this behavior? If so what kind of God are you worshiping? Isn´t it true according to your religion every one was created by your God. If so why would god create such behavior. For his pleasure or amusement? Dose that mean your god has gay tendencies? Now are you ready and willing to condemn your god as well? Face it man your heart is filled with hate If it wasn´t gays you would have picked another category
Instead of worrying about what other consenting adults decide to label their partnership, how about protesting the 12 year old age of consent in Vatican City. Your lame argument is so obviously veiled homophobia. Pathetic.
Yeah I know man, don´t get me started on this. It´s ridiculous! And those damn women pissing all over our traditions too! Why the hell should they be able to vote? or own land? or work? Our reasonable compromises didn´t work for them either! *shakes head* It´s like every year the white male loses more and more of our elitist privelages. What is the world coming to...
Why do you feel the need to segregate gay people and straight people? Gay people getting married would have no affect on you whatsoever. I don´t see why they shouldn´t be allowed to use the word "marriage" and don´t see why they should have to compromise, all they want is to have the same rights as everyone else, we´re all human and we should all be treat the same, regardless of what gender we want to sleep with.
If you read what I said, I spelled it out clearly. I said give gays EVERYTHING they want, EXCEPT don´t call it "marriage" call it something else. Then I suggested something appropriate. Wow what a bad person I am.
But you stupid a$$ people think that I´m wrong for not giving in 100%. You twits don´t even understand politics, which is replete with compromise.
How foolish some of you are. Because of this, I´ve decided to take a harder stance. No more support for THEM, because you all have made it clear that "compromise" is not a word in their, nor YOUR gay agenda.
Where is this BIG compromise that I suggest? Distinguishing between gay marriage and homosexual marriage is such a BIG compromise? Distinguishing is NOT taking away from someone´s rights is it? Do Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have less "rights" just because they are distinguished by gender? That´s ALL I was saying, but the militant gay patrol here doesn´t understand COMMON SENSE.
It´s amazing how many stupid people there are screaming about rights violations here, when a ***distinction*** in the word "marriage" has NOTHING to do with rights.
By the way, why should I explain "why" I think this distinction is necessary, when the idiots here are too stupid to even understand that the distinction is harmless yet necessary???
your LITTERALLY defending making these people second class citizens (as many people already treat them) via their sexual oreintation.
and FYI, "your" tradition DIDN´T invent marriage... they simply took it over and called it their... married has been going on longer than religion itself...
so please (like most religious [or otherwise socially oppresive] people should) pull your head out of your ass and stop dictating how other people should live; or in this case what they should call it... when ther its ALREADY a perfectly defined word for it "marriage".
if YOU and "your tradition" want to monopolize a ``special marriage`` for only certian people than YOU and ``your tradition`` need to call it something else AND otherwise have a distiction (IE, for instance it would be a RELIGIOUS instition not a LEGAL instition, in which case THEN religion and `tradition` can monopolize it.
``Distinguishing between gay marriage and homosexual marriage is such a BIG compromise?``
why should there be a distiction they are humans just like you and me.
...and no the distinct is not nesessary its seperatist, monopolizing, oppressive bullshit.
now if you really insist (and i think you will) you can reinsert you cranium into your rectum.
Just as two wrongs dont make a right, forcing people to watch anything against their own free will, or to be exact watch gay movies makes me ´ick!
It is this kind of laws, and people who make the likes of "The It" galvanize their stance against homosexuals.
As is "The It" wrong! So is this New Hampshire law, which in return I will call it what it is. Total Bullscrap.
The thing that really gets me is. Is this America? Since, when these kinds of things happen in Middle East, or China, Iran etc etc, you hear all kinds of names from the Americans, only for them to do worst! Is this the freedom you Americans tout about, while forcing people against their will for a propaganda!!? No wonder ´The It´ is frothing from his mouth.
Don´t feed the trolls, this topic is too good to get people going.
No matter which way you try to decode this, each person is going to have their own view of it. Just like the freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, and the separation of church and state.
Almost every idiot out there is going to bend it to make their point of view work for them, and take each one of those articles of the United States Constitution out of context and leave the rest behind.
Here are the problems I see: You have gay and lesbian PEOPLE trying to get married. Marriage is naturally defined (if you´re following religion) as between a man and woman. If you aren´t, it is a union between two people.
Problem #1: Religion
Marriage also provides certain ´perks´ in the United States, one of them being tax breaks, another being allowed to add them to health insurance. Among many others of course.
Problem #2: Government and Corporations
As far as those religious organizations using scare tactics saying it will be taught in school... It is only a matter of time before it will be anyway, get used to it.
It is like pedophilia in Churches, it was only a matter of time that it would be exposed.
Get over it, get used to it, it is going to happen, it is only a matter of time. And NO, I am not gay so try to keep your slander to yourself when responding.
Th problem with your compromise is that it makes this out to be like the gay commuinity is having a favour done for it; which is incorrect. This is about righting a wrong. Its like negotiating with a criminal to get back all the things he stole from you and he turns round and says "yeah sure you can have it all back... except this tv. You can have all the other tv´s except this one, which is mine."
