Since gay marriage, i dont see seperation of church and state

originally posted by: jonnywhite
If marriage is what happens when a man and a woman bond and have a child then gay marriage will never be equal, unless you start pretending adopting is the same thing or test tube babies are the same.

But it all depends on how you want to define it. As I understand it, marriage is just a legal term for a couple who're bonded together and a title is given to them, to be recognized by others and recorded.

And if that's indeed what marriage is defined as then I fully support it. There's no reason a gay couple shouldn't be formally recognized as tying the knot and committing to a life long relationship.

Legal marriage is basically a contract that 2 (or more) people voluntarily sign --- and protects rights and property of those involved.

It's always been about a contract. What is agreed upon in that contract can be anything. Some marry for money, some marry for prestige, some marry for power. Political power couples is nothing new.

a reply to: Annee
I do fully support gay marriage. That's what I want you and phage to understand, but we're all getting lost in the words.

Gay marraige passed through my state years ago and I supported it.

I'm not religious either.

I have a gay friend and we've talked about it too. Mainly my feelings are gays should be entitled to have the legal recognition of marrying. However, I still highly value man/woman having a child. Gays can't be teh same in my mind, in that regard. Gays can adopt. They can even possibly use new methods to have baby (weird genetic stuff or insertion). But it's a big stretch for that to be the same in my mind.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: Annee
I do fully support gay marriage. That's what I want you and phage to understand, but we're all getting lost in the words.

OK.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Yes we did before the edit.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: jonnywhite

Yes we did before the edit.

My initial response to phage where I said "you either get it or you don't" was in response to my thinking he didn't understand what I was doing. I was making a hypothetical defintiion of a marriage--which was between a man and a woman and involved bonding and having a child. But that definnition is completely bunk and not real. He missed that or somethign because he said something about marriage not always producing a child. I know that couples don't always have children. Marriage doesn't require them to. Seems to me marriage is just a term for people who want to have a long term intimate relatonship but in the past it was defined as between a man and a woman and now it's being allowed between same-sex.

regardless if you all want to see me as a gay hater or whatever go on. my gay friend doesn't like some aspects about his being gay. his feelings are tied to religion not bigotry. i hate to see him do that.

a reply to: jonnywhite

You've clarified your position. I have no criticism.

originally posted by: neo96
The ignorance sure is astounding.

It is perfectly acceptable to violate the 14th amendment rights of gun owners( they are not a protected class)

You're so cute sometimes! LOL! I love how you say that ignorance is astounding, then proceed to illustrate it. You have brought up this argument before, have been set straight, and then you turn around and bring it up again...

I can't take my 80lb German Shepherd into the restaurant, so "dog owners" are being discriminated against, right?
People can't take their pet rattlesnakes into the bank, so "snake owners" are being discriminated against, too.
I can't ride my motorcycle into the theater, so "motorcycle riders" are on that list, too!

In fact, EVERYONE could be on that list, because most of us own something (a pet, a vehicle, a gun, some alcohol) that we are not permitted to CARRY into a place of public accommodation.

Neo, do you know the difference between BEING a person and being in POSSESSION of an object?

The 14th amendment applies to you AND me. See? I can't take a gun into a restaurant either. NO regular citizen can. The law applies equally to all of us. But YOU, as a gun owner, are free to enter the establishment. Just leave your gun (or dog, motorcycle, or snake) somewhere else.

Hope that clears it up for you!

Since learning a lot of cities don't sell alcohol on Sundays, I don't see separation of church and state.

Since being forced to say "under God" every day in school for 13 years, I don't see separation of church and state.

Since my (hetero) marriage 15 years ago when I had to pay the state for a license, then my tax status changed, and my wife's tuition changed, and my divorce 10 years ago when I had to pay them some more, I don't see separation of church and state.

Should I go on? It's not exactly a short list.

a reply to: Jordan River

Thanks for reassuring my contention about "marriage" vs. "Domestic partnered" all along.

