Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
An easy fix for same-sex marriage question
Sunday, Nov. 23, 2008 | 2:05 a.m.
Here is a solution to same-sex marriage: Clarify the nomenclature.
Have the government call the currently accepted meaning of marriage by a government name. I suggest “honor.”
“Honored” couples will receive all the perks that “married” couples receive except for the title of marriage. Then rule that only an organized religion can confer the title of “marriage,” and only the government can confer the title of “honor.”
However, both commitments would be legally binding and thereby entitle those making both commitments to government perks now given only to married couples.
More important, parties in both will receive universal respect for their commitment to love one another for life.
By voting this system into law, we would at last separate religion from government as per the vision of the Founding Fathers. That vision being: All citizens are due equal rights.
It’s a no-lose situation. Religion gets “marriage.” Government gets “honor.” All couples get official and social recognition. Everyone gets treated the same.
You’ve got to love that.
Discussion: 80 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Basic’s magical season continues with trip to state semifinals
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (7 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Should a church be forced to marry same sex couples?
Should a church be allowed not to hire a secetary because that person is gay?
Should a church be allowed to preach that homosexuality is a sin?
No.
No.
Yes.
An easier fix: legalize gay marriage.
Should a church be allowed not to hire a secetary because that person is gay?
JohneVegas...I guess you are saying that a church should be sued if they not hire a secetary because the secetary is gay......
No, I guess you are saying that. I'm saying that someone's sexual orientation is none of their business.
Why should another human being have to suffer for someone else's ignorance? Why is someone less because somebody else says so? What makes them superior? Because they have a book that says they are? Everybody has a book like that!
Once again, you paint a broad swath in the hopes of trapping someone into your polarity game. But it's a rainbow isn't it? To me it is anyway.
So a church that believes that homosexuality is a sin ....can not use that as mean to screen employees.....
I believe that is a voliation of the Constitution in the area of freedom of religion.
So if a gay store owner does not hire Christians because they are Christians (who believe he is a sinner) your good with that?
I think the part you left out was whether or not the job is open to the public. To me that would be the difference. If it's only open and available to church members, then whatever. If it's a public job, then no, they can't discriminate or even ask about it.
1. Churches are not currently required to marry anyone they don't want to marry - including same sex couples
2. Churches are not required to hire anyone they do not want to - they are within their legal rights to have a litmus test (unless they are using federal funds for something).
3. Churches can preach anything they want, including hate towards gay people. It's free speech.
The bigger question is: for those churches who marry gay couples, isn't a ban on gay marriage interfering with the right to practice that religion?
If a gay church only wants to hire gay people then it is their right under the Bill of Rights.
If a normal church only wants to hire people who are not gay then it is their right under the Bill of Rights.
A "normal" church, Nance?
Sounds like plain ol' bigotry to me.
To wit: your questions are irrelevant and don't address the fundamental question posed: is a ban on same-sex civil marriage a violation of equal protection, and is the remedy a "separate but equal" set-aside?
You can squabble about hiring practices and the like, but you're (again) missing the point of this letter entirely. Those issues aren't even related.
A pathetic attempt at circumventing the issue at hand, and a fantastic display of bigotry while you're at it. Congrats, Nance!
theBS....is the Queen of the Threads....all must follow theBS rules.......
LOL...........Please accept my apology Thread Queen for breaking one of your rules.....LOL
Well thebs makes a world more sense than you do, Jim. How many of your responses begin as follows: "So you're saying that ...."?
You then proceed to imply something that usually isn't there, all so you can create this argument that also isn't there. It's called a Straw Man Fallacy. Read all about it here http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...
It's getting completely exasperating to have a discussion with you. I don't know how any of these people have the patience.
Good call on the "normal" designation BS.
You caught him off guard too, because rather then acknowledge your point, he just got all angry and resorted to name calling.
Why the hatred and homophobia nance? BS makes a good point that deserves a valid response, not another sarcastic and deflective dismissal.
Wow ... missed this one:
"If a normal church only wants to hire people who are not gay then it is their right under the Bill of Rights."
Well, the "normal" nonsense was already addressed but not the "rights" nonsense. IINM, the Bill of Rights applies to PEOPLE, not ENTITIES.
A church is (supposed to be but rarely is truly) a not-for-profit organization. They have a different set of rules that apply to them. As not-for-profit they can certainly discriminate against anyone they want to discriminate against.
