Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm just curious what these legal and social differences are between "marriage" and a civil union that grants much the same thing.

What are the core areas of contention?

[garya505 2]

Giving homosexual couples rights not granted to other forms of relationships would be granting them special rights.

huh? what rights are we giving them that others are not granted? oh yea the polygamists...you know you should turn off rush limbaugh and let the fog lift. Critical thinking can be fun

Yes, but fuzzy-headed liberal thinking is even more fun to observe.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The question still stands - what rights enjoyed by a heterosexual married couple, do you feel should not be granted for a homosexual couple?

[Cristy 4]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=41493&st=

[Alex+R 0]

I oppose granting special rights to homosexual couples. I personally don't oppose the idea of a legal "civil union", as long as it gives equal rights to everyone, and is open to any number of people of any gender. A civil union essentially allows people to form a family unit for legal purposes. Why should it exclude anyone or be limited to two people? Granting the right of a civil union only to homosexual couples gives them special rights. Of course I oppose calling such civil unions "marriage".

The proponents of so-called "gay marriage" want homosexual couples to treated legally and socially as equivalent to heterosexual couples. I don't agree, and apparently neither do the voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Now, flame away.

STFU, mouth breather.

[Ecalos 0]

All people legally residing within a country that are governed by the same laws as the entire nation should be protected by the same rights as the entire nation. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Alex+R 0]

All people legally residing within a country that are governed by the same laws as the entire nation should be protected by the same rights as the entire nation. What's so hard to understand about that?

Sure, in theory. But if we gave some of them equal rights, then within a year the number of Americans married to donkeys or married to twelve people would skyrocket.

Isn't that obvious?

[Ecalos 0]

[Karen_L 1]

The question still stands - what rights enjoyed by a heterosexual married couple, do you feel should not be granted for a homosexual couple?

There aren't any -- my understanding is that a "civil union" is exactly the same as "marriage" only without all the religious/cultural associations. In any discussion I have ever had on this issue, the person I'm arguing with has always had a problem with granting gay people "marriage" because if gay people can marry, it cheapens the traditional/cultural/religious/historical/etc aspects of marriage in some way no one has yet been able to convince me of or really explain. It's kind of like "well, WE have marriage and you people have... you know... Broadway, and that's the way God intended it."

Also, perhaps, since this is an immigration website, I imagine that gay people involved in these "civil unions" wouldn't be eligible for a K-3 because they aren't "married"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not sure why homosexuality is being mentioned in the same breath as polygamy, but it does show one thing. That those who claim to have nothing against homosexuals, and apparently don't want to impose their views on others - consider homosexuality to be "deviant", and really don't want to concede that their lifestyle should be condoned by society by giving them those legal rights.

Those opposing homosexual marriage are more often than not the same caliber people that would have opposed legalizing interracial marriages a few decades back.

Not really.

And then this:

But you don't oppose giving heterosexual couples special rights?

No.

Why should it [civil union] exclude anyone or be limited to two people?

So what are you saying? You'd be pro civil unions for gays only if another person can form one also with his or her cat or dog or if a man or woman could enter into civil unions with multiple partners of whatever gender? First degree relatives, maybe? Children perhaps to accomodate the pedophile? What, exactly does that statement mean?

Attacks on my integrity don't bother me...

How could one even start to attack something that just doesn't seem to be there?

[Karen_L 1]

Also, for people who are very concerned with what the Bible has to say on the matter, perhaps some background:

Leviticus 18:22 is the passage that directly says that men should not have sex with other men, BUT... as seen in a larger context, all of Leviticus is about various aspects of Hebrew Law, INCLUDING MANY dietary restrictions and Leviticus 19:19, which states 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material' -- and how many of us have cotton-poly blends in our closet?

Lev 19:27 states 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.' Eh-hem...

Lev 20 speaks about all the different sexual practices that are cause for execution.

My point is: in ALL of this, why do people only focus on the one little line that addresses homosexuality? Why not follow it ALL then? Is it because men having short hair and shirts made from mixed fabrics doesn't make people as uncomfortable as man-on-man sex?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why should it [civil union] exclude anyone or be limited to two people?

So what are you saying? You'd be pro civil unions for gays only if another person can form one also with his or her cat or dog or if a man or woman could enter into civil unions with multiple partners of whatever gender? First degree relatives, maybe? Children perhaps to accomodate the pedophile? What, exactly does that statement mean?

