A Compromise on "The Compromise"

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 am

Many folks put forth a compromise whereby all legal unions of folks should be considered "civil unions".

This compromise has been rejected by a good bunch of folks, so I propose another'n...

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions". This would preserve the cultural and historical significance of the word marriage, while allowing others to offer some form of 'marriage'. Of course all rights and privileges would be the same under the legal term, and those folks who object to certain marriages would of course be allowed to continue to object within legal boundaries.

Is this proposal reasonable? Why or why not?

nygreenguy · Post by **nygreenguy** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:06 pm

lastcallhall wrote:
I am not trying to muddy the waters but in my mind with the push by some of my liberal politician friends I think the hate crimes and gay marriage laws go hand in hand. My opposition (not to get to far off subject) to hate crimes bill is that it will get churches sued because then you are discriminating against a protected group but I don't think there is any difference in crimes. What I mean is if you bash anyones head with a metal pipe no matter why you did it the punishment should be the same. You obviously at that point have anger issues and are not right in the head. The hate crimes bill will be a sword to attack the church through the liberal courts and bankrupt the large churches. I know this may get applause from some people but it scares me to death

Ummm....no.

It has already long been upheld in the courts that churches are allowed to discriminate. Also, hate laws have nothing to do with discrimination. Hate crimes are ONLY applied when a crime is already committed. So, instead of just robbing someone, you rob them BECAUSE of their religion.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:12 pm

From Post 28:

lastcallhall wrote: I am not trying to muddy the waters but in my mind with the push by some of my liberal politician friends I think the hate crimes and gay marriage laws go hand in hand.

I'm unaware of any law that says religious folks must be accepting of their fellow human beings.

lastcallhall wrote: My opposition (not to get to far off subject) to hate crimes bill is that it will get churches sued because then you are discriminating against a protected group but I don't think there is any difference in crimes.

I propose such lawsuits may not be so quickly forthcoming, if such churches wouldn't violate such laws.

lastcallhall wrote: What I mean is if you bash anyones head with a metal pipe no matter why you did it the punishment should be the same. You obviously at that point have anger issues and are not right in the head. The hate crimes bill will be a sword to attack the church through the liberal courts and bankrupt the large churches. I know this may get applause from some people but it scares me to death

Actually, I'm of a mind that hate crime laws are a punishment of thought, and should not be enacted. That said, I only ever hear opposition to such laws from folks who worship a "loving god".

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:20 pm

From Post 29:

dianaiad wrote: The problem, Joey, is this: by suggesting your version, you are claiming, first, that there IS a moral/ethical/religious aspect to 'marriage' that 'civil unions' don't have...

Doesn't this then indicate the original proposal does the same?

dianaiad wrote: second..that it is that extra aspect of marriage that you want for gays

I'd caution against thinking this is an issue solely for gay folks. As it stands, I don't care who marries who, or how many.

dianaiad wrote: ...and third, you want to reserve the word so that those who have a problem with gays being married have to acknowledge that they are--with the extras over and above the legal rights.

Not so much. I notice the original proposal has been rejected, so I offer that same proposal to those who offered it up in the first place.

After all, if "civil union" is such a "fair compromise", wouldn't those who offered it up in the first place be willing to accept it for themselves?

Seems not.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:27 pm

JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 28:

lastcallhall wrote: I am not trying to muddy the waters but in my mind with the push by some of my liberal politician friends I think the hate crimes and gay marriage laws go hand in hand.
I'm unaware of any law that says religious folks must be accepting of their fellow human beings.

lastcallhall wrote: My opposition (not to get to far off subject) to hate crimes bill is that it will get churches sued because then you are discriminating against a protected group but I don't think there is any difference in crimes.
I propose such lawsuits may not be so quickly forthcoming, if such churches wouldn't violate such laws.

lastcallhall wrote: What I mean is if you bash anyones head with a metal pipe no matter why you did it the punishment should be the same. You obviously at that point have anger issues and are not right in the head. The hate crimes bill will be a sword to attack the church through the liberal courts and bankrupt the large churches. I know this may get applause from some people but it scares me to death
Actually, I'm of a mind that hate crime laws are a punishment of thought, and should not be enacted. That said, I only ever hear opposition to such laws from folks who worship a "loving god".

I guess to me it does not matter why somebody is murdered, let's say a friend of mine, the end result is that person is dead. The punishment should be the same because you can't be any more dead if you were murdered because you were black than if you were murdered and are white. Those of us who love the Lord would not murder someone because God says not to, not because of a man made law. It is legal for me to go into a strip club but God word says to lust is a sin so I will not go even though it is legal. The reason I oppose the hate crimes bill is I believe it targets churches to lawsuits by the homosexual movement so they can forward their agenda and destroy the fundamentalist christian church.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:03 am

It appears to me that LastCallHall's argument is something like this. We should not grant equal rights to a particular minority, because if we do so, those people who discriminate against that group based on their religious code, might be prevented from doing so in the future. Can anyone see, if this legal principle were to be consistently applied where it might lead?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:44 am

From Post 34:

lastcallhall wrote: ...Those of us who love the Lord would not murder someone because God says not to, not because of a man made law.