(Aside: That kind of discrimination is in complete opposition to what they're supposed to be all about, isn't it? One wonders how they reconcile the "love one another" and "hate the sin but love the sinner" things. But that's for another time and another thread.)
However, if they take ANY government money for ANY reason, then they cannot discriminate.
"However, if they take ANY government money for ANY reason, then they cannot discriminate."
HA! An actual case where government involvement determines the high ground. Hilarious.
How about live and let live. People shouldn't try to force their own moral values down someone else's throats. As long as these people are not doing bodily harm to another just let them live their life in their own way. I believe they ARE born with their homosexual tendencies - straight guys just don't CHOOSE to take up with another guy - the whole idea is repulsive to them so if guys are seeking other guys it must be because it's inborn in them. Leave people alone and let them live their lives - if you don't agree with their lifestyle then so be it -
The Bills of Rights allows people to organize a chruch and to hire people based on their religious values including whether they are gay or not.
Are you guys saying that we should drop the freedom of religion from the Constitution?
People, please just don't answer the nance. You know he will just twist your answer so he can get someone else going. If you just refuse to engage he might go away. It's not as if he really wants a open discussion. He's trolling.
Nance, please explain what a "normal" church is.
You made the assertion, define it, don't be a coward.
Please explain your bigotry.
Gay rights is a civil liberty issue. Why should anyone be discriminated against based on who they choose to live with? Just because certain religious groups don't agree and some people are uncomfortable with the idea shouldn't be a reason for the government to continue to support this discrimination.
Normal church is just like it means in English...an average everyday church.
It is good enough for you, Thread Queen?
Religious freedom is protected in the bill of rights.
If a church does not what to hire a gay then the church has the right to refuse to under the Bill of Rights.
No, that's a value judgment that you have no right to make.
Your language exposes your intolerance and bigotry against some churches that are open and accepting of GLBT worshipers.
Funny, for someone who gets his underwear in a bunch over people criticizing Palin supposed knowledge of geography as "hatred," you're flaunting the fact that you are intolerant of religious people. Some might call that "hatred" as well.
Another Nance double standard.
Hiring rights are unrelated to the question of civil marriage. They have no place in this discussion. In fact, it's a common way to deflect from the real issue of equal rights.
The categorization of some churches as "normal" is disgusting and has no place in any discussion, let alone one about equality. The intolerant here should think twice about their choice of words, it exposes their prejudice and malice and is un-American, to boot. Religious freedom and tolerance was a founding birthright of this nation.
It is funny that the people on the right who constantly yap about the founding fathers and the constitution are the first ones to throw it under the bus when they encounter someone they disagree with.
All that being said, society is rapidly shifting toward acceptance and equality, and that's a great thing. California, and all of the other states (Nevada included) that have enshrined discrimination into their constitutions should be ashamed. In another generation, this will be seen as a speedbump in the quest for equal civil rights for the gay and lesbian community.
A convicted criminal who is serving a life sentence in prison, for murder or worse, has the right to marry, yet someone whom is a productive member of society does not, only because they are gay. How "right" is that? What happened to seperation of Church and State? If it were not for the influence of the Church, and its' political power, would this really be an issue? Is this not equivelant to the civil rights struggles of the African American community, on a somewhat smaller scale perhaps? But I'm sure no less important to those that are gay, and only want the same rights as those enjoyed by "straight" citizens.
Definition:
Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the prejudicial treatment of them based on certain characteristics. Unlawful discrimination can be characterized as direct or subtle. Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favorably because of their possession of an attribute (e.g., sex, age, race, religion, family status, national origin, military status, sexual orientation, disability, body size/shape), compared with someone without that attribute in the same circumstances.
How can we claim to be such a free society when we can't stop the hate?
"Religious freedom is protected in the bill of rights.
If a church does not what to hire a gay then the church has the right to refuse to under the Bill of Rights."
Yes and yes/no. The church itself has no protected rights under the Bill of Rights. The church has the right to refuse based on its DOCTRINE, not on the Bill of Rights.
The PEOPLE are protected by the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion to THE PEOPLE, not to the churches.
Under the Bill of Rights the people have the right to assemble as a church and excerise their freedom of religion which includes not hiring gays in the church ministry.