Just like the criminal you have no right to offer up a lame compromise. Homosexuals are entitled to be viewed exactly like the rest of us under law. You may think this all or nothing mentality is too strong but if you really have no issue with homosexuality then why should it have the slightest impact on your life? They just want the same rights the rest of us have.
I just want you to have a look at my point of view.
Do not feel offended or pleased as it is just one opinion from one guy.
I see Marriage as something that evaluaded long time ago. Before it made you benefit from state or gouvernment. It was a church thing. I think we all agree with that, right?
Now some say that is my tradition and some say we want that right too, f**k your tradition.
I don´t care about tradition but I think it is everybodies right to have them and to live them as long as they do not harm others.
When it comes to gay people in marriage it is just obviously that the gouvernment has to give those who live in a form that is like a marriage the right and the chance to pronaunce themselves as married. Equal rights for every one. To make up a new word here wich is exclusivly for gays whould mess with the believe of equality.
But in church it is different. We all have the right to choose a riligion that fits our believes. And we all have the chance to change the believes in community. But if a church does not have the same idiology as you have than it might just be the wrong church. If you don´t mind killing the bugs on your plants - you are no buddhist. If you love a good piece of beef- you are no hindi And if you love your one gender in a speacial way - you might be no catholic
I just want to point out that you can belief in whatever you want. Maybe you just should look for a group of people with the same view. Stop forcing the Majority to switch their believes just have your own places to go or accept that you can not marry in church.
You neither can force a muslim to let you in the church with only a bikini on. Or try to make a priest holding a ceremony for Rah, Alah and Wishnu while dancing a Rain-Dance. That is just not what they believe in.
Gay marriage isn´t about the state forcing churches to carry out weddings they don´t condone or believe in. No statute in the U.S. that allows gay marriage (in several states and in Washington D.C.) tells churches they must perform the ceremonies.
I believe gay marriage should be as legal as straight marriage. I would adamantly oppose any attempt, however, to force churches into performing gay marriages if that goes against their beliefs. For the record, there´s at least one group, the Unitarians, who do perform gay marriages. I´m pretty sure I´ve heard of other Christian churches that perform marriage.
It´s not really that different than a straight atheist couple getting married. A church wouldn´t want to perform the ceremony and the couple likely wouldn´t want it anyway, so they generally have a civil ceremony presided over by a state official. This is nothing new.
Marriage isn´t exclusively a religious ceremony. One needn´t be a member of any faith to get married. If we´re going to disallow gay marriage over religion, we´d better start banning atheists from marrying, too.
1. I don´t care if you are straight or gay- but please do not display affection in front of me. I don´t do it to you- please give me the same courtesy. It´s great that you are proud but don´t get in my face to prove it. Maybe if everyone didn´t make such a big deal out of being gay, it would soon be more accepted. 2. Christianity teaches you not to judge. Don´t blame it on the belief when the true error is in the human interpretation. 3. I, not caring if I am politically correct, feel that homosexuality is wrong. While I do not care to detail my thoughts, I believe it to be much like pedophilia. I do not hate gay people- I actually don´t care what your preference is. It´s not my place to care. My beliefs are for me and me alone. They are my rule book- not yours. For example: I don´t like some food so I don´t eat it. If you want to, go ahead but don´t try to shove it down my throat just because you think it will make me like it more 4. IT- what you are suggesting is not comromise any more than having segregated water fountains and bathrooms. Stop putting up dividers. Exactly what would we gain from creating a new word with the same benefits?
"1. I don´t care if you are straight or gay- but please do not display affection in front of me. I don´t do it to you- please give me the same courtesy. It´s great that you are proud but don´t get in my face to prove it. Maybe if everyone didn´t make such a big deal out of being gay, it would soon be more accepted."
Hmm, because you are around other people, they should refrain from being affectionate, maybe you should stay at home and suffer alone from your Agoraphobia, you wont die from it, so stay at home.
Because showing affection to my partner is the way I express my love and respect, regardless of who is around me. Mind you. I am not condoning, or influencing, nor suggesting that people of any sexual orientation grope and start sucking and Rucking into each other in public places. I am saying the usual perks hetero have enjoyed all along with no consequences, like, hugging, kissing on the cheeks, stroking (upper head) hair, holding hands. Nothing of heavy panting and gyrating on someones lap, hetero or homo.
"2. Christianity teaches you not to judge. Don´t blame it on the belief when the true error is in the human interpretation."
I agree, we cant say all Christians are paedophiles because of few thousand priests molesting children all over the world, it is their LOW self esteem; not Bible´s! And of course Christianity does not Judge at all. {Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)} Or {For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)} Of course this is not judging, just laying down the cause and effects of what will happen to homos. If anyone, or any apologists says that, this verse does not address homosexuality is to blatantly ignore it´s obvious meaning.