See, if a man now says he's married how can you tell if he is gay or not?

But if a man says he's domestic partnered, it's clear as day what he is.

The straight people just want to be able to tell the difference. It has nothing to do with religion as they will ALL say "I'm fine with the gays getting all the benefits....just don't call it "marriage".

I knew it was about labeling and not religion all along.......

originally posted by: Jordan River
Since the supreme court decsion. I honestly do not see seperation of church and state. This is...or was one of the special distinction with our government.

That being said lgbt group are now a special class of citizens. How are we sappose to distinctly tell if someone is or isnt gay.

If the church shuns these people its a hate crime.

Im pretty liberal, and i find this new direction destructive, not because people are gay, but because government, citizens and america are still racist/bigot

Lets keep pissing off the ignorant people out there.

That's because you have your priorities skewed. Before the ruling, the church was DIRECTLY legislating against keeping gays from marrying in various states. That ISN'T separation of church and state. After the ruling, that is no longer the case.

Also, keep in mind, no one is forcing churches to marry any gays if they don't want to.

originally posted by: KAOStheory
Since learning a lot of cities don't sell alcohol on Sundays, I don't see separation of church and state.

Since being forced to say "under God" every day in school for 13 years, I don't see separation of church and state.

Since my (hetero) marriage 15 years ago when I had to pay the state for a license, then my tax status changed, and my wife's tuition changed, and my divorce 10 years ago when I had to pay them some more, I don't see separation of church and state.

Should I go on? It's not exactly a short list.

please do, if you are so inclined.

a reply to: jonnywhite you are right, they arent the same. procreation is a biological process, adoption is a conscious decision to step up where someone else failed. i have more respect for the latter than the former, particularly given how often the former leads to the latter.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Okay. I added a new word to my vocabulary today. Thanks.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Xtrozero

That is for Federal Employees, they are protected from discrimination..

The 31 states i mentioned don't have any Anti-Discrimination laws for GLBTQ+, so it's technically legal to discriminate and deny services

Ok good lord, this acronym is getting out of hand. What does the Q+ mean? Querr/HIV positive?

a reply to: dr1234

Like AFL-CIO, NAACP, LASER, and so on? Gosh! So hard to learn... My brain!

If you're really curious, look it up.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: dr1234

Like AFL-CIO, NAACP, LASER, and so on? Gosh! So hard to learn... My brain!

If you're really curious, look it up.

I was being facesitious more than anything, sorry I hurt your feelings. I genuinely don't know though.

a reply to: dr1234

Right HIV Positive because it's only associated with us..

Q is for Queer or some use it as Questioning, there are different acronyms depending on who you talk to.

some ad an A for Ally, some for Asexual, some add I for Intersex

a reply to: Xtrozero

This isn't really in keeping with the topic so I won't elaborate too much on it, but yes, my husband and I were kept from purchasing a house because we are a heterosexual couple and the realtor pulled a number of tricks to delay the submission of our bids until she could find a gay couple who wanted to bid on the house. It's a long story to explain how she engineered it, but the outcome is that we were discriminated against for being straight.

It happened in a city that has a very large gay LGBT population. The realtor was not herself gay. But she was known for being extremely progressive (and you could see she was in love with herself for it) and she made numerous remarks indicating she wasn't satisfied we fit in with the progressive atmosphere of the town. Which was crap because my husband was raised there and we do support LGBT rights. We did get a house in that town but had to employ a realtor outside of town.

Anyway just because something isn't legal or ethical doesn't mean you can prevent it from happening. We had neither the time nor the budget for litigation. I'm sure there is a lot of discrimination LGBT people put up with all the time they don't have the means to fight.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: dr1234

Right HIV Positive because it's only associated with us..

Q is for Queer or some use it as Questioning, there are different acronyms depending on who you talk to.

some ad an A for Ally, some for Asexual, some add I for Intersex

Are there seriously people that think they are asexual?

a reply to: Azdraik

Yes,

www.asexuality.org...