John: Absolutely fabulous idea! One of the most sane ideas I have heard regarding this hot button topic. As far as the people who are wondering about churches hiring gay people, why on earth would a gay person want to work for a church that spends so much time and energy casting hateful stones at them? Instead of feeding the poor or giving help to young pregnant teens, the Mormon church has dedicated time, money and energy into it's personal campaign of HATE towards gay people. They have stood on street corners with hideous signs claiming that God hates all F*gs! and they have their children scream hateful words at them, what type of gay person would ever want to work in this type of hostile, hateful, evil environment in the first place? None that I know. Gay people are not the anti-christ and many are very spiritual and God-loving. All gay people want is to have their relationships validated? Who cares why or how they became gay? I don't care how or why straight people are straight? Or why the Mormon church is filled with hypocrites that preach one thing and do yet another? God is about love, not hate and God would never condone all of the hate antics and campaigns that the Mormons did over Prop 8 and what is really sick is how they paired with the Catholics..come on how desperate can one UnGodly church be..and how pathetic are the Catholic churches that have preached against the Mormon church and now..they have an teamed together to stop the gay people from showing how much they love each other? I think some soul-searching is in order here for people. What on earth could it possibly hurt to let Gay people be married, or honored? If you are secure in yourself, then it won't hurt you or your family values in any way, shape size or form. Teach your children to accept and love everyone, even if they don't understand them or what they believe. I teach love in my family and not hate. If you don't agree with homosexuality..then don't be gay.
Many people believe that homosexuality is a sin.
jfnance32: your understanding of constitutional law and freedom of speech is laughable.
Many people also used to believe that being black meant you weren't allowed to marry a white person and that you were only 3/5th's of a human being.
Luckily, our country's attitudes on race have advanced to the point where most children don't even acknowledge race as a factor when they start friendships or attend schools. I hope our country will get to a point where the intolerance you preach against gays is no longer protected by some abstract notion of "sinful conduct."
on another note... can we pass legislation that deems any marriage in a mormon church as a "mormon marriage"?
Sin, for the most part, is a religion based concept. For example, a common definition of the word Sin: "A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate". And even in beholding that definition, the "morals" involved in this particular topic are two people who are in love, and wish to enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and to marry one another. How can any Church rightfully oppose a marraige of two people in love, when they have in-house issues which are far more compelling? Priests, supposed Men of the Cloth, Men who are supposed to serve their God, have molested Children, and the Church attempted to sweep it under the rug. The Mormon religion has a list of transgressions, yet they are concerned with Gay marraige, to the point of infusing large amounts of money into its' opposition. In some Mormon sects they believe in polygamy, and to make matters worse, some of those marraiges are to minors, and let's compound that with the fact that some of those marraiges involve individuals whom were related PRIOR to the marraige. But let's go picket against Gay marraige.
Our Countries economy is falling apart. We still have Troops dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are pedophiles inside the largest organized religion in the world. But let's spend huge sums of money and energy in opposition to two people in love getting married.
I wonder how many people opposed to allowing gay marraige are also of the belief that Rosa Parks should never have been allowed on the bus? After all, discrimination is discrimination.
Many blacks hate people comparing the advancement of the gay agenda to the Civil Rights struggle. Obama brought out droves of blacks in Cali and about 70% of black voted against gay marriage.
Constitution says there is the freedom of religion, speech and assemble which means people can assemble, form a church, hire people in the church ministry who they please base on whether they are gay or not and say that homosexuality is a sin and kick people out of their membership who do not confirm to their beliefs.
All the Federal court rulings have affirmed those rights.
I am sure that over turning all those religious rights in regards to "gay rights" in part of the gay agenda.
"Many people believe that homosexuality is a sin."
Hard to argue with that one nance, but so is judging others.
I believe fraud is a sin and yet most of the fraudsters I've net in Vegas are Mormons. One is supposedly a Bishop, whatever that means in the Mormon church. So, go figure.
The gay community is asking for the right to marry, to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. If that's what you're referring to as their "Agenda", well then shame on them, huh Nance? And as far as the African American community not being appreciative of the comparison, oh well. It is another "group" of people, deemed different by the "general" public, struggling for equal rights. But since you appear to be a bigot, Nance, discrimination against gays is OK, because they commit a sin by being in love and wanting to get married.
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
"I am sure that over turning all those religious rights in regards to "gay rights" in part of the gay agenda."
Apparently, Nance is some sort of scholar of the gay agenda. Please, Nance, enlighten us some more. What else is on the docket? What eeeevvviiilll plans lurk in the hearts of those equality-seekers?