That would seem to be an extremely liberal extension of that argument. The way I interpret that - it seems to suggest that allowing gays to marry opens some sort of Pandora's box where every obscure deviant lifestyle can claim some sort of equality under the law.

The real issue is that if they call it marriage and a gay couple is given equal protection under the law, homosexuals would be able marry in a church (and sue those who don't comply for discrimination) - you can just imagine how that would go down, the church being forced to comply with the law that goes against its own doctrine. I can see why they wouldn't want it.

It just comes back to the question - if you don't call it marriage the argument appears purely semantic. I'm just curious what specific rights are enjoyed by a heteosexual married couple that should be denied to homosexuals. I mean, if they're for equal rights - just not marriage. What is the argument - doesn't seem clear to me...

Also, for people who are very concerned with what the Bible has to say on the matter, perhaps some background:

Leviticus 18:22 is the passage that directly says that men should not have sex with other men, BUT... as seen in a larger context, all of Leviticus is about various aspects of Hebrew Law, INCLUDING MANY dietary restrictions and Leviticus 19:19, which states 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material' -- and how many of us have cotton-poly blends in our closet?

Lev 19:27 states 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.' Eh-hem...

Lev 20 speaks about all the different sexual practices that are cause for execution.

My point is: in ALL of this, why do people only focus on the one little line that addresses homosexuality? Why not follow it ALL then? Is it because men having short hair and shirts made from mixed fabrics doesn't make people as uncomfortable as man-on-man sex?

They'll tell you that (basically) the New Testament supercedes Leviticus and makes it redundant. That said I really hope this doesn't turn into a theological discussion about the 'sinful nature of homosexuality'. Always seems that scripture pops up in these threads as a way of helping religious types avoid dealing with the flaws in their argument. We'll hear how homosexuality is a sin and is unnatural, and how marriage is "God's institution between men and women" - but nothing related to the practical aspects.

[Karen_L 1]

Also, for people who are very concerned with what the Bible has to say on the matter, perhaps some background:

Leviticus 18:22 is the passage that directly says that men should not have sex with other men, BUT... as seen in a larger context, all of Leviticus is about various aspects of Hebrew Law, INCLUDING MANY dietary restrictions and Leviticus 19:19, which states 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material' -- and how many of us have cotton-poly blends in our closet?

Lev 19:27 states 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.' Eh-hem...

Lev 20 speaks about all the different sexual practices that are cause for execution.

My point is: in ALL of this, why do people only focus on the one little line that addresses homosexuality? Why not follow it ALL then? Is it because men having short hair and shirts made from mixed fabrics doesn't make people as uncomfortable as man-on-man sex?

They'll tell you that (basically) the New Testament supercedes Leviticus and makes it redundant. That said I really hope this doesn't turn into a theological discussion about the 'sinful nature of homosexuality'. Always seems that scripture pops up in these threads as a way of helping religious types avoid dealing with the flaws in their argument. We'll hear how homosexuality is a sin and is unnatural, and how marriage is "God's institution between men and women" - but nothing related to the practical aspects.

Oh yeah, I really hope this doesn't turn into a Bible-quoting extravaganza either lol. But that line Lev 18:27 is the one used most commonly to justify calling homosexuality an abomination. I was trying to point out how little of Leviticus is carried into a vast majority of Christians' lives today, so to use that one tiny line from an enormous book of the Bible to justify calling something a sin is silly, considering how only a few other things in surrounded lines are still followed. And that if the New Testament overturns Hebrew Law, then it overturns everything, not just the things Christians consider irrelevent nowadays. I mean, if a person thinks homosexuality is bad because it grosses them out, then that's fine and it's their right to feel that way, but at least own up to that fact and not pretend they dislike it because they're soooooo concerned about what the Bible says.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

As in every religion people pick out the bits the want to uphold and ignore the things that get in the way of their lives....

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

ooohhh just had a thought. someone kinda touched on it earlier. the reason I would oppose gay maariage would be if it force my church to marry gays.

i mean gay marriage in a legal sense bothers me not one iota. hell, even for it. but maybe if we can work it out so that churches would not be forced to allow gay marriages then I think most ppl would aggree to it. i think that is the biggest stumbling block.

no?

Daniel

:energetic: