California legalizes gay marr... ZOMG!!!! MY EYES!!!!! IT BURNS!!!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Yup.

Tell her to sign up.

Unless you don't want her reading any of your 'other' posts. In case one day you might need to start the 'thread'....if you know what I mean.

[kermitology]

Paging Gozer.. selective replying.. hello????

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Paging Gozer.. selective replying.. hello????

I was going to let other continue the conversation, I've said my piece.

What do you want to know?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Interesting that [If a couple has a totally secular wedding, would you consider them to be married?] is being ignored by Gozer.

That's not interesting. Yes, I consider them married.

If a passionately religious gay couple got married, I would consider it the same as a non-religious gay couple.

My views and beliefs on the issue are not divided into who shares my beliefs and who doesn't.

Originally Posted by kermitology

In my mind.. until marriage no longer has any benefits from the state, gays should be entitled to the same benefits that traditional marriages have.

I totally agree. 100% equal, just not the exact same.
I realize that you think I hold that view because I despise gay couples, but I'm not changing my view because you hate it.

I also think (agree?) that the state should not bestow additional rights on any married couples. Not practical though.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I totally agree. 100% equal, just not the exact same.
I realize that you think I hold that view because I despise gay couples, but I'm not changing my view because you hate it.

I also think (agree?) that the state should not bestow additional rights on any married couples. Not practical though.

You can't be 100% equal and not the exact same. Being equal and being the same have the identical meaning. It's like saying you would give up liberty for more freedom.

If you give gay marriage a different name it's not equal. If you gave straight marriage a different name it's not equal. The only way to have things equal is to give everyone the exact same marriage rights.

I understand you don't like the idea, that's fine, you can have whatever view point you want. But stop saying you want everyone treated the same when it's clear you don't.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I totally agree. 100% equal, just not the exact same.

This sounds an awful lot like the arguement "seperate yet equal" that was used to justify segregated schools in the United States.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I totally agree. 100% equal, just not the exact same.

Then it just comes down to the use of the word to you? They should get everything straight couples get but just call it something else?

Why do you care what they call it? What's the difference? It doesn't have any effect on you.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I was going to let other continue the conversation, I've said my piece.

What do you want to know?

You continued on with other conversations leaving that little bit untouched, so you didn't finish your piece.

And Burninator is right.. If your definition of marriage is something approved of in the eyes of God, then atheists or agnostics are not the same, they would be in the same light as gay marriage.

[4X4]

I only read the first few dozen posts so I'm not sure if this funny has been added... Someone mentioned that Sulu from Star Trek is marrying his b/f. A buddy of mine told me that when Sulu came out of the closet a few years ago, William Shatner was asked about it in an interview shortly thereafter. The question was along the lines of "did any of you know that he was gay?". In classic Shatner composure he replied "we always knew his phaser was set to 'fabulous'.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I only read the first few dozen posts so I'm not sure if this funny has been added... Someone mentioned that Sulu from Star Trek is marrying his b/f. A buddy of mine told me that when Sulu came out of the closet a few years ago, William Shatner was asked about it in an interview shortly thereafter. The question was along the lines of "did any of you know that he was gay?". In classic Shatner composure he replied "we always knew his phaser was set to 'fabulous'.

lol ... that's awesome.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by kermitology

You continued on with other conversations leaving that little bit untouched, so you didn't finish your piece.

And Burninator is right.. If your definition of marriage is something approved of in the eyes of God, then atheists or agnostics are not the same, they would be in the same light as gay marriage.

I wasn't responding because I felt my response would be ignored.

It was.

Originally Posted by Gozer

My views and beliefs on the issue are not divided into who shares my beliefs and who doesn't.

And it has nothing to do with Gods approval, it would be rather arrogant for me to presume to speak on His behalf. I'm talking of my belief. I see the traditional family as the key building block of society, and it should be sacred (even if it isn't).
You think my "traditional" label is silly/outdated/hateful, and that's your prerogative.

[troutman]

Comic Relief:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the...008/#clip60734

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the...008/#clip60737

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Being equal and being the same have the identical meaning.

Not to me.
A Senator fan and a Maple Leaf fan are equal. Both like hockey teams that are; in the same league, Canadian, for-profit business, and an integral part of the community. Both teams have likable and unlikeable members/traits, based on personal taste. One has a long and celebrated past, one is relatively new to the league. One franchise is not greater than the other, popularity and recognition is not how it is decided.

If I called a Maple Leaf fan a Senator fan, I would be promplty corrected. Not because one team is inferior, or because the Senators aren't a "real" team, they're just not the same.

Some Maple Leafs fans hate Senators fans, even to the point of violence, but they're usually total a-holes that are only looking to justify their hatred. The teams and their fans shouldn't give them the time of day.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Burninator

You can't be 100% equal and not the exact same. Being equal and being the same have the identical meaning. It's like saying you would give up liberty for more freedom.

If you give gay marriage a different name it's not equal. If you gave straight marriage a different name it's not equal. The only way to have things equal is to give everyone the exact same marriage rights.