"3. I, not caring if I am politically correct, feel that homosexuality is wrong. While I do not care to detail my thoughts, I believe it to be much like pedophilia. I do not hate gay people- I actually don´t care what your preference is. It´s not my place to care. My beliefs are for me and me alone. They are my rule book- not yours. For example: I don´t like some food so I don´t eat it. If you want to, go ahead but don´t try to shove it down my throat just because you think it will make me like it more."
I, Agree again!! WoW! I just have one problem though. I like to be affectionate (As mentioned above) dont stare at me as I hug my partner, mind your own business and dont dare tell me, or ask me to sit somewhere else, because you have your children and you dont want them to see same sex kissing, or hugging. If you expose your children to that kind of life style, they will not become the ardent followers, but it will only appear to them as a natural thing to see. They, nor you will have a tongue, or in this matter any object shoved down your throat. If you can not be tolerant this public world is not a place for you to be. Because so far it is only about... Me, Me, Me, Me, Me. and what I, I, I, I want.
Learn to live with others who are not violent to you in anyway, they are not forcing you to be what you dont want to be, they are not ostracizing you because of your sexual orientation, or your ugly face {another form of psychological violence}, or how fat you appear.
Be a human being and hate violence of any form, or reason.
"4. IT- what you are suggesting is not comromise any more than having segregated water fountains and bathrooms. Stop putting up dividers. Exactly what would we gain from creating a new word with the same benefits? "
I like this one. Kettle calling Pan, Black. Or a classic paradox.
Pssst: Please stop with this drivel as well "feel that homosexuality is wrong. While I do not care to detail my thoughts, I believe it to be much like pedophilia." Lesbians have not been known to be pedophiles... ooops! Yea I forgot you dont JUDGE.
Before you write me off as something I am not, please try to read without anger. I assure you that there are no negative thoughts in my post.You have misunderstood the points that I was trying to make-I am not perfect so please forgive me for not making myself perfectly clear. First of all, I do not mean that a quick kiss, hug, or other respectable show of affection offends me. We are on the same page there. I do not like the groping and heavy affection. That goes for straight or gay- as I mentioned and you copied. Sorry that I didn´t clarify this enough. I momentarily forgot to cover every base when you post of a sensitive nature on here. Some people will strike at you without even trying to understand what you are saying. On the second note about judging, you are totally correct. I said it is not my place to judge because I am not perfect myself. I am a simple human who has no right to judge. Oh- and quoting Bible verses out of context can be done by anyone. The truth is, it doesn´t say you have the right to punish anyone- If you want to look up some more, try "log in your eye" It will lead to to a fairly widely ignored verse that pretty much tells you that you can´t judge anyone else because you have things in your life that need to be taken care of. God, according to my beliefs, is the one who will judge right from wrong. let´s take that point into the third statement. I do not care what you do. I have nothing against you. Your sexual preference has nothing to do with me and has absolutely no bearing on our relationship. Just because I don´t partake or want to watch does not make me a bigot-unless you feel that me not wanting to make out with a woman makes me one (and that would put this discussion on a whole other level). When I refer to "my rulebook" I am saying that these are my guidelines. This is the way I live my life. I do not apply these to you because you are not me and it is unfair to expect everyone to see things the exact same way that I do. Besides, I am not 100% rigth all the time and do not pretend to be. I find it refreshing to hear different opinions and learn why people feel the way they do. I really don´t know of any other way to explain it. I am thinking that maybe you are so used to being judged that it is hard for you to let your guard down. Is that the case? I mean honestly- I don´t always do the right thing- I sin daily. I would hope that others wouldn´t condemn me for it. I try to do the right thing- but humans are not meant to be perfect. While my friends and I don´t agree on everything- we accept each other´s differences. I don´t see your race, religion, or your sexual preference as a prerequisite of how I will treat you. You are a human just like me and deserve basic courtesy and respect until you prove me wrong.
Now, tell me something- can you honestly tell me that you didn´t see the word "christian" and judge me just a little bit before you read my post? Had you already made up your mind on the tone of your reply and what kind of person you think I am?
I would say, your tone is unacceptable in this forum. You must extreme and unforgiving... inpatient and snooty... snappy and moody. Use big words, large brushes that compartmentalize all individuals as groups with no souls or feelings... saying things like, "darwin strikes again" when you read about a child getting killed. Use "pundit" words like "cronies" or "agenda"... But never use reason. No, that will not do. Anyway, I do agree with you some of the things you say and your honesty is sharp. But i would like to say this: what i find perverse is creating an identity based on what kind of sex you want to have with whom. Then wearing that as your only value; your reason to be. Then wearing that badge as you go around letting others wallow in your sexual desires. Promiscuous people also do this and it is as equally disturbing and creepy.
Are you having fun making up lies? Could you explain what I have said that is unacceptable? Better yet, can you tell me anytime that I have mentioned darwin <besides right here?
