Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

It always amazes me when Christians reach back to the old testament. surely the point of Jesus's ministry (sorry dont believe he was a god) was of a radical departure from OT teachings and practices.

Im quite sure Jesus would vomit up his innards if he saw what was being done in his name today and in the past.

I see... you discussed the commentary she wrote today ..last month? And what about Mark Simpson?

Their points are well taken. Get govt out of religion (marriage) and religion out of civil unions. Let's ALL have civil unions.

The gay community says that takes too much work and too much time. Go figure.

Do we really? Fascinating.

I think, ultimately, and going back some way in the thread, that I agree with the sentiments that: 1) it is important to counteract the (in my view, misguided) "religious" basis for supporting Prop 8 (like) legislation in order to successfully pursue the "gay agenda" (you gayhadists, you ) plank of same-gender* unions, 2) religion should have no role whatsoever in civil legislation regarding marriage, or any other governmental proscriptions, and c) the primarily Christian-religiously-based arguments are based upon a narrow reading of (primarily) OT proscriptions, rather than the gist of Jesus' (NT) teachings. (I personally draw a bright line between the Gospels and subsequent opinions expressed by followers, because their personal agendas tended to obscure/blur the essence of Jesus' teachings. Seriously, what does Revelations really have to do with Jesus?)

* I prefer the term "same-gender" rather than "same-sex" because it refers to the status of the person rather than emphasizing "sex," which we all know is "icky" to Americans.

I'm only restating something state by the thread started in a different thread when the topic came up.

http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=85450

I am repeating myself I suppose, but I do not think the gay community is of a single mind about anything, much less marriage vs. civil unions. I don't think many people regardless of gender identity have solidified their thinking as between those two. Most opinions in my experience are reflexive and seldom thought through very well until someone engages them in this kind of discussion.

That being said, assuming for a moment your estimate is accurate, kap17, I say let us decide between the two after we are given the exact same benefits and burdens of marriage. Then we can really decide. Now it is a bit like an undernourished person being offered McDonalds and being denied filet mignon.

I support Sky's proposal to take the word away from everyone as far as the laws are concerned, with the proviso about equal benefits and burdens. I just can't see straight people being willing to give up the title.

I get the point of the article, truly, I do, and maybe it's just the midwesterner in me -- but I'd rather see an article that describes the US without gays - including, perhaps, gay researchers, doctors, therapists, statesmen, professors, financiers, authors...

No disrespect to Hollywood but the contributions of gay people in the US reach so much further than Hollywood that it seems perhaps a disservice to limit the presentation to Hollywood.

It's good of course; I'd just like to see a broader version.

I'm only restating something state by the thread started in a different thread when the topic came up.

http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=85450[/quote] But, Kap, you are still overlooking the fact that Proposition 8 was a broadside attack on gays. We HAD been granted marriage, why would we be out there fighting for changing everything to civil unions and reserving 'marriage' for religious institutions when equality had been legally declared?

This is an idea that has really only started gathering steam since Prop 8 passed. Perhaps someone should have thought of it earlier and perhaps someone did, but when you are attempting to get equality, the first course of action is to gain acceptance within an existing institution.

Don't you think that attempting to change everyone's 'marriage' to a civil union so that gays and straights would have equality would be met with as much or more objection if that were the first tactic? That seems like it would come off as some selfish minority trying to change everything to fit their needs. AND you can bet that the phrase 'redfining marriage' would be flying even more over that.