Now if only we can get those other folks who love the Lord to stop murdering others.

lastcallhall wrote: It is legal for me to go into a strip club but God word says to lust is a sin so I will not go even though it is legal.

I'm unaware of any valid evidence that shows a god has an opinion on the doings of humans.

That said, I figure if God didn't want me in strip clubs, he wouldn'ta made women so pretty.

lastcallhall wrote: The reason I oppose the hate crimes bill is I believe it targets churches to lawsuits by the homosexual movement so they can forward their agenda and destroy the fundamentalist christian church.

"The reason I'd be for hate crimes bills is that they'd target the religious agenda that seeks to control the actions of others in the name of a god that can't be shown to exist."

I see no reason to further conflate hate crimes legislation with the OP.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:54 am

JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 34:

lastcallhall wrote: ...Those of us who love the Lord would not murder someone because God says not to, not because of a man made law.
Now if only we can get those other folks who love the Lord to stop murdering others.

I think the Bible is very clear about murder, it is one of the ten commandments

lastcallhall wrote: It is legal for me to go into a strip club but God word says to lust is a sin so I will not go even though it is legal.
I'm unaware of any valid evidence that shows a god has an opinion on the doings of humans.

Again I go back to the 10 commandments where God says a few times thou shalt not, to me he is against that

That said, I figure if God didn't want me in strip clubs, he wouldn'ta made women so pretty.

lastcallhall wrote: The reason I oppose the hate crimes bill is I believe it targets churches to lawsuits by the homosexual movement so they can forward their agenda and destroy the fundamentalist christian church.
"The reason I'd be for hate crimes bills is that they'd target the religious agenda that seeks to control the actions of others in the name of a god that can't be shown to exist."

I see no reason to further conflate hate crimes legislation with the OP.

OK we will agree to disagree on this

nygreenguy · Post by **nygreenguy** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:14 am

lastcallhall wrote:
I guess to me it does not matter why somebody is murdered, let's say a friend of mine, the end result is that person is dead. The punishment should be the same because you can't be any more dead if you were murdered because you were black than if you were murdered and are white. Those of us who love the Lord would not murder someone because God says not to, not because of a man made law. It is legal for me to go into a strip club but God word says to lust is a sin so I will not go even though it is legal.

What hate crimes try to do is look at the motivation for an act. Killing someone isnt always bad. Stealing isnt always bad. There are a multitude of reasons for people doing the things they do. Assaulting someone because they make you mad is fundamentally different than assaulting someone because of who they are.

The reason I oppose the hate crimes bill is I believe it targets churches to lawsuits by the homosexual movement so they can forward their agenda and destroy the fundamentalist christian church.

As I showed earlier, this is pretty much impossible. You cant be convicted of a hate crime UNLESS you first commit a crime. The only way it could target a church is if the church went out and started beating up gays because they are gay.

nygreenguy · Post by **nygreenguy** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:16 am

McCulloch wrote:It appears to me that LastCallHall's argument is something like this. We should not grant equal rights to a particular minority, because if we do so, those people who discriminate against that group based on their religious code, might be prevented from doing so in the future. Can anyone see, if this legal principle were to be consistently applied where it might lead?

This has never been the case. In fact, case law has shown it to be exactly the opposite. Its really just paranoia.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:49 am

nygreenguy wrote:
lastcallhall wrote:
I guess to me it does not matter why somebody is murdered, let's say a friend of mine, the end result is that person is dead. The punishment should be the same because you can't be any more dead if you were murdered because you were black than if you were murdered and are white. Those of us who love the Lord would not murder someone because God says not to, not because of a man made law. It is legal for me to go into a strip club but God word says to lust is a sin so I will not go even though it is legal.
What hate crimes try to do is look at the motivation for an act. Killing someone isn't always bad. Stealing isn't always bad. There are a multitude of reasons for people doing the things they do. Assaulting someone because they make you mad is fundamentally different than assaulting someone because of who they are.

The reason I oppose the hate crimes bill is I believe it targets churches to lawsuits by the homosexual movement so they can forward their agenda and destroy the fundamentalist christian church.
As I showed earlier, this is pretty much impossible. You cant be convicted of a hate crime UNLESS you first commit a crime. The only way it could target a church is if the church went out and started beating up gays because they are gay.

I still disagree on both points, to me the end result is all that matters because if someone is killed by the state after being convicted of a crime by a jury but murder is always wrong. To me if you do this you have darkness in your heart and be it because you have black skin, you are gay, or you just don't like how the person looks it is wrong. The thought process to me does not matter you need to be held accountable but no group of people lives should be worth more by getting someone a longer prison sentence.

As far as the "paranoia" I have heard speeches from different pro gay groups that want this law to pass and said they WILL target churches and try to destroy us with this law. I guess we will just have to disagree about the problems this new law would bring.