Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights?

[Ormiston]

I see you as an equal and I am not hung up on the benefits you seek. But I do care about the redefinition. How you will manage to do this without entering the realm of marriage is something that would be interesting to see.

How does the importance of the definition of a word compare to the importance of human lives? I'm not trying to be naive, I just fail to understand where you are coming from Victor.

 

[standing_alone]

I see you as an equal and I am not hung up on the benefits you seek. But I do care about the redefinition. How you will manage to do this without entering the realm of marriage is something that would be interesting to see.

You may see me as an equal, but in regards to how any relationship of mine is viewed and treated, I am not an equal. All I want is access to the same federal rights and benefits of marriage that heterosexuals take for granted. If I get every single right as a heterosexual gets and they call it something else (just because I'm gay - which I don't see why my relationship can't be called a marriage), but it is identical. I don't really care. This is about equal rights, not about titles we put on things. I just don't see what's wrong with calling a devoted homosexual relationship a marriage.

 

[Ormiston]

You may see me as an equal, but in regards to how any relationship of mine is viewed and treated, I am not an equal. All I want is access to the same federal rights and benefits of marriage that heterosexuals take for granted. If I get every single right as a heterosexual gets and they call it something else (just because I'm gay - which I don't see why my relationship can't be called a marriage), but it is identical. I don't really care. This is about equal rights, not about titles we put on things. I just don't see what's wrong with calling a devoted homosexual relationship a marriage.

I'm starting to believe that focus on the "marriage" vs. the rights is simply a convenient stumbling block or road block for those opposed to homosexual relationships and/or rights. "Make the gays invent new legislature! Hahaha, let's see how long that takes!"

 

[nutshell]

Try looking at this another way...Heterosexuals are humans as well as blacks, whites, asians, indians, hispanics, and so on and so forth. These humans are given the right to marry in this country. Homosexuals are humans too. Hence by the right that all other humans in this country have the right to marry each other then so should homosexuals. How's that work for you?

It doesn't work at all because society has always defined rules and one of the rules is that you must be a single man and single woman to be married. I know that the rules are not always right. I'm in an interracial marriage that would have been prevented not so long ago. However, what all those marriages have in common is this: They are between one man and one woman. I do not believe in a human right granting marriage to members of the same sex.

 

[nutshell]

I wonder what qualifies the God of Moses to be worshipped. Didn't we have that golden calf that was traditional?

What says "worship" is a "human right"? Tell me that, nutshell, and you'll have your answer.

The God of Moses pre-dated the golden calf. The God of Moses is Jehovah who was at the beginning. The imply the golden calf came first is rediculous. The Hebrews worshipped Jehovah before they went to Egypt. Once there, they were corrupted by Egypt tradition, and once they left, they eventually returned to thier true God.

Get your facts straight next time and then I might answer your second question.

 

[nutshell]

Notice the answers? You received questions as answers.....Interesting.

Agreed. I really was looking for an explanation.

 

[nutshell]

The definition of marriage seems to be inadequate for our present needs. That would seem to be the problem, not the homosexuals.

Perhaps its inadequate to your needs. It suits my needs just fine.

 

[nutshell]

The definition of marriage seems to be inadequate for our present needs. That would seem to be the problem, not the homosexuals.

The definition of marriage seems to be inadequate for your present needs. It meets my needs just fine.

 

[nutshell]

The fact that heterosexual marriage is considered a right, so should homosexual marriage.

You've reasserted your original assertion and given me no new information to consider.

As Draka already explained, although you may not like to admit it, homosexuals are people, too. The only differences between the two types of relationships is that one is composed of opposite genders and the other is composed of the same gender.

That's a pretty damn big difference, if you ask me. At least the interracial couples composed of one penis and one vagina (or one XX and one XY, if you prefer).

 

[nutshell]

It's not marriage, Victor. The arguments have been shallow - they don't hold water. It's plain and simple hatefull suppression of minorities all over again.

That's your opinion. Obviously, Victor and I believe the arguments do hold water.

 

[nutshell]

Yeah? But our (homosexuals) motivation is not to alter the definition of marriage, but to receive equality and the same federal rights and benefits that heterosexuals do.

Oh, so you don't want to get "married," then. You just want benefits and tax breaks. Tell you what, why doesn't the secular government give you that and you leave "marriage" to us since that is what we want.

 

[nutshell]

How does the importance of the definition of a word compare to the importance of human lives? I'm not trying to be naive, I just fail to understand where you are coming from Victor.

We believe the definition of the word has direct importance to our human lives.

 

[nutshell]

You may see me as an equal, but in regards to how any relationship of mine is viewed and treated, I am not an equal. All I want is access to the same federal rights and benefits of marriage that heterosexuals take for granted. If I get every single right as a heterosexual gets and they call it something else (just because I'm gay - which I don't see why my relationship can't be called a marriage), but it is identical. I don't really care. This is about equal rights, not about titles we put on things. I just don't see what's wrong with calling a devoted homosexual relationship a marriage.

Your statement that you "don't really care" about the title is an indication to me that you do not understand the significance of marriage. I don't care if you get secular government benefits either, but don't soil the institution of marriage, call it something else since you "don't really care."

Further, you are an equal in that you have equal rights to get married within the laws set forth by the government, the same as Victor and me.

 

[standing_alone]

Tell you what, why doesn't the secular government give you that and you leave "marriage" to us since that is what we want.

Who's "we?" And hey, if you're that insecure that you can't allow homosexuals to call their relationship a marriage fine - I just want my relationship treated the same legally as a heterosexual marriage. I don't care about some stupid title or word used. I just want the same legal rights.

 

[nutshell]

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm going on a tangent with all those posts. I just haven't visited this thread in awhile and wanted to respond to the various points raised.

 

[standing_alone]

but don't soil the institution of marriage,

I think heterosexuals are doing a good enough job of that on their own. And how would homosexuals "soil" marriage?

 

[nutshell]

Who's "we?" And hey, if you're that insecure that you can't allow homosexuals to call their relationship a marriage fine - I just want my relationship treated the same legally as a heterosexual marriage. I don't care about some stupid title or word used. I just want the same legal rights.

"We" is obviously those who wish to keep marriage sacred - I expect you don't understand what that means since you're hung up on legal issues. The fact that you call it "some stupid title or word" shows your ignorance regarding how "we" view marriage.

Further, I am not insecure at all. I am seeking to protect an institution created and define by God Himself.

 

[standing_alone]

At least the interracial couples composed of one penis and one vagina (or one XX and one XY, if you prefer).

So that's what marriage comes down to: the ability to have penile-vaginal sexual intercourse. And here us homosexuals thought is was about love and commitment.

 

[nutshell]

I think heterosexuals are doing a good enough job of that on their own. And how would homosexuals "soil" marriage?

It is true that many heterosexual couples have damaged the instituation of marriage. Society, as a whole, is damaging this sacred institution. Adding homosexuals to marriage would only corrupt it more by taking it further away from God's original intentions.

 

[standing_alone]

I am seeking to protect an institution created and define by God Himself.

So, then atheists shouldn't marry, either, by that logic.