It´s not a compromise when only one side gives something up. When someone can tell me how heterosexuals are harmed, or even inconvenienced, by gay marriage, I´ll hear arguments on gays taking something REAL from them. When someone can explain why we need to have redundant, "99.9%" identical systems of legal marriage just to make a fragment of the population feel better, I´ll hear arguments for "separate but equal" laws. I´ll even ignore that such systems have been rejected by our country when older prejudices became less fashionable.
But frankly, I´ve never seen anyone demonstrate either, so all this racket about tradition seems pretty childish. Billy has a toy and when his parents realize that it´s only fair that his younger brother have one too, Billy breaks his brothers toy so he can feel special about his again. Nevermind that the his toy didn´t change in the slightest at any point...
"That´s the problem: they are messing with OTHERS rights and morals, but they want to "be left alone" and be treated the same, when clearly they are not the same when it comes to marriage."
Wow I have so many things to say and people to agree with it is making me dizzy. It is not the word marriage that has most people against gay marriage at all, it is the excuse that is used so someone doesn´t seem homophobic. A few claimed it was the word, repeating it over and over, yet is constantly saying "THEM" or "in front of me" or even "in the churches" all of which shows what the real problem is for them.
Marriage, the act and the name, does not come from churches or religions even though it might make some sleep better at night buying that falsehood. Also, not everyone that has gotten married has done so in a church or because of religion. One of the problems with the religious trying to hold onto the term marriage is that the churches all gave it up when each state and the federal government adopted the word to become the legal term for a couple to use to describe their relationship and the benefits they obtain from the legal procedure.
When you look at a marriage without all the emotion that some want to attach to the word, a marriage to the government is no different than pulling the correct permit while doing work on your house. How can I say this? Because it is a legally binding contract in the laws eyes. The law doesn´t care if the people getting married are Christian, Pagan, Athiest, Jewish, Gnostic, Agnostic or followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now any US Citizens who follow any of the previous religions (or not) can walk into the County Courthouse and for a fee fill out a Marriage License if they are not already married and within a set amount of days have someone who is recognised by the state to perform this legal procedure. Once that is done they are now given certain protections by their state and the US Government.
Since there is a seperation of church and state we now come to the actual problem and that is that we are denying citizens of this country the right to certain protections under a legal contract because they are homosexual, nothing else except they are involved in a same-sex relationship, something that is not the Governments business to intervene with.
I do have one suggestion for those that are saying why can´t they just call it something else, why don´t the religious make a new word for the ceremony the church will give them? You can´t keep the word marriage because it is now tied hand and hand with a legal procedure. Heck I have one idea of what it can be called for the church ceremony, I have heard those who are well read in the bible say this enough so it must be a really good term...instead of having a marriage you can Shack Up! Works for me.
As BB has already said it, it is not about Christianity. For that we have COG to argue with, when he drops his links..</JK> And as you have realized the sentiment is equality amongst us, nothing to do with sexual preference. I hate gays and straight alike, because they are human beings.
The moment I attach my own life style as better, or superior and because of numbers, I opine to have others self respect reduced to nothing, than it makes me an oppressor.
You are now embarking on the right path. A path that chooses equality without attaching any preferences to it. If you start realizing that you may have said something that does not stand well, or is getting misconstrued and you are trying to clarify it, it means you can take the heat, engage in a dialogue and as someone had said, right the wrongs.
I would have said the same thing to a Muslim, jew, YOU, or a voodoo priest. Besides, why are hetero sexual assuming that they have the rights and only they can relinquish to chose whom they want?
This is where you realize the stem point of such bigoted ideology is coming from. Religion.
Because religious people, despite looped argument of "Judge Not" they simply cant heed to their advice. They are so busy focusing on implementing their pseudo religious rights, that they forget they are not above others, no matter who the hell they think they are, colourful, or not.
And Thank you for not resorting to childish name calling the way "THE IT" has displayed his inept arrogance.
"It was a church thing. I think we all agree with that, right?
Now some say that is my tradition and some say we want that right too, f**k your tradition."
no, its not a church thing; that´s someone church people tell church goers... christians MADE it a church thing... they didn´t come up with the concept... much like virtually everything about christianity (and modern and past religions in general) claimed from previous cultures.
the earliest record (known) marriage laws were in the code of hummurabi... LONG before your traditions claimed this concept for their own.... MORE THAN 400 years BEFORE the old testament (and hence before mosiac law)... and marriage existed LONG before that... but it was a LEGAL (not religious) insititution even back then BEFORE it was claimed for religion.
so in short the belief that marriage is a religious concept is completely born of ignorance, and perpetuated by religious fervor... and long since enforced by church and bible endorsed violence, and more recently by laws based on religion (which in the US and many countries is unconstitutional).
" Stop forcing the Majority to switch their believes just have your own places to go or accept that you can not marry in church."
they´re not... sadly and pathetically they are having to legistlate common sense, civilized basic tolerance of other people.
they can still get marries by judges and other groups... i almost got married outside of a courthouse in sourthern north carolina; strictly because i oppose the church (and religion to such the degree that i do)... but there are church that are tolerant enough to marry gays... and they are being held back by unconstitutional amendmants by the religious right that believe they have the right ot oppression gays.... hell in many states (they also tried pushing it federally) your technically not even allowed to run for public office unless you have some kind of religious beleif in a "supreme being"... whether or not its still enforced (and i´m not sure if it is) or not is irrelevent it was another case of the religious majority unconstitionally oppressing the people, even if they were a minority... as if that makes them lesser people.
We all do things that others don´t necessarily agree with. But that does not give any person in power (or anyone else for that matter!)the right to restrict or brand anyone according to their own feelings. It is human nature lean toward the tendancy to try to be heard and voice our own “truth” otherwise we wouldn’t all be debating and sharing our thoughts on the internet. It is how we learn. But to force these thoughts on others is wrong. Laws should only be made to protect the people and keep order- not restrict things that do not affect anyone but those persons involved. The only reason that marriages are (or should I say reason they can/should be) performed in churches is so that the believers can have the blessings of God. It allows them to have a holy ceremony in line with their beliefs. This is very important to many of faith. But this is where it gets a little sticky- I am not opposed to the residing official (within a church) to having the choice over whether or not they will perform the ceremony - if it is something that the offical feels is outside of the will of God. In cases like this, you probably wouldn’t want to go to have the blessings from that church anyway. There are so many variations and denominations of religion that I am sure if you really want to get married in a church, you can. Otherwise, you have many other ceremony options including the courthouse, outside or even Elvis if you desire. :)
"But to force these thoughts on others is wrong. Laws should only be made to protect the people and keep order- not restrict things that do not affect anyone but those persons involved."
Who is forcing whom? The directionality of your post is double edged, it can lean on either way. May I ask you to further expound who is trying to force the other?
So far it appears that STRAIGHT CHRISTIANS are imposing their will and forcing their divine law down other peoples throat. Am I right?
You questioned my quote below: "But to force these thoughts on others is wrong. Laws should only be made to protect the people and keep order- not restrict things that do not affect anyone but those persons involved."
Ok- discriminating against gays or anyone else is wrong. Just because you are not gay or do not agree with it does not give you the right to treat them any differently than anyone else. I love you for who you are- not who you sleep with. If a gay couple wants to get married and you are straight, it really has no effect on you. There shouldn´t be a question of whether or not they can marry. Making up different rules for people because of their sexual orientaion only divides us further and is not right. Now the people that are forcing thier ideas on others are not just christians. There are many people from all walks of life that do this.
"Now the people that are forcing thier ideas on others are not just christians. There are many people from all walks of life that do this."
In this case it is Christians, besides two WONGS dont make A WIGHT, just because hate is apparent in all walks of life, doesnt mean hating is OK because all bigots and zealots do it.
Two wrongs never make a right. But I still don´t think that christians are the only people who have issues with it. I´ve met athiests that have a real problem with it as well. Some just can´t get past their own feelings and accept that we are all just people.
"but there are church that are tolerant enough to marry gays... and they are being held back by unconstitutional amendmants by the religious right that believe they have the right ot oppression gay"
Church cant allow, nor have a leniency to the opposite of its doctrine, in their circle thats blasphemy. Priests on the other hand for being PC, tend to turn a blind eye.
Churches are not secular and are not bound constitution. Thats why one of the amendments is "The Right To Worship Any religion"
You are partly right. The "religion" of "Christianity" did not invent marriages, and marriage existed long before the "religion" of "Christianity". Adam and Eve were the first two people, they were married, but they were not in the "religion" of "Christianity". They had no religion because they knew God through relationship, not rituals (which is what true Christianity is). Now, their marriage was set in place by YHWH, the same (and only true) God that Christians worship.
"LONG before your traditions claimed this concept for their own.... MORE THAN 400 years BEFORE the old testament (and hence before mosiac law)..."
Partly correct. Do you realize that Moses didn´t "invent" the Old Testament? He was simply the one to put it into writing. So marriages in the Old Testament happened long before The Mosaic Law and the Hammurabi Code... invented by YHWH, the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Since Christianity (relationship with Him through Jesus) is only what YHWH accepts as His own, marriage is a Christian thing.
Redheadedwonder- "But I still don´t think that christians are the only people who have issues with it. I´ve met athiests that have a real problem with it as well."
I couldn´t agree with you more. In my experience, I´ve met far more non-Christians, and many Atheists who hate gays than Christians that do. I´ve never met a Christian who hates gays. Christians living according to the Spirit of God don´t hate gays or anybody for that matter. It´s the sin we hate.
If we keep on circling, we may end up circumventing the real issue and start pointing on issues that are irrelevant, which is religion.
I really dont worry about your faith, but, what the other lumpen is referring to as "SIN".
Semantics game is not what I am prepared to play, subtly asserting your rights by a perpetual loop of words.
We abhor inequality of any form, or from any religion, whether it is by atheist, or YHWH.
