Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal

[Flappycat]

And the reasons for the laws against interracial marriage were the same. Interracial marriages were "impure." People who had sex with people of other races were considered deviants. Because they were considered deviants, "unnatural," the conservative Christians didn't want their unions to be considered clean and wholesome in the eyes of the law. They're giving homosexuals the same treatment today on the same principle. And yes, it used to be a serious crime for a black man to have sex with a white woman, just as sodomy used to be a serious crime. Don't like the comparison? Tough.

 

[GloriaPatri]

And the reasons for the laws against interracial marriage were the same. Interracial marriages were "impure." People who had sex with people of other races were considered deviants. Because they were considered deviants, "unnatural," the conservative Christians didn't want their unions to be considered clean and wholesome in the eyes of the law. They're giving homosexuals the same treatment today on the same principle. And yes, it used to be a serious crime for a black man to have sex with a white woman, just as sodomy used to be a serious crime. Don't like the comparison? Tough.

No, the ban on interracial marriage was used to keep two ethnicities apart so one could oppress the other, which is wrong. Marriage is the bringing together of a male and a female, so that children can have a mother and father, which is good.

 

[GloriaPatri]

GloriaPatri, thank you for sharing your views with us, I know we all kindof ganged up on you. And thank you for being willing to support equal legal rights for gay and lesbian couples. I hope you will be able to find a way to do that that is within your beliefs.:rainbow1:

No problem. Thanks for the enlightening discussion.

 

[mr.guy]

No, the ban on interracial marriage was used to keep two ethnicities apart so one could oppress the other, which is wrong. Marriage is the bringing together of a male and a female, so that children can have a mother and father, which is good.

"And furthermore, we'd like to keep the ehnicities seperate so as we can oppress them. Oh yeah, and it's wrong."

That you can't decipher your own spin is a marvel unto itself.

 

[Flappycat]

No, the ban on interracial marriage was used to keep two ethnicities apart so one could oppress the other, which is wrong.

Nope. The justifications were identical. The reasons were identical. Interracial SEX was considered a perversion.

Marriage is the bringing together of a male and a female, so that children can have a mother and father, which is good.

Two mothers or two fathers is also a good thing. Can you tell me of any reason not? Marriage is the bringing together of two people as part of each other's families, whether they are of the same or the opposite sex. The government considering them married basically means that the government will treat them as part of the same family. Marriage is all about family. Really, marriage has always been about tying families together. For you to say that my mate and I cannot marry is to say that I cannot be a part of his family or him a part of mine, and this is somthing that is very arrogant and overweening for you to presume to dictate. Whether you approve of it or not and whether or not you will believe it, my mate and I are becoming family to each other, and, over time, will grow to be a part of each other's families. The law may not say that we are family, but this is the law's ignorance and the ignorance of people like you.

 

[evearael]

The law may not say that we are family, but this is the law's ignorance and the ignorance of people like you.

He support's equal priviledges and rights. These words are not necessary.

 

[jeffrey]

Marriage is the bringing together of a male and a female, so that children can have a mother and father, which is good.

Wrong. Marriage is the union between 2 people that love each other, which is better. It provides benefits from the government. You don't need marriage or love to make babies.

 

[Pah]

Yeah, that's true.

But, in Western society it has, historically, had a religious connotation.

Actually, both Martin Luther and the Puritans removed marriage from a religious standing to a secular one.

 

[Pah]

That's fine. I pray that you will be able to get recognition from the US government. I just wish that they are defined as civil unions and not marriages.

That's not any better than a prohibition against marriage.

 

[Pah]

"I never said that. If you read over my posts you would know that I support civil unions that give the same rights that married couples have"

I just said that those who enter into civil unions should be afforded the same rights.

It's still a second class staus you would foist upon them in the name of religion.

As I asked in another thread - what gives you the right to make that law. It is, amongst other things, an abridgement of my right of religiopus expression.

 

[Pah]

The institution of marriage and the word 'marriage' and closely entwined. Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. Marriage is a sacrement. If people want to get civil unions so that two persons of the same-sex can get the benefits of married couples that's fine - but it is not a marriage.

Marriage has not always been a sacrement. Throughout the middle ages it was only a blessing

 

[Pah]

.... I just want marriage to stay between a man and a woman.

Why should you retain that privilege

 

[GloriaPatri]

Marriage has not always been a sacrement. Throughout the middle ages it was only a blessing

For the Catholic Church it has. It was determined at the Council of Trent that marriage has always been a sacrament and it is defined in the canon law.

 

[standing_alone]

For the Catholic Church it has. It was determined at the Council of Trent that marriage has always been a sacrament and it is defined in the canon law.

But then, why can't same-sex couples be allowed civil marriage and the Catholic Church can just refuse to recognize same-sex civil marriages?

 

[GloriaPatri]

But then, why can't same-sex couples be allowed civil marriage and the Catholic Church can just refuse to recognize same-sex civil marriages?

They can be allowed civil unions - not marriage.

 

[standing_alone]

They can be allowed civil unions - not marriage.

But why not? Why can't homosexuals be allowed marriage? Just because homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of your faith?

 

[GloriaPatri]

Two mothers or two fathers is also a good thing. Can you tell me of any reason not? Marriage is the bringing together of two people as part of each other's families, whether they are of the same or the opposite sex. The government considering them married basically means that the government will treat them as part of the same family. Marriage is all about family. Really, marriage has always been about tying families together. For you to say that my mate and I cannot marry is to say that I cannot be a part of his family or him a part of mine, and this is somthing that is very arrogant and overweening for you to presume to dictate. Whether you approve of it or not and whether or not you will believe it, my mate and I are becoming family to each other, and, over time, will grow to be a part of each other's families. The law may not say that we are family, but this is the law's ignorance and the ignorance of people like you.

Because children need a mother and a father. For example, it is a proven fact that fathers reduce juvenile delinquincy in boys and sexual activity in girls. It is also a proven fact that mothers provide emotional support and are unmathced in reading the emotional and physical signs of an infant.

 

[GloriaPatri]

But why not? Why can't homosexuals be allowed marriage? Just because homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of your faith?

Because marriage is between a man and a woman and that's that. I'm all for civil unions that offer the same rights and protections afforded to couples who are married.

 

[standing_alone]

Because children need a mother and a father.

Not really. I know two children being brought up in a home with two mothers. They're turning out just fine - in fact, that family is more functional than many of the heterosexually-headed families I encounter.

Also, not all marriages produce offspring. There are many married heterosexual couples that don't have children, don't intend to have children, and never will have children.

For example, it is a proven fact that fathers reduce juvenile delinquincy in boys and sexual activity in girls. It is also a proven fact that mothers provide emotional support and are unmathced in reading the emotional and physical signs of an infant.

Can I see a link or an article on then study that proves this, please.

 

[standing_alone]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman and that's that. I'm all for civil unions that offer the same rights and protections afforded to couples who are married.

I think it's great that you support the same rights and protections of marriage for homosexuals, just under a different name, I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is that the current civil unions that are being offered are not the same as civil marriage and I don't see why a religious view should have a say on a completely secular matter - the churches wouldn't be forced to do same-sex marriages or even recognize them. I don't understand why people object that.