Not a surprise you'd blame the passage of Prop 8 on African-Americans. Perhaps you weren't aware that you're propagating a myth?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/p...
Not that I expect you to read and learn and all, but you might give it a shot.
You keep trying, and failing, to derail the subject of the debate to some mythical assault on church rights.
This has nothing to do with the rights of a church. This has everything to do with legalizing civil marriage and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
But you can't argue the actual issue, so you want to start playing a debunked blame game and screeching about hiring rights for churches.
God, that rhetoric is transparent as ever, Nance.
"Many blacks hate people comparing the advancement of the gay agenda to the Civil Rights struggle."
This is a straw man argument. Jfnance32 continues to use logical fallacies in his reasoning. I'm surprised anyone bothers to "argue" with him anymore.
"I am sure that over turning all those religious rights in regards to "gay rights" in part of the gay agenda."
This is baiting and, if true, exposes Jfnance32's hysteria and paranoia.
How sad, clutching to logical fallacies and paranoia in the absence of reason.
"It's a no-lose situation. Religion gets marriage. Government gets honor."
Why should religion get marriage all to themselves? Since when has marriage been limited to a religious union?
Marriage has been accepted as a social or civil union for centuries. If a church does not want to recognize gay marriage that is OK. They don't have to. What is wrong is for government not to recognize gay marriage as a legal civil union. An individuals civil rights should have NOTHING to do with any kind of religious ceremony.
The last time I saw an actual gay agenda it had something to do with somebody throwing a fabulous dinner party.
Gay agenda means nothing. It's a code phrase for "you don't like this". Like "activist judges" or "liberal media", it's utterly contrived hogwash for simpletons.
"Not a surprise you'd blame the passage of Prop 8 on African-Americans. "
theBS putting words in my mouth.....AGAIN
Where did I blame the passage of Prop 8 on blacks?????????
You need to learn to read English....I said, "Obama brought out droves of blacks in Cali and about 70% of black voted against gay marriage"
I did not blame the Passage of Prop 8 on blacks. I said over 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8 and Obama brought out droves of black voters. I believe both are true from newspaper accounts. I did not say that black vote caused Prop 8 to pass.
Here is an NY Times "Straw Man" article on blacks not happy about people comparing the push for the gay agenda to the Civil Rights struggle.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...
"theBS putting words in my mouth.....AGAIN"
Kinda dumbstruck by the level of projection in this sentence. Sense of dumbstruck being overwhelmed by overt, hysterical laughing.
Pot, meet kettle.
You were inferring a point. Otherwise, it was absolutely irrelevant.
So which is it, Nance? Were you inferring blame on African-Americans that has been debunked, or just reciting irrelevant "factoids"?
But please, I'm waiting on pins and needles for more of this gay agenda you seem to know so much about. Please, tell us more!
So you think social mores and attitudes haven't changed for the past 15 years, jfnance32? You cite an article from the early 90's. LOL!
Have you stuck your head into the sand?
It remains a straw man argument and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Your attempts to derail the topic of conversation on this page is amusing, but in your absence of reason and topicality, you've displayed an uncanny knack for the tactics of distraction. Unfortunately, they have failed.
It is also shameful that you attempted to draw a conclusion between the votes of African-Americans and the passage of Prop 8. It is very clear what you meant by your words.
The bigotry and race-baiting displayed on this page by one commenter is disgusting and indicative of the old, polarizing politics of neoconservatives. Karl Rove's tactics died on November 4, jfnance32. Maybe you missed the memo while reading your mythical gay agenda.
"You were inferring a point"......theBS the king of inferring points.....LOL
Wait, I thought I was a "thread queen." Now I'm a king?
Or is the gender confusion part of this mythical gay agenda?
I'm still waiting on more details.
Yes, you were inferring a point, jfnance32. Otherwise, it was irrelevant, like thebs said.
It is funny you failed to answer whether it was inferred or irrelevant.
It is also hilarious that you point the finger at ANYONE and say that they put words into your mouth. I have looked through your comment history, and the number of times you have begun a sentence with "I guess you think that..." has to be above 200 times.
You've even wrote that on this page.
That is the way you attempt to argue, you intentionally misconstrue a direct statement and then say, "I guess you are saying that..."
That is putting words into people's mouths.
That is what you do several times a day on this website.
I think it's sad that I know this, but you are too easy to predict.
