It's difficult for me to comprehend the notion of people not understanding that discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. Also, the idea of "civil unions." It's a modern day Jim Crow law. People will say: "Well, give them something similar. But just don't call it marriage. Call it something else." There is no such thing as Seperate but Equal. Seperate is not equal. United States Supreme Court. Brown Vs. Education. Obama out of all people should understand that. I will never understand the level of ignorance and unenlightenment that drives people to oppose gay marriage. Perhaps the government should stop issuing marriage licenses as legal documents and just hand out civil union licenses to everyone, gays and straights. You can leave "marriages" to the church, and seperate the two. The church marriage would mean whatever religiously that people want it to mean, but, from a practical standpoint, it would hold no real value. People would recieve all their actual benefits from the civil union, while the marriage would really be nothing more than a symbolic gesture. I raise this possibility only because gay marriage is only allowed in 6 states. The most liberal state in the country, California, cannot get gay marriage passed. There is a very real possbility that for at least half the states gay marriage will never, ever happen. So, fine. Let the church maintain the sanctity of marriage. Just have the government come in and strip away all the legal benefits.
Modern social values? That's what everyone wants to believe in that its breaking knew ground. Nothings knew in regards to moral standards, it's just come full circle again. Take for an example the gay practice was a norm back in the era of the Roman Empire.
Well I have mixed feeling about attacking the church. Church has thier rules and the state has thier rules. Church is private owned , which means they are allowed to do what they want with thier buisness. The state is public and law is public , which is owned really by the people. Those 2 should always be separate and never impose any laws forcing church to do something. As far as values are concerned , this is not about values. Its about church and state laws that should never been combined. Marriage license should have always been totally done by the state with no need for the church to approve. Thats the issue , not morals or values .
About effing time. I think what annoys me most is people like this, who disgust me quite frankly: The Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, was incensed: "Last time I consulted an atlas," he wrote, mixing his tenses, "it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America - not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government pressure presumes daily to 'redefine' rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of 'family' and 'marriage' means. But, please, not here!" The fact that he is trying to say that giving people more civil rights, is the same as living in an oppressive nation, disgusts me. I actually cannot understand how some people can feel so strongly about 2 people not being able to live a life of happiness together just because of their religious views. It's not as if it will effect them, gay people will still live together, have relationships and even have family's, even if they're not allowed to marry.
And this is bad news how? Also, it's no wonder you have 8000 posts. I just looked through a few pages and they are almost all stupidly pointless one-liners that don't actually explain anything. Maybe I should just stop now and not even bother trying to discuss things with you, since I am sure I'll get another brief five to ten words of absolutely no intrinsic value.
I always knew you were an idiot, but homophobic as well? Anyway this is great news, and screw anyone who says otherwise. I hope more states legalise it.
The guy said modern social values. What has roman times got to do with the modern world. Your post was pretty irrelevant to what he said.
I'm not gay if that's what you're implying. And if I were then I'd probably hate people like you even more.
