Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:"You are missing the point. I mean, REALLY missing it. ."
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Stfu Shirley:</b>" I guess so, because you aren't making a ... [snip!] ... option, IMO. I'm seeing this as a huge compromise and it seems like your heels are dug in...over A WORD. Seems silly to me."
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Stfu Shirley:</b>" So you think that nobody should be allowed ... [snip!] ... the compromise. Neither side wants to compromise. Government WANTS us fighting about this...or it would already be settled."You say "The problem, as I see it is NOT going to remedy if we keep going and arguing pointless points (as a society, I mean). " - and yet I think that is exactly what you are doing. Why are you spending a ton of time trying to explain why a non religious person or a gay person is somehow not entitled to the word marriage? It IS used as a legal term & has been since the foundation of this country and well before that. If you want a special name for religious people to have to somehow make their marriage more special, then come up with one. You don't just get to call jurisdiction on a term.
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" You say "The problem, as I see it is NOT ... [snip!] ... rights that come BECAUSE of marriage? It should be the latter, IMO. Government can be neutral and still grant those rights."I don't see how it needs compromise. The fact is separate but equal never means equal - it means discrimination. This isn't about digging in my heels over a word, it is about standing up to blatant bigotry. The arguments you are using in regard to changing terminology are the same ones that were used to defend Jim Crow Laws in the South, that you can somehow NOT allow someone something YOU are entitled to & that isn't blatant discrimination.. There should be NO need to "appease" the masses. The Supreme Court should have already handled this & made it legal long ago. The reality is that we do NOT live in a true Democracy. Our government is set up to be a Constitutional Republic & most people so poorly understand politics to even realize that. Again - NOT a democracy. Why are we not a democracy? To try to avoid situations like this where the majority are not in a position to be allowed to oppress a minority simply because they can through the power of a majority vote. I find the fact that we allow this to be a public vote issue a total joke. So 10% of the population is stuck waiting on the other 90% to give a smurf about an issue that doesn't seem to benefit them in any way. That 90% is continuing to be allowed to deny those people equal rights & access to a legal & public institution.
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" I don't see how it needs compromise. The ... [snip!] ... constitutional republic. This administration and even some before it, have failed to uphold the constitution many, many times."I am not going to get into every OTHER law out there & whether or not it's fair. This was a thread on guns for pete's sake & we've already derailed to gay marriage. Not only that, this is a civil rights issue - where a certain group of people are being denied the same rights others have. Like I said in another thread about comparing gay rights & gun rights - I don't see a comparison unless you are going to say gays shouldn't have guns. There are civil liberties issues, and then civil rights issues. Taxation issues/class systems is yet another topic entirely. If you want to start a thread I am more than happy to discuss taxation policy with you.