Here are some other "Straw Man" articles on blacks not liking the comparsion between their struggle of Civil Rights to the gay agenda push.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5464.ht...
theBS is bi-gender and/or bi-polar (you pick)....both King of Inferrence and and Queen of Threads.....
None of those even come close to your charged rhetoric of "Many blacks hate people comparing the advancement of the gay agenda to the Civil Rights struggle."
You seem to be very enamored of the word "hate."
Most of what you posted are commentary or editorials, not articles. It is clear you do not know the difference.
LOL!
So when your rhetoric is bankrupt and you've been exposed as a bigot, all you've got left is childish namecalling?
Is there any greater evidence that you've completely lost this debate?
No.
You said it was a "straw man" but you have now admitted that there are news articles on that state that blacks do not like the comparison between their Civil Rights struggle to the gay adgenda push.
Thanks....for admitting that you were wrong.
You were the one that first to play the name calling card which shows that you were void of any meaningful arugements from the very beginning.
It is so funny on how the Nazi PC police crowd are always the first ones to use the name calling card.
I admitted nothing of the sort, but you just showed that you put words into people's mouths.
And thus, are also exposed as a hypocrite.
Your argument remains irrelevant to the question of civil marriage. You continue to run away from the real issues in favor of personal attacks.
Bigotry is very ugly, jfnance32.
The "Nazi PC police crowd?"
In what way were Nazis politically correct?
Please, let me know when I "play(ed) the name calling card." Quote me.
Nance, get off the African American issue, they have the right to marry , that is not the topic of this article. I brought it up as an example to some degree of the fight for equal rights, regardless of if they like the comparison or not. And if you would like to address that issue, would you remove your bigot hat momentarily and agree that there is some irony in a group of individuals that have had to fight for their rights to wish to deprive another group of their same equal rights?
I for one do not believe in the deprivation of any rights enjoyed by the majority of the population to one group of people, based on their "differences". We claim to be such an advanced society in this Country, yet we still judge some whom are guilty of no crime, and deprive them of the rights we should ALL enjoy.
Now jfnance32 is rewriting history. Anyone who can read can scroll up and read jfnance32 calling thebs a "thread queen." (Whatever that is, only jfnance32 seems to know.)
It's one thing to put words into peoples' mouths, jfnance32, but to lie about something that is easily seen on this page? That's crazy.
It is you guys that have attacked me personally first.
That is funny coming from people who say they are worry about people's rights.
You said: 'Most of what you posted are commentary or editorials, not articles' .........perhaps you are speaking in Clinton's language... but in English...."most" does not mean "all" which leaves "some" to be news articles.
Thinks for admitting that I posted news articles with say that blacks are not happy with their Civil Rights struggle being compared to the gay agenda push.
"It is so funny on how the Nazi PC police crowd are always the first ones to use the name calling card."
Actually Jim, it's my experience that it is usually you who pulls that card first. It's a boring replacement for depth.
But I'm only a fake Buddhist who can't see past his own hateful projections. So what would I know?
Yes, Mr. Scholar of Mystery, who loves to tell others they are not qualified on matters of life and religion....LOL.
Weak minded liberal who is discussing gay agenda:
Weak minded liberal: "I am for gay marriage".
Other Person: "I am not for gay marriage"
Weak minded liberal: "Bigot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Excellent argument there.......two thumbs up for that intelligent response.....
I'm sorry; I taught Jim a new phrase. And per usual, he's uncertain of its actual meaning. Or maybe he is certain of its actual meaning but doesn't know how to use it. Or maybe he's certain of its actual meaning and does know how to use it but WILLFULLY DISTORTS ITS MEANING TO SUPPORT HIS OWN ARGUMENT.
I blame myself.
Don't be hard on yourself Pat...........you are excellent at the art of attacking other bloggers directly and by-passing the whole lets debate the arguments thingy.....
....wait a minute.......you are not really that good on the art of attacking other bloggers directly....but you do practice it alot.....one day you might get above 3rd grade level....
Nance's bigotry was displayed when he made an artificial distinction with "normal" churches.
I know you want to fault others for your faults, but that's projection you can't escape, Nance.
Nor can you take recontextualize it into something it is not...
When I see bigotry, I call it out. No one disputes your right to express your bigotry, just as you shouldn't dispute the right of response.
And you've made several references now to the gay agenda. You stated that you are "sure" this agenda includes overturning religious rights. But you continue to run away from what the rest of this agenda includes. I've asked for several clarifications as to what you believe it includes. You've failed to answer all of those inquiries.
