Why aren’t civil unions good enough for YOU?
Equality cannot be achieved by excluding gay people from marriage and forcing them to use a separate legal institution. Civil unions are just another manifestation of inequality. 2 Months After New Jersey’s Civil Union Law, Problems Finding True Equality www.nytimes.com Gay Couples Say Civil Unions Aren’t Enough www.nytimes.com NJ Commission: Civil Unions ‘encourage unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children’ www.pamshouseblend.com Video transcript: emptv.com The music is preview.tinyurl.com twitter.com www.facebook.com myspace.com
エゴの塊の衝突が醜いから日本の恥って言ってるんじゃないんです か？
自分が乗りたいがためだけに他人の体を触って押してまで入ろうと する図々しさが特に醜いんだと。
先進国っぽくない民度
Why not call it a marriage? Would that make my grandparents, and my cousin, both of which had JP ceremonies only, “civil unioned” instead of married? At that point, wouldn’t the relationship just be what people called it, anyway? If so, what’s to stop people from calling all civil unions “marriages,” and if that happens, why not skip the middle step, and allow the union to still be called a marriage by law?
I’d call the ceremony performed by a justice of the peace a ‘Civil Union’, not a ‘marriage’. I would assume that most couples would have BOTH the private marriage ceremony (with friends and family – and maybe church or temple involvement) AND the state Civil Union because they’d want both the social/spiritual/celebratory benefits of the wedding and the legal/financial benefits of the Civil Union. There are plenty of churches and synagogues willing to carry out same-sex marriage ceremonies.
How about we stop licensing ministers with the ability to perform legally binding marriage ceremonies? We could have all legal marriages performed by a justice of the peace, and then people can have a seperate spiritual ceremony, should they so choose. That way, non-religious people won’t be denied the social recognition that goes along with the term “marriage.”
..continued. The reason this has been suggested is because the state currently treats people specially because they’ve been through a religious ceremony — but separation of church & state should mean religious ceremonies are kept separate from state benefits. The mix-up means when the state treats gay & straight couples equally the churches say the state is interfering in their ceremonies. The answer is to get the state out of the church ceremonies and instead offer better civil unions for all.
I’m interested in peoples views on this. The idea is that the state would only offer one standard non-religious contract for all – straight or gay – with all the legal & financial benefits currently linked to marriage. This would be called “Civil Union” but offer more than the current civil union – so no rights would be taken from anyone. The social & spiritual ritual of “marriage” would then become purely a private matter for a couple and, if they wish, their families, friends and church.
Why would it be better to take those rights away from everyone than to allow another group access to those same rights? Really, at the end of the day, civil unions aren’t equal to marriage, and civil unions don’t supply the recipiants with adequate protections.
Ermmm…
Do you know chimps? Chimps tend to be bad at times too. If we were like bonobos we would be having more lovin and naturally more peace would spread around. Aint it an interesting hypothesis, mister valu777…
Are you telling me that if we didn’t have police, your human nature would take hold and you, your family, or your friends, would start killing, stealing, and raping anyone in sight?
Who are these “humans that gravitate to bad” exactly? How do you know that’s what they do? Have you ever personally met these bad people before?
Could it have been anything else besides an a lack of “spiritual values”? Like say poverty or extreme repression like with the LA riots?
the claim of Jesus the Christ is that he defeated death
what matters is that humans gravitate to the bad take the LA riots for example — this s why we need police
I dont know anything about mister God, do you, mister valu777? I would be very surprised (if you did).
Indeed, people are born and die. By all means, thats just stating the obvious.
Some even claim it all is much easier to digest if you love a premium spirit. I doubt that though…
I agree the gov’t could change it, but i don’t think for long, not back then especially with the racist history of america. Now, it’s much different which is why i was shocked when we denied so many people the right to be married on the basis of blind religious fervor when the gov’t should be neutral in regards to religion.
It also goes to show that most christians honestly don’t believe in letting god judge for himself as they chose to pass his judgment for him on the ballot.
I think human nature is amoral, not to be confused with immoral and then immediate society shapes us into what we are until we grow old enough to think for ourselves.
And there is PLENTY good about human kind and we’ve progressively gotten better in many regards as well.
It’s a slow process to change the world.
hellz yea u said it zj
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Then the only TRUE Christians are the Mennonites and the Amish, maybe Quakers.
I’ll give the Catholics some points for disbanding their army in the mid 20th century leaving only the Swiss Guard, but even they supported the Neutron Bomb.
Typical Christians support conversion at gunpoint. Typical Christians only “love” other Christians, and even that’s limited to the right kind. Few support universal brotherhood, which is what Jesus promoted.
What you’re thinking of is statutory rape, where the “child” can’t give informed consent. Manipulation might not be required for a 14/15/16/17 since it’s normal to be curious about sex at this point.
When talking 10/9/8/7 and younger, boys and girls are not all that different, so sexual preference labels don’t really apply.
You see you have the imaginary line imposed by society, and a biological design imposed by nature.
You don’t understand the age of consent, or pedophilia. Nationality has little to do with pedophilia.
Laws vary GREATLY between states on this subject, often you can legally have sex with a 16-17 y/o.
It’s “child pornography” that has no wiggle room. It’s 18 or jail.
Those who cross the age barrier are not pedophiles. Pedos are threatened by secondary sexual attributes. Pedos cross the puberty barrier. It would be incorrect to call them hetro/homosexual.
And “I didn’t know” is never an acceptable excuse.
You are arguing the technicalities of the ‘special class’. My point is simply that this special class, regardless of technicalities, exists, and for good reason.
As long as we agree there is a justified ‘special class’ of people, then we’re good.
“… a (non-adult), can not give informed consent to have sex …with an adult.”
I’m not disputing your point in general, only its relevance to the current discussion. Regardless of the legal technicalities, there remains a special protected class of underage people.
In many states, people between the age of consent, and being legally an adult can have sex with each other, but not with someone 18 and over. So, even those above the age of consent are still protected as a special class.
Good job – very well thought out. Good luck with trying to persuade the obstinate and ignorant amongst us, though.
Christians who are truly converted will never support war
@Zombi you are a spoilt bratt taking fro granted all that’s been don for you in the past by your for fathers