[Falcons Ace]

To expand on my previous post. Can you imagine the outrage by people if we erected a monument dedicated to the Five Pillars of Islam? How about setting apart school time for those same followers of Islam to practice Salah, their prayer. How about a monument dedicated to the Four Noble Truths of Buddism?

I could go on and on and include everything from Islam to Scientology. I assure you that people would sh*t bricks if any of the above happened.

[BenB321]

Enlightened29, on 06 November 2009 - 10:17 AM, said:

Well said :D

Appreciate it. Oh yeah lets not forget what institution is responsible for the huge increase in single parents especially single mothers. Ding, Ding yes the Federal government which introduced welfare which had the effect of replacing poor men as the provider for families. Suddenly women were being paid to have children without being married.

Then came the consequences of having children being raised without fathers. Suprise, suprise the boys in general had no male role models and inadequate disciplne and many grew up to be thugs. The girls got knocked up before they graduated from high school because they were so desperate for male attention and in general their mothers were bad role models.

So we see not only does the government not promote marriage between a man and a woman it actively tries to destroy it. What a bunch of morons in Washington. I'm suprised they're not all Panthers fans.

[Awesome Possum]

JDaveG, on 06 November 2009 - 12:30 PM, said:

You asked what my "ideal solution" is. My pragmatic solution is status quo plus civil unions.

even if civil unions are unequal to marriages?

[Falcons Ace]

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/public/style_images/atlanta/snapback.png

http://doctorbulldog...tional-airport/

[Enlightened29]

Falcons Ace, on 07 November 2009 - 03:34 AM, said:

The difference here is that this is a question of sanitation, health, and liability. Last I checked, the Ten Commandments and the Five Pillars of Islam don't serve any other purpose other than asthetic. Regardless, you see the outrage there. Those individuals protesting are throwing around some very bigoted and flat out hateful remarks that are completely ignorant, but regardless there is a negative reaction there.

This is where tolerance would come in, but we Americans dont know what that is.

[JDaveG]

Awesome Possum, on 06 November 2009 - 10:02 PM, said:

even if civil unions are unequal to marriages?

In terms of special privileges extended by government (i.e. taxes, benefits sharing, etc.), they should be equal to marriage. If they are not, they should be made so.

So the answer to the question as you asked it is "no."

The problem is a false dichotomy is being set up. Civil unions are "not equal." So lets make them so. But, but, but, civil unions would then be "separate but equal." I can live with that since homosexuals cannot enter into a "marriage" by definition in the first place.

But neither side wants civil unions, so if you pick a side, you can guarantee civil unions won't be on your list.

[VincentVanBro]

JDaveG, on 06 November 2009 - 07:04 AM, said:

So the problem is lack of federal recognition? I'm in -- lets get civil unions federally recognized, then. Seems to be the simplest way to solve the problem.

The problem is that when you strip away all of the religious connotations and focus on simply the law, marriage is a legal safeguard for families to have the necessary legal rights for custody and emergencies and such (as well as tax breaks, but to me that's secondary). To give those rights to straight families, but then deny them to people that need them for all the same reasons and fulfill all of the criteria we associate with marriage is simply wrong. Civil unions don't give those same rights.

If you want to just make everything a civil union legally with full rights, then I'd totally agree, although I believe you mentioned (and I'd agree with), that's not going to happen. Personally, I think any attempt to do it is simply stagnating the issue and the only way to get the situation remedied is to allow gay marriages.

[Enlightened29]

VincentVanBro, on 07 November 2009 - 03:27 PM, said:

The problem is that when you strip away all of the religious connotations and focus on simply the law, marriage is a legal safeguard for families to have the necessary legal rights for custody and emergencies and such (as well as tax breaks, but to me that's secondary). To give those rights to straight families, but then deny them to people that need them for all the same reasons and fulfill all of the criteria we associate with marriage is simply wrong. Civil unions don't give those same rights.

If you want to just make everything a civil union legally with full rights, then I'd totally agree, although I believe you mentioned (and I'd agree with), that's not going to happen. Personally, I think any attempt to do it is simply stagnating the issue and the only way to get the situation remedied is to allow gay marriages.

So you are saying that gays need to have legal safeguarding for their "families". Let me see if I follow this. You want GAYS to be protected under a FAMILY heading when they cant have CHILDREN? Ok, that makes sense.

[JDaveG]

VincentVanBro, on 07 November 2009 - 03:27 PM, said:

The problem is that when you strip away all of the religious connotations and focus on simply the law, marriage is a legal safeguard for families to have the necessary legal rights for custody and emergencies and such (as well as tax breaks, but to me that's secondary). To give those rights to straight families, but then deny them to people that need them for all the same reasons and fulfill all of the criteria we associate with marriage is simply wrong. Civil unions don't give those same rights.

Since when? And why not? Why could we not just MAKE civil unions equal to the extent they are not?

And, FWIW, there is no "religious connotation" to providing a stable foundational institution for child-rearing. That is a societal concern regardless of one's religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Quote

If you want to just make everything a civil union legally with full rights, then I'd totally agree, although I believe you mentioned (and I'd agree with), that's not going to happen. Personally, I think any attempt to do it is simply stagnating the issue and the only way to get the situation remedied is to allow gay marriages.

I didn't say it wasn't going to happen, but I concede it's unlikely. My point is that's the fix if there is one.