So you don't feel men and women are 100% equal? If not, which do you believe is superior?

Or do you really think the are there are no differences between men and women?

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Gozer

And it has nothing to do with Gods approval, it would be rather arrogant for me to presume to speak on His behalf. I'm talking of my belief. I see the traditional family as the key building block of society, and it should be sacred (even if it isn't).
You think my "traditional" label is silly/outdated/hateful, and that's your prerogative.

The "tradition" argument is adopted by more people than some might think - including many who are for gay marriage.

I've had numerous discussions over the years where I've argued that if you reject the "tradition" argument, what's to stop polygamous relationships from being recognized (particularly in circumstances where polygamy is endorsed by a religion, and thus should theoretically enjoy Constitutional protection)?

When I've made this argument in the past, some people have assumed it's just conservative rhetoric, and that I'm equating gay marriage with polygamous marriages just to instil fear of a "slippery slope" when in fact the two concepts are clearly not the same. Of course, I wasn't trying to be rhetorical: I actually don't care if polygamous groups get married, and I don't see why they can't. The only real reason (besides religious ones) to keep marriage between a man and a woman is "tradition." Once you throw that out, and allow marriage to be between 2 people, why can't it be between 3 people? Is it because marriage is "traditionally" only between 2 people?

The day will come when 3 people in a triangle of mutual love and respect, and possibly bound by a common religion which recognizes their relationship, take their case for marriage before the courts. I don't know how they could lose frankly. Unless it was on the basis of "tradition."

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Burninator

You can't be 100% equal and not the exact same. Being equal and being the same have the identical meaning. It's like saying you would give up liberty for more freedom.

If you give gay marriage a different name it's not equal. If you gave straight marriage a different name it's not equal. The only way to have things equal is to give everyone the exact same marriage rights.

I understand you don't like the idea, that's fine, you can have whatever view point you want. But stop saying you want everyone treated the same when it's clear you don't.

I'm all for gay marriage as I think everyone deserves equal rights. However, I'll have to disagree with your comment.
Being equal doesn't neccessarily mean being the same. As mentioned above, men and women enjoy equal rights here. Does that make them them the same? Another example is being a Catholic, a Muslim, an Atheist, etc. I'm sure you'll agree they're not the same. But they do enjoy equal rights.

In fact, by labelling it "gay" marriage and "straight" marriage, you yourself are distinguishing one from the other. Really, the only difference is semantics, but there's a difference nonetheless.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'm all for gay marriage as I think everyone deserves equal rights. However, I'll have to disagree with your comment.
Being equal doesn't neccessarily mean being the same. As mentioned above, men and women enjoy equal rights here. Does that make them them the same? Another example is being a Catholic, a Muslim, an Atheist, etc. I'm sure you'll agree they're not the same. But they do enjoy equal rights.

In fact, by labelling it "gay" marriage and "straight" marriage, you're distinguishing one from the other. Really, the only difference is semantics, but there's a difference nonetheless.

I wish I could have articulated this. Thanks!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Not to me.
A Senator fan and a Maple Leaf fan are equal. Both like hockey teams that are; in the same league, Canadian, for-profit business, and an integral part of the community. Both teams have likable and unlikeable members/traits, based on personal taste. One has a long and celebrated past, one is relatively new to the league. One franchise is not greater than the other, popularity and recognition is not how it is decided.

If I called a Maple Leaf fan a Senator fan, I would be promplty corrected. Not because one team is inferior, or because the Senators aren't a "real" team, they're just not the same.

Some Maple Leafs fans hate Senators fans, even to the point of violence, but they're usually total a-holes that are only looking to justify their hatred. The teams and their fans shouldn't give them the time of day.

I'm not understanding your comparison. If the gay couple are the Maple Leaf fans and the Senator fans are the straight couple, it wouldn't make any sense to call a straight couple gay. They are both hockey fans. One isn't a different kind of fan, one isn't less of a fan and one isn't more of a fan, they just cheer/play for a different team.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

So you don't feel men and women are 100% equal? If not, which do you believe is superior?

Or do you really think the are there are no differences between men and women?

When I am talking about being equal I am taking about rights. I don't know what you are getting at.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'm all for gay marriage as I think everyone deserves equal rights. However, I'll have to disagree with your comment.
Being equal doesn't neccessarily mean being the same. As mentioned above, men and women enjoy equal rights here. Does that make them them the same? Another example is being a Catholic, a Muslim, an Atheist, etc. I'm sure you'll agree they're not the same. But they do enjoy equal rights.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. My original comment was in response to Gozer saying he was for equality, but didn't want everyone treated the same. Which doesn't make sense. I understand the difference between a Catholic and a Muslim, and a man and a women. So what? Gay people just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. Denying them the label of marriage that everyone else seems to enjoy is being unequal and is not treating them the same as everyone else.

In fact, by labelling it "gay" marriage and "straight" marriage, you yourself are distinguishing one from the other. Really, the only difference is semantics, but there's a difference nonetheless.

I only use lables so I differentiate easily between them. In reality I would consider both of them just marriage.