via Dog Gone from freethoughtblogs.com
The delusional Rick Joyner claims that in Switzerland, it’s hate speech to refer to your wife as your wife rather than your partner (that’s a lie, of course) and that it will lead to the banning of straight marriage completely — and it’s “already happening” in America.
I've been saying for a while that the government should give civil unions only and leave marriage entirely to such institutions that want to solemize said relationship. This would be a part of separating church and state. Any couple would have all the relevant civil rights, and religious matters would be left where they belong.
ReplyDeleteBefore Democommie and Dog Gone become histrionic, they should read that statement again. I'm not talking about a second-class status for gay couples. I'm saying that every couple should get the same treatment from the government. Churches, mosques, and so forth will make up their own minds without regard to what the couple's legal status is, and rightly so in a society that values freedom of religion, but if that legal status is the same for all couples, no rights will be violated.
Gosh, Rick Joyner, hatefilled bigot for Christ; now there's a guy who would truly improve the world by dying. Joyner's not just against teh GAY being married to each other, he's against teh GAY being.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a GOD he'd be havin' hisself a major technicolor yawn vomitin' allathem hypocrites like RickyJ outta his mouth.
Marriage is something that should be reserved for churches? Why? Civil unions are not accorded the same rights and benefits as marriage in many cases. When there is NO difference between civil unions and "marriage" then they will be equal. That, btw, is unlikely to happen for so long as those asshats filled with KKKristian love keep spewing disinformation about the situation and attrtibuting nefarious motives to people who only want the same degree of marriage rights as them. Nevermind that many churches violate the spirit and the letter of the law re: political activity and should lose their non-taxable status.
The "sanctity of marriage" is a joke in the U.S. This:
"The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch downward."
is from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html
seems to be saying, "Geez, it just ain't that bad, it's only a little OVER 41% of U.S. marriages that end in divorce.". And yet, lying sacks of shit on the U.S. ReiKKKwing claim that the "sanctity of marriage" will be destroyed if they allow teh GAY to join in on the fun.
And then of course there's the connection between Joyner, the GunReiKKK loonz like Larry Pratt and the whole nutsack of KKKristian dominionists and conspiracy theorists Janet Porter, Jerry Boykin and the rest of the GOD, Gunz & Grubbin' for Greenbacks crowd.
Yeah, Joyner is a piece of shit, but he's only one of the many ReiKKKwing turds floating in the punchbowl of life. Fuck him and everything he stands for.
Democomme, calm down and read again. There are two components to marriage currently, so far as society is concerned. There's the legal status--insurance, hospital visits, taxes, property, children, and so forth--and there's the social recognition. A civil union can cover all the legal aspects and should be given to every couple. The social status can't be controlled by law, since that relates to the opinion that people hold about others. Some will accept a gay couple, while others won't, and no law will change that. The law can't force someone into a different belief, nor should it. What the law must do is treat everyone equally, and that's what a civil union for everyone would do.
DeleteIt is pretty much impossible and actually dangerous to try and totally eliminate religion from society and government. I fully agree with minimizing religion in government. Elimination is not a good idea. A few basic statements of truth come from religion -- especially Judeo-Christian traditions. Without these inviolable truths, anything goes and "might makes right".
ReplyDeleteFor example Judeo-Christian sanctity of life didn't exist in Nazi Germany and they justified murdering 100s of thousands of German citizens based on utilitarian arguments. However, if the most basic of faith based truths stand, it will never be morally okay to force intercourse on a woman or murder someone because they are a "drag on society".
I will argue the same applies to basic family definition and operation. Marriage should be what it has always been throughout all recorded history -- the union of one man and one woman. Anything else is perversion -- like the people who advocate for consensual adult-child sex relationships.
How would either you or society be harmed by allowing one surviving gay partner to have automatic inheritance of their property or by allowing one partner to visit another in the hospital? Call it perversion if you like, but your religion isn't threatened by gay unions. Lots of people commit lots of sins. This is just a call for society to treat everyone equally.
Delete