@COG: " So marriages in the Old Testament happened long before The Mosaic Law and the Hammurabi Code... invented by YHWH, the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Since Christianity (relationship with Him through Jesus) is only what YHWH accepts as His own, marriage is a Christian thing."
COG I wonder if you know that your elbows are attached to your forearms and Bi/triceps and not to your gluteus maximus. If YHWH is the God of Islam and Judea, marriage has to be NON-Christian, or of all religion. This is the subtle game that I refuse to play.
Your religion hates the homosexual sin, I have already pasted the verse above, unfortunately it does not stop there, it continues to ostracize those who are deemed Gay.
I was wondering how do you penalize a sin and not a sinner in your religion, since as an apologist, you are painting a rosy picture of your religion and its knowledge of defining the difference between sin and a sinner.
You said: " I´ve never met a Christian who hates gays. Christians living according to the Spirit of God don´t hate gays or anybody for that matter. It´s the sin we hate." This BullsCrap is offensive to this verse
{** ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." ** Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."} So a question looms, who is going to be put to death, after sleeping with the same sex?
It is this BS that riles a debate of word. Christians dont hate gays, they only hate the SIN !! I dont know which Bible you follow, and as these verses are mainly from Old testament, you may as well exclude them as non-Christian, or the God of OT is stupid GOD according to you!
Haters will find all kinds of excuses to differentiate between two extreme to suit them. Reality is, those who hate Gays, it is because of their religion 1st and foremost, then, they continue to spread their arrogance by splitting words, they further hoodwink masses into believing thats not what they mean, but their actions are exactly the same of all haters.
IT IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION PEOPLE. JUST STOP F**NG HATING OTHERS BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Regardless of your faith, and we wont have issues.
"Church cant allow, nor have a leniency to the opposite of its doctrine, in their circle thats blasphemy. Priests on the other hand for being PC, tend to turn a blind eye."
not every church or priest is as intoleratant as yours
"Churches are not secular and are not bound constitution. Thats why one of the amendments is "The Right To Worship Any religion"
but that doesn´t mean the right to force your religion on other people, nor your version of religious beleifs.
and if religions cannot be tolerate of the people around them give me one good reason why religion itself should be tolerated?, or moreover being given preference treatment (tax exemptions both for business and personal).
@COG
"Adam and Eve were the first two people, they were married, but they were not in the "religion" of "Christianity"."
for one... good luck proving that as A) it defies all scientific observation of evolution (not to mention that creating eve from adam is not only IMPOSSIBLE but illogical fro mthe get go to ANYONE that know ANYTHING abouyt biology and genetic; which they obviously didn´t when the bible was written), and B) the only source that mention that is AFTER marriage was already a LEGALLY BINDING institution of LAW.
marriage was historically a tribal things trading sons and daughters for resources or peace... and this was LONG before religion was EVER a part of marriage... aagin religion claimed marriage not invented it.
"Partly correct. Do you realize that Moses didn´t "invent" the Old Testament? He was simply the one to put it into writing. So marriages in the Old Testament happened long before The Mosaic Law and the Hammurabi Code"
agian no its not look it up there a 400 year gap when the code of hummurabi was law and BEFORE the old testmaent.... like it or not your religion is not the center of the universe (nor the force driving it).
" Since Christianity (relationship with Him through Jesus) is only what YHWH accepts as His own, marriage is a Christian thing."
marriage happened in religions predating christianity and ALL hebrew based religion....
again and i can´t put this any more bluntly:
RELIGION STOLE THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE.
thats the bottom line and we both know you can´t disprove that because the proof of it itself it older than ALL hebrew religions.
" I´ve met far more non-Christians, and many Atheists who hate gays than Christians that do. I´ve never met a Christian who hates gays."
no, because oppressing people is showing love... oh wait that CONTEMPT AND HATE...
dress it up, and sugar coat it all you want its hate... abnd yes there are atheists that gays gays but if you think there are more (or even portionately more) gay hating athiests than gay hating christian you just blind (as you are too so many thing related to or someone connecting with religion.
hell i´ve even been called a fudge packer among other things on SN by christians just because they hate gays (mostly because the bible said for them to, or because their parents said so based on their religion) and me defending them having equal rights.... so don´t tell me christians don´t hate gays because many of them most certianly do.
you do know lying (baring false witness) is a sin right?, or do you just now know better... i´m sure all the christians there are any more moral and tolerate than they are here, infact given the social difference in canada and the US one would logically think it would be the other way around.
and for that matter gay-hatred typically only comes from 2 places; religion, and insecurity via homophobia.... so again it comes down to hatred and contempt, beit from religious influence or of because of something in themselves (fear of being gay or admitting to being gay)... most other people have absolutely no problem with gays unless its directly and unwillingly being forced on them (which it isn´t).
why it is so hard to understand that while you don´t agree with something that someone else does, you can still feel that they are equal. Same thing with me and my husband- we don´t agree on everything but we are still completely in love. Skcus- surely you know that everything is not black and white. You don´t have to hate someone because their views are different from yours. *note: when I say "you" or "your" I am not pointing at you. It is generic.* I am not the one that is circling. You apparently cannot accept my stand on this. I have stated many times the same thing in different ways yet you continue to chop it apart looking something to argue about and find fault with. For some reason, it seems that you want to make me seem that I oppose your views even though we are 95% on the same page. I am not hiding some evil agenda.