"....wait a minute.......you are not really that good on the art of attacking other bloggers directly....but you do practice it alot.....one day you might get above 3rd grade level...."
This coming from the guy who's attacked me personally several times on this page alone. Nance, your level of projection is off the charts.
Irregardless of opinions, the fact is that there are many laws passed because of religion or the christian rights views of right and wrong.
This means that the voting public need to be influenced to vote for public servants that represent our modern views.
The history of "separation of church and state" was intended to keep the government from interfering with religion, not the other way around. Please research your history and not quote this out of context.
Also, I don't believe that not agreeing with gay "marriage" establishes a "hatred" for gays or that lifestyle. It is a lifestyle choice, that does not involve the traditional man/woman marriage as always represented in history. As society changes, we will either choose as a population, to adopt or reject those changes as a whole. Currently, the consensus is to reject "gay marriage".
Jim, I ask questions. I offer refutations (is that a word? LOL) for the selectively edited & twisted facts presented by the likes of you & those who subscribe to your particular belief system.
When nonsense is posted I respond in kind.
You rarely answer direct questions. I've experienced the same from those who apparently subscribe to the same belief system. Ergo, I have little if any respect to offer these people.
Honestly, Jim; this must be the fourth time I've qualified this for you. If you think you'll need a fifth, please C&P my post, save it to a text file, title it whatever will jog your memory and please refer to it in the future.
Once again, I'm so damn tired of the same deliberate lies and half-truths being spun wildly out of context by you and those who believe as you do. I'm tired of the ridiculous, childish games you all play over and over and over again, never once straying from the script. (Aside: One would think you'd vary it from time to time to keep your perceived "opponents" on their toes. But alas; none of you have the capacity for original thought let alone creative thought.)
I have been at this political game for many, MANY years. I'm tired.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to let you all go without a fight.
And as suspected, the irony of your use of "straw man" has completely escaped you.
But I would be incredibly rude if I didn't thank you for the laugh. So thank you for the laugh.
I believe that people who are happy with their lives do not object to gay people getting married because they have nothing to lose. The people who are unhappy with their lives seem to object the most to gay marriage. Judging, nance by the way is a sin. You seem to judge gay people and make asinine assumptions about gay people and it makes me ill. Cast the first stone, nance.
"who loves to tell others they are not qualified on matters of life and religion"
Feel free to display your religion or spirituality any time. You can rest assured I will respect it more than you have mine.
"Mr. Scholar of Mystery"
You responded to my point by making my point. Too bad for us you can't get a little self worth without expending somebody else in the mean time.
Somebody sure does have a high regard for themself.
JohneVegas believes himself to be so enlighten that he has declared himself a Scholar of Mystery.
He believes only himself can make statements on life and religion.....he tells others they are not qualified to do so.
LOL...........I am sure now you are going to share with us yours words of wisdom that will enlighten us with your wealth of knowledge on the mystery of life.
Go ahead....now....talk about your favorite subject....shadows.
LOL......I just love you JohneVegas....you make me laugh almost everday.
Jeez, Jim; that's a new low in nasty even for you. You've been shown to be wrong throughout this entire thread.
The adult thing would be to admit that, apologize & move on. You'd get a lot of respect that way.
Pat....you are constantly attacking other bloggers....rarely do you argue the points.....
If anybody needs to do apologizing it is you.
I never attack a blogger first.....but I will response with attacks if attacked.
JohnEVegas attacked me first. He was not making a point about any subject...he just went after me personally.
There seems to be more than a few people who participate in these threads, who appear to be more interested in the people making the comments, rather than the subject matter of the story. There are also a number of participants who like berating the author of the article, regardless if they are letters to the editor, or articles by the Sun Staff. ZComments including verbage such as "So what you're saying is ....", or "You people ...." serve no purpose other than to agitate the people participating in this forum. What someone writes in their comment is what they write, do not attempt to warp their words to fit your own needs. And what people would "You people" be referring to? White people? Black people? Brown people? Employed people? Unemployed people? Straight people? Gay people? Men? Women? The term "You people" is a sign of disdain for a certain group of individuals, and shows someones true colors. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinions, and everyone is also entitled to respond, but why must some of the responses be directed towards someones character, or intelligence, or anything else of a personal nature? Maybe the Sun would have more participation on this site if they were a little quicker to pull the trigger on the people who consistantly conduct personal attacks. Oh well, Karma well get them in the end anyway.
