Not all christian denomonations teach that...


Secondly...guys....read all the previous posts...ect. Thats what dolce is talking about. Read the article.

Thank-you Rusty.



I agree. A church shouldn't have to do it. Maybe its because I'm not from a Roman Catholic background, but in my view, they don't want you than take your religion elsewhere. There is a long history of schisms in the church. Joan? St. Francis? Constantinople? Lutheran? CHurch of England? Why the hell don't people just start their own. Meh. This for me is a very sticky point, which I clearly just don't understand because I did not grow up with Catholic liturgy in my life.

That being said, I know certain institutions that odn't mind it. They should do as they please as well, and I hope more people join them. Sueing the church is just giving it more power.

As to Civil Union, the original article I posted was an alternative even to that, which I don;t know how I feel about. I'd prefer they take the long slow battle out for civil unions, and not opt for this privitization thing which makes it just about money and not about altering their consideration under Civic law. How do you feel about the privitization suggestion?



Canadian Supreme court already ruled it was legal. Want me to post the article?

States rights is one alternative here. The one I am talking about is that the gov't suggested they would allow social security benefits to be extended to gay spouses if gays chose to endorse the privitazation of social security. In short, the Gov't said, "We won;t give you equal liberties under the federal law, but if you support us in shifting the responsibility of social security away from the government into private industry, the private industry might extend monetary benefits to you."

As to your suggestions on consitutional amendment. I feel it better to err in the direction of two people. Why? Because it doesn't say the Cathloic church (as an example) has to marry gay people. It says that if a reform Jewish synagogue (for example) does marry a gay couple, that the government will still acknowldge that marriage certificate. I think your earlier statement about not telling the church what to do can swing both ways. Hence the wording of an amendment is important. Well, you don't want to tell a church they have to marry a couple, but do you feel its okay to tell a different church that they can't marry a couple? Even if that church has no problem with it. Because that's telling a church what to do as well. I think as long as the amendment says "Its up to the whichever religious institution thinks, we'll just support all those decisions respectively" than its fine to include marriage as two people. Thats bit different than "Hey Church, you have to do it." Its just saying "Hey church, if you decide to do it, we won't over-rise your authity to decide what is best for your constituents."



The changing I was referring to (I think is the question) on how the government is kind of using the right they just denied homosexuals in the last election, and is now offering it to them with strongs attached (have to go private). Is that your question?

dolces posts are too bloody long to read! sorry

So, does it make me a gay supporter if I tell you that my preference in porn is watching lesbian action?

YUP

BOOYAH!

These 'rights' you talk about, do you mean for marriage?

Not necessarily. That what is up for debate. Currently the U.S. government is advocating shifting the discussion completely away from either marriage or civil unions, and just making it about social security benefits to spouses through privatization of social security. Private industry will give monetary benefits to gay spouses (if the gay community endorses this), and the government will not have to make any decision about federal policy (marriage, civil unions, etc.).

Do you think that is a good idea? Why or why not?

Not necessarily. That what is up for debate. Currently the U.S. government is advocating shifting the discussion completely away from either marriage or civil unions, and just making it about social security benefits to spouses through privatization of social security. Private industry will give monetary benefits to gay spouses (if the gay community endorses this), and the government will not have to make any decision about federal policy (marriage, civil unions, etc.).

Do you think that is a good idea? Why or why not?

for the time being yes, but its better if they deal with this problem now, otherwise this 'gay marriage/gay rights' issue is going to keep popping up.

@Algren, I don't mean private industry as in job, I mean as in benefits such as health care, retirment, etc. Stuff that a dependant spouse in a hetero couple gets now, but a gay spouse does not.

Thank-you Rusty.

I agree. A church shouldn't have to do it. Maybe its because I'm not from a Roman Catholic background, but in my view, they don't want you than take your religion elsewhere. There is a long history of schisms in the church. Joan? St. Francis? Constantinople? Lutheran? CHurch of England? Why the hell don't people just start their own. Meh. This for me is a very sticky point, which I clearly just don't understand because I did not grow up with Catholic liturgy in my life.

That being said, I know certain institutions that odn't mind it. They should do as they please as well, and I hope more people join them. Sueing the church is just giving it more power.

As to Civil Union, the original article I posted was an alternative even to that, which I don;t know how I feel about. I'd prefer they take the long slow battle out for civil unions, and not opt for this privitization thing which makes it just about money and not about altering their consideration under Civic law. How do you feel about the privitization suggestion?

Canadian Supreme court already ruled it was legal. Want me to post the article?

States rights is one alternative here. The one I am talking about is that the gov't suggested they would allow social security benefits to be extended to gay spouses if gays chose to endorse the privitazation of social security. In short, the Gov't said, "We won;t give you equal liberties under the federal law, but if you support us in shifting the responsibility of social security away from the government into private industry, the private industry might extend monetary benefits to you."

As to your suggestions on consitutional amendment. I feel it better to err in the direction of two people. Why? Because it doesn't say the Cathloic church (as an example) has to marry gay people. It says that if a reform Jewish synagogue (for example) does marry a gay couple, that the government will still acknowldge that marriage certificate. I think your earlier statement about not telling the church what to do can swing both ways. Hence the wording of an amendment is important. Well, you don't want to tell a church they have to marry a couple, but do you feel its okay to tell a different church that they can't marry a couple? Even if that church has no problem with it. Because that's telling a church what to do as well. I think as long as the amendment says "Its up to the whichever religious institution thinks, we'll just support all those decisions respectively" than its fine to include marriage as two people. Thats bit different than "Hey Church, you have to do it." Its just saying "Hey church, if you decide to do it, we won't over-rise your authity to decide what is best for your constituents."

The changing I was referring to (I think is the question) on how the government is kind of using the right they just denied homosexuals in the last election, and is now offering it to them with strongs attached (have to go private). Is that your question?

Well you just made yourself look ignorant, because I am not gay. Nice try though. Your ego once again amazes me...you really think your that much of a boy toy? are youserious?
Where do you come of acusing me of being being mentally abused? You have yet to support your statement that all gay people were molested. NOT ALL GAY PEOPLE WERE MOLESTED. Are all the gay people i know lying? Are they just not willing to accept the fact that they were molested? What is it?
Your pompus attitude(if your not joking) makes me ill. Im sorry but it does, the hate and bigotry in your posts are an embarassment. Im sure my views in homosexuality make you ill as well.

Lets remeber though, this is just a debate...k? :wink:

Algren.

I think a more specific question would be in order. I doubt anyone here (on this board atleast) would hate someone for just being something. While even bkb here has his opinion on something, I doubt he hates someone just for being gay, he prolly has issues with just the act itself.

^^^Sure, whatever. Im suprised...no snide cocky comment on how you can turn a gay woman straight?

Dude, seriously...do not make me laugh. Your lame attempts at a pickup line when you thought I was a girl were both comical and laughable.
And for someone who claims that homosexuality is such a sin, and abnormal or against christian values....you dont seem to exibit the very core christian values which real christians show

Just ingore him. Works for me.