We agree 95%. The other one says "I cant get 100%" they reserve their hate and they should also have a place in society.
What is wrong with you people? Are you even trying to understand this situation and what is it that we are demanding? Yes, I said demanding.
You disagree to their EQUALITY and you still love them as equal!! Because you have reserved your 5% to disqualify them as complete Equal and we should say, something is better than nothing since we are gay and thank you for giving us at least 95%!?
@Havoc: I can see that you had to do some thing that we are akin to. i.e. THINK! and the best you could come up with is "not every church or priest is as intoleratant as yours"?? OR "but that doesn´t mean the right to force your religion on other people, nor your version of religious beleifs"
Force my religion?? I dont know, if you wanted to reply intelligibly, or just spew whatever that comes out of that BONG. OK! Pass it Bro and leave it down for few days... It is impairing your thinking.
in fairness it did seem like you were defending their "right" to discriminate... the only one clue in your post thatyou were lumping yourself in with them and i had to re-read it to notice it, that being "in their circle".
i don´t keep tabs on people´s religious affiliation unless its really that blatant, so thats my bad for lumping you in with them, but i still stand by my point that not all churches and priests are as intolerant to gays as other churches/priests, some will in fact marry gays... as well as my point about religion and its inherient beleifs not being forced on others.
I believe they are 100% equal. They are people. All people are equal.I said we (me and you) agree 95%. Those are two different things and I have told you that many times. I am not reserving hate. The five percent we don´t agree on is christianity. People disagree on things every day. I myself don´t reserve a little hate every time someone disagrees with me. There are people that I love dearly that are gay. I do not define someone by who they sleep with. It is none of my business. The disagreement has NOTHING to do with their equality.
Redheadedwonder- I want to thank you for keeping and discussing this in a mature and rational manner, you are one of the people of faith (Ben is another) that I have talked to on here before that isn´t up in onces face which turns many off, me included, and you said something on the caffinated reply that has made me think a little more and understand why some hold marriage as hetero and religious.
"The only reason that marriages are (or should I say reason they can/should be) performed in churches is so that the believers can have the blessings of God. It allows them to have a holy ceremony in line with their beliefs. This is very important to many of faith."
I am in no way attacking your beliefs and yet I feel like I have to say that because of how touchy this subject tens to be for all involved. I was speaking of the process to get the legal forms for a marriage ceremony and how state and federal government use the term marriage for tow people that have entered into a contract. You have pointed out, and I am not sure if it was intentional or not, why some Christians feel a Marriage is for religious reasons, and at the same time shows why Marriage should be for anyone that is of legal age regardless of sex.
You said so that the believers can have the blessings of God and that it allows them to have a holy ceremony in line with their beliefs and how important it is to the faithful. If that was why and what (the law) holds true for a marriage then mine and many others are not legally married. I did not have my wedding in a church and I wasn´t blessed by God during my wedding. I was married in a building that had A-Z for any party or wedding, which they did a LOT of weddings. I had my DJ there, I had a dance floor and tables for my guests and while the wedding was going on the DJ played the march and the song we chose for the presentation, which was done by a local Judge that I am aquainted with. The picture is pretty clear for anyone reading this.
Heck I felt married the minute my husband arrived in my town(we met online when it wasn´t the in thing to do, hell we weren´t even looking for a partner) so because I could have went into any church and have my relationship blessed would that then mean I was married and I wouldn´t have to spend all the money that the government and wedding industry rapes from tens of thousands of couples each year. Their other profitable deal is the legal divorce which means the contract the two people were legally bound to was ended.
Marriage when you break it down isn´t about anything else than a legal contract to start a partnership(like many business partners agree to daily) and it gives protection to the couple and any children you might have(now you make more money as a single parent though, that is another legal cash cow for the government but lets not go there yet). When you are tired of being partners you then go to the court to dissolved the partnership and any protections you may have had from the contract. Like I said before the word Marriage is no longer a religious word only(if it ever was) because it is used to describe the type of partnership you are entering into, again insert the word business and it becomes clear, and set up the legal protections for said Marriage/Business.
Skcus- that feels much better- you´re welcome and thank you. :)
BB- I´m gonna get you for that ;)
Tara- The ceremony that is performed to wed is all about preference in my eyes. We all have to do the paperwork and such and it is that that really gets us where we are trying to go. It doesn´t really matter where the ceremony is done- or even if it is done at the courthouse- we agree that it is a legal contract. My husband and I were married in a wedding chapel in Gatlinburg Tennessee. It was a gorgeous place but still had an ordaned minister which was what I wanted. I am fairly positive that no actual church sessions occur there! While marriage is not owned by the church, the symbolism and tradition of the church wedding is treasured by many. But it is only one of several different venues that are more of a celebration of a new beginning than anything if you ask me. Awhhh...
redheadedwonder- I am replying to your comment that it isn´t only Christians that are against Gay marriage. You are 100% right and the hatred and stupidity comes from all or no religions, class in life, color, sex or age.