You have joked about a blogger being locked in a school locker as a child.
You called one blogger's remarks as farts.
Again, I do not personally attack other bloggers unless I get attacked first. I rather have a dicussion about other things then the blogger themself.
It is nearly impossible to talk with libs about race or the gay agenda.....they immediate play the "bigot" card which is a sign of weakness in the agrument area.
There are two arguments here which seem to be getting entangled: legal and moral.
Legal: In theory, the state grants special considerations to married couples because it recognizes that the family is the foundation of the state. It does it, not for the benefit of the couple, but for the benefit of the state. Gay couples don't offer that benefit to the state any more than single persons. I think gay couples have a right to happiness and companionship, but granting married status will probably generate lawsuits from singles as the only discriminated upon group left. I don't know if "civil union" is the best term, but perhaps, some term other than marriage would lower the heat on this issue.
Well, Jim, apparently you didn't take my advice to C&P my explanation to you. But I'll not post it for a fifth time.
I'm tired of talking to paid shills anyway. It's a waste of my valuable time.
The funny thing is that I don't think you're a paid shill, Jim. You've shown actual flashes of humanity, and I've agreed with you on several salient points on these boards.
Not to be mean, just telling it like it is. I'm wasting my time on these boards. And I have only myself to blame for it.
Take care & happy whatever-you-celebrate.
"JohnEVegas attacked me first."
nance - You attack and insult me nearly every single day. All I have to do is speak up about anything and I'm attacked by you with some form of condescension about being a Mystery Scholar or being a fake Buddhist or I'm gay or that I'm egotistical or filled with hate, and on and on and on.
"He was not making a point about any subject...he just went after me personally."
Yes I was. You simply don't respect anyone else's points. You just get all indignant and entitled and arrogant and change the topic and/or entirely change what somebody said.
To me the most telling thing of all, Jim, is that you ignore the hard questions. Especially the personal ones like how you work your shadow. You don't, as anyone can tell, know what that means. You just throw back another insult to deflect the issue. So, shadow Jim? How do you work with it?
"It is nearly impossible to talk with libs about race or the gay agenda.....they immediate play the "bigot" card which is a sign of weakness in the agrument area."
That's because the things you say are bigoted even if you don't think they are. You know that bigots generally don't realize they are being bigots. That's what makes them bigots. They can't see their own bigotry, Jim.
And it wasn't my experience that your bigotry was pointed out to you in this thread until AFTER you showed it. "Normal" church?
"You have joked about a blogger being locked in a school locker as a child.
You called one blogger's remarks as farts."
If you wish to compare my remarks to the other personal attacks contained within these threads, you should pay a little closer attention to my statements you wish to quote. Both of my remarks you highlight were in response to the same person, and in response to his remarks comparing Teachers to Janitors, and the students to toilets. I take great exception to anyone who would make such a vulgar comparison involving the Teachers and Children of our city. I will defend an innocent group of people all day long against someone who shows bigotted tendencies towards that group. If you would like I'd be more than happy to C & P the definition of a bigot again, as I did so previously when I used the word in my comment. My Family suffered great injustices many years ago, due to bigotry and the most severe form of discrimination, and I will stand up against it every chance I get. Very rarely will you see me respond with more personal attacks when someone makes a comment against me personally, despite my feelings that sometimes it would be well deserved. Did I make any comments of a personal nature Nance, when you responded to my posts in regards to Teachers pay, and you emphasized that it was an erroneous belief? And I quote: "I do not think Nevada will be able to solve your perceived problem of "low" teacher salaries anytime soon". Why was perceived necessary in that statement for any reason other than as antagonism? I don't want an answer from You Nance, but maybe, just maybe, you should take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about how you respond to people, and their opinions, as should a number of other people participating herein.
Janeroxxy
Act Like A Lady Think Like A Man, is a must read e-book for both women and men. If you're trying to get over the hurt of a broken heart, trying to get out of a bad relationship or hoping not to get into one, this is the book for you. If you are lonely and haven't been able to find Mr. Right, wouldn't know him if you met him or if you've found him and are worried about keeping him, folks this is the book! If you are unhappy, suffer from low self esteem, are over weight and don't feel good about yourself or just feel like your life is going no where, this book can help put your life on the right track. It's a life changer for both single and married women. Do yourself a favor and preview the e-book at; actlikealadythinklikeaman.com