Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

[Queller]

No, I want to separate civil unions and marriage based upon my own moral convictions, the free practice of my religion, and the traditional Western definition of marriage which has existed since the foundation of Christendom.

Ah so you want only the definition of marriage in the New Testament after it was changed from the definition in the Old Testament (which included incestuous and polygamous marriages).

 

[Armoured]

This sentiment is why I voted yes on this poll.

If LGBT want to identify based upon their gender preference, rather than their humanity, then there is something inherently wrong with their mindset.

This should indeed make special accommodation available to them, based upon their current identity crisis.

Wha...?

 

[Zeena]

Um, no. That is a line from some ceremonies, but it is not a legal requirement to say or agree to anything of the sort.

But if it IS said, agreed to, VOWED (whatever may be vowed, be it love or hate), does it not bind the person who so vowed it during the course of the marriage?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But if it IS said, agreed to, VOWED (whatever may be vowed, be it love or hate), does it not bind the person who so vowed it during the course of the marriage?

Not legally, no.

 

[Zeena]

Ah so you want only the definition of marriage in the New Testament after it was changed from the definition in the Old Testament (which included incestuous and polygamous marriages).

Whatever he wants, why should his rights be infringed upon for the rights of another?

Especially considering that the reason the right exists is because of him (err, his faith)?

 

[morningstar2651]

Wha...?

She doesn't understand the meaning of public accommodation.

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers

 

[Zeena]

Not legally, no.

Here is one such example of your Court recognising vows as legally binding;

Love Legal Definition
An emotional attachment towards another evidenced by kindness, consideration, understanding, patience, sacrifice or sufferance, if necessary, and words and actions.

Not to even mention that your Civil law provides for abandonment clauses, etc.

 

[Zeena]

She doesn't understand the meaning of public accommodation.

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers

We have the same here in Canada, and duly enforce such with Human Rights tribunals and the Courts.

It is a discriminatory practice to differentiate based upon gender or belief, etc. by any private or public institution, especially that of our Government.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here is one such example of your Court recognising vows as legally binding;



Not to even mention that your Civil law provides for abandonment clauses, etc.

And that has what to do with wedding vows?

 

[Zeena]

And that has what to do with wedding vows?

You're really not one for discourse, are you?

It has to do with how your Courts recognise wedding vows as binding in a contract of marriage.

 

[Queller]

So there were no vows?
Then there was no marriage contract!

Not using the those specific words does not mean there were no vows.

And there are no vows required for a marriage contract according to the state.

 

[Anovah]

This sentiment is why I voted yes on this poll.

Glad to have you on board!

If LGBT want to identify based upon their gender preference, rather than their humanity, then there is something inherently wrong with their mindset.

Couldn't one describe themselves as both being LGBT and humane? Doesn't context dictate which to use?

Also part of the issue is that the decision to legislate around a sexual orientation has already been made. It's not as if homosexuals have been passing anti-gay legislation.

Actually... I take that back

Point being, citizens and politicians have been 'identifying' and subsequently subjugating our fellow Americans for decades

In that sense I would agree that there is something wrong with that mindset.

 

[Queller]

This sentiment is why I voted yes on this poll.

If LGBT want to identify based upon their gender preference, rather than their humanity, then there is something inherently wrong with their mindset.

This should indeed make special accommodation available to them, based upon their current identity crisis.

By this logic identifying as Christian, or black, or male, or anything else other than "humanity" would also be an identity crisis.

 

[GenetoJean]

This sentiment is why I voted yes on this poll.

If LGBT want to identify based upon their gender preference, rather than their humanity, then there is something inherently wrong with their mindset.

This should indeed make special accommodation available to them, based upon their current identity crisis.

What do you mean by identify based on their gender preference as opposed to their humanity? I have yet to meet an LGBT person who doesnt think they are human.

 

[Queller]

Whatever he wants, why should his rights be infringed upon for the rights of another?

How are his rights being infringed upon if the state calls two men or two women in a committed relationship "married"?

Especially considering that the reason the right exists is because of him (err, his faith)?

Are you claiming that the civil right of marriage exists because of Christianity?

 

[Queller]

Here is one such example of your Court recognising vows as legally binding;

Nothing in that link describes vows as legally binding.

Not to even mention that your Civil law provides for abandonment clauses, etc.

Which are not predicated on the presence or absence of love.

 

[Queller]

You're really not one for discourse, are you?

It has to do with how your Courts recognise wedding vows as binding in a contract of marriage.

Except they don't recognize wedding vows as legally binding. They recognize the wedding license as legally binding.

 

[Zeena]

Not using the those specific words does not mean there were no vows.

Specific words or not, a vow is a vow is a vow.

And there are no vows required for a marriage contract according to the state.

Nobody verbally consents to the marriage?

 

[Zeena]

Except they don't recognize wedding vows as legally binding. They recognize the wedding license as legally binding.

Is the license only given if the people consent?

 

[Zeena]

How are his rights being infringed upon if the state calls two men or two women in a committed relationship "married"?

Because the term 'marriage' was inherently a religious one.

Are you claiming that the civil right of marriage exists because of Christianity?

A knock-off of.