General: I have said this too many times to count in my life and to a few of the idiots that are listed above, I do not care what race, sexuality, class my neighbors are because I will offer my hand out in friendship. I will NOT however stand by and watch spousal abuse, child abuse or any dangerous activity that will harm someone living there or my home and land. I want to live in a safe area for myself and my nieghbors as well as keeping the area nice and safe for any potential buyers of any homes in the area including mine eventually. Gay couples just in themselves are the least of my worries.
Skcuss- "So a question looms, who is going to be put to death, after sleeping with the same sex?"
Ok this will be said in humor for those that can´t squeeze a dime between their cheeks. Skcuss it only said mankind with mankind like womenkind and not the opposite, so if those verses are right us women are free and clear to have all the women we want since it didn´t mention who we(womenkind) were allowed to lay with. Also since it said lieth with does that mean sex anywhere in the house as long as I am not laying down is acceptable?
"But it is only one of several different venues that are more of a celebration of a new beginning than anything if you ask me. Awhhh..."
I can agree with that. I see less church weddings and more weddings being held in places that make the occasion "theirs" or "different" and that is partially why we had ours as we did. The other thing is I was planning our wedding on a very small budget, mostly by choice. I am a tightwad at heart and I looked around to find deals that would give us the "offical" married tag and would then turn into the celebration of the 3 of us getting married(my oldest just turned 4 at the time and insisted she was also married) and having our friends and family there to have a good time. It is funny because almost 11 years later I still have people telling me our reception was the best ever. In total I spent under $5,000 with most of that actually going towards the booze instead of the food. I will have to tell that story one day.
it means you women should have sex with as many women and men as you like, so long as both of you aren´t laying down at the time the sex is taking place. Also, I have it on good authority that women should have sex with men and women at the same time... preferably at a ratio of 2 or more women to 1 man, per occurrence. ;)
Every human being has rights! Some do not deserve it but they still have rights. I don´t care if you are a transvestite, gay, bi, or even swing off the light shades. So if you have got yellow spots and a runny nose I wil treat everyone with the respect they rightly deserve. UNLESS they are mistreating me or my loved ones. But I am often frowned upon for this in my Daily life, but I don’t care because I know I am right! :P
Missed out on my say.
Grabs ice cold water to throw over Skcus. Is that better? :)
I wonder how you would argue for first cousins, or brother and sister, or even brothers to get married. After all, is this not the same argument? People should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as they love each other?
Let´s take the brother/sister instance. Should they not be married because it´s disgusting? I think that a lot of straight people find gay sex to be disgusting, so I guess we can´t use this as an argument. How about the fact that a brother/sister team should never reproduce. Well, then, homosexual couples can´t reproduce, so I guess we can´t keep them apart for that either. So, just to play devil´s advocate for a moment, why exactly is it that we should allow same sex marriage, but not allow brother/sister marriage?
How about having more than one spouse? Is that more troubling than homosexual marriage? And yet it´s illegal for some reason.
Incest laws were first put on the books because of religious morality, but we´ve learned that there´s also a good scientific argument against incest -- offspring tend to have genetic disorders.
Plus, let´s be real -- it´s not like there´s a nationwide community of siblings out there clamoring for the right to marry. Obviously the gay community is different, and rightly so.
This is the same old "what if a guy wants to marry his horse" argument. First of all, exactly how did people come up with that idea in the first place, and what does that say about them? I always have to laugh at the totally perverted hypotheticals put forth by so-called family-values conservatives.
Second of all, you don´t see protests of men and horses saying they want the right to marry. You don´t see that with people and their dogs, or their siblings, or children, or whatever. What we *are* seeing is pairs of consenting adults who think they should be allowed to walk into a courthouse and be pronounced married by a Justice of the Peace. I continually fail to see how that would unravel the fabric of our society.
I absolutely agree. People should be allowed to marry whomever they want. But at the same time, I hvae to put forward that 20 years ago, homosexuality was considered a perverted and immoral thing, and the gays woudl never have dared to clamor for the right to marry each other. The same thing applies right now to, using your example, the man who wants to marry his horse. It´s all a matter of what is socially acceptable. In 20 years, there may very well be a group of men clamoring to marry their horses.
To be more realistic about it, though, consider that technology is advancing very rapidly, and that recent times have seen more than a few of these robotic sex-dolls surface on the market. If you think these are somewhat realistic now, just wait until 20 years from now, when thye may be able to cook, clean, babysit the kids, wash the car, go grocery shopping, etc. Then there may very well be a very loud group of people wanting to marry their robotic pals.
Just speculation, but I´m sure you can see that it could very well happen. If a very vocal minority in America can change the way people think about homosexuality, then anything is possible here in our great country.
