The Truth, the Whole Truth And. . .

[sirs]

Asked and answered already.  Go with the compromise route.  Gets the "same rights" taken care of, while leaving marriage as that of a bond between a man & a woman

A poor answer, because there never will BE a civil union law passed.

Why?  And if you think a compromise bill couldn't be passed, how the hell do you think a screw 1 side bill would??

You may be the only one who sees any merit in one, anyway.

I seriously doubt that as Bt has been singing that tune far longer tham myself.  So that makes at least 2

There are NO STATES where a civil union guarantees the same rights as a marriage.

That can't be worded properly & corrected, via the legislative route

Stop it with the "asked and answered already", you are not God, and nearly all your answers suck.

Ahh, back to the terminal lack of self control response.  Good to see consistency, though.  FYI, never did try passing myself off as God, unlike some who try to pass themselves off as the spelling Nazi

[Amianthus]

You may be the only one who sees any merit in one, anyway.

I seriously doubt that as Bt has been singing that tune far longer tham myself.  So that makes at least 2

IIRC, Fatman also agrees. And he's the only vocal gay member here.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no screw one side bill. If gay people are allowed to legally marry, how does that screw anyone?

This civil union stuff would be nice, but it will not pass. It's like saying that you can't own a Rotweiler unless you name him "Fluffy".

[sirs]

There is no screw one side bill.

Yea, there is....the one that legislates "marriage" as anyone marrying anyone, and screw the traditional definition.  That screws the other side, who whole heartedly, and with complete conviction believe marriage to be a sacraed covenent between a man and a woman

This civil union stuff would be nice, but it will not pass.

Again, WHY??, it's actually a compromise.  You have't yet explained that bit of irrational thought

It's like saying that you can't own a Rotweiler unless you name him "Fluffy".

Completely unrelated and irrelevent.  No one is argueing you can't name your dog anything you want

[_JS]

I have found it in my walk with God.

Sirs is a moral relativist...I've seen it all now.

If I were to actually be pushing what you keep claiming, I'd be pressing you (like you are to me) why is it not part of your walk?  But unlike you, I'm not going to continually stand over you and judge your faith, as I see fit.  I think we can cease this now

You may ask me that, I do not find questions towards my faith the least bit offensive. I don't adhere to "love the sinner, hate the sin" for a myriad of reasons. The first being that there is no basis in the ministry of Christ for such an ethical proposal. It does not follow the Pauline theology of Christian love that one is to "hate." Moreover, as I said before, it is simply a modern Protestant (and not mainstream protestant by any stretch) construct that finds no real basis in Christian tradition. We can dig deep into the scriptures and into various theological aspects, but I don't think that is what you have in mind.

The truth is that you cannot justify it with the Bible. So now you have to use something you truly despise to justify this ethical rule you've created - moral relativism!! What an intricate web of  hypocrisy you've created for yourself. Some introspection would do some good on this issue.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You can be married, as long as you agree to let us call it a 'civil union".

You can own a Rotweiler as long as you agree to call it "Fluffy".

If we allow you to call it a Rotweiler, there are these people over here who are afraid of Rotweilers and they will not allow anythoig named a Rotweiler in our community. They feel that Rotweilers are satanic. But if you agree to call it "Fluffy", we are going to make a special exception.

There is no merit to calling something which it is not.

[_JS]

See XO I think you miss how nice this compromise is.

Homosexuals will be separate, but equal (sort of) to heterosexuals. They will be segregated and given a similar right called by a different name. They should be grateful to these great compromisers who deem them almost worthy enough to enjoy the same right to be married that the rest of us have.

I mean, not everyone should be like Tom Arnold, Liz Taylor, Rudy Giulianni or Dennis Rodman. That is a special right reserved for those who treat marriage with the dignity and respect it deserves.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would not object to calling it a civil union, but we know the IRS would not treat these equally, not would insurance companies, hospitals or banks, unless the law demanded it.

Of course, since I am neither gay nor a great fan of marriage, my personal views are irrelevant.

If you want to give people the right to be married, just do it. It harms no one, it makes no demands of any church. It it might be construed that way, write into the law that it will not oblige any clergyman to wed anyone against his will.

[sirs]

See Js, you miss how nice the compromise is where the Bible and God teaches Christians that homosexuality is immoral, yet we're even able to compromise that standard by allowing for civil unions.  Same rights and everything

Unless of course this has never been about "equal rights".  Which to this observer, seems to be far more the case

[_JS]

See Js, you miss how nice the compromise is where the Bible and God teaches Christians that homosexuality is immoral, yet we're even able to compromise that standard by allowing for civil unions.  Same rights and everything

Unless of course this has never been about "equal rights".  Which to this observer, seems to be far more the case

Are we now creating conspiracy theories?

Sirs...I'd put more into your "homosexuality is immoral" line if you didn't defend that position with moral relativism.

[sirs]

Problem for you Js, there is no "moral relativism".  Bible is clear, Homosexuality is a sin.  You don't need me to provide you with the passages, do you?  You being the Bible guru and all

[Plane]

There is no screw one side bill. If gay people are allowed to legally marry, how does that screw anyone?

This civil union stuff would be nice, but it will not pass. It's like saying that you can't own a Rotweiler unless you name him "Fluffy".

Hehehe..

Apt.

So what is the objection to "fluffy" then?

[_JS]

Problem for you Js, there is no "moral relativism".  Bible is clear, Homosexuality is a sin.  You don't need me to provide you with the passages, do you?  You being the Bible guru and all

Not a problem at all because the moral relativism comes from your "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethics, which is no where to be found in the scriptures. You defend it with your subjective everyone-gets-to-make-up-their-own-ethics walk with God line of New Age babble. That, Sirs, is moral relativism.

And for the record, not once have I EVER claimed to be a "Bible guru." Nor would I ever do so.

[sirs]

You're the one sitting in judge over my walk.  I thought Bible guru was pretty light.  And last time I checked, Homosexuality was still a sin in the eyes of God, so how that negates my attempt to love the sinner but hat the sin, is still a problematic issue for you, I'm afraid, regardless your numerous attempts at labeling me

[_JS]

Getting divorced is a sin as well more clearly stated than homosexuality, but I haven't seen you push to ban divorce.

Why not?