Comments on: Why the word “marriage” matters http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sat, 25 May 2013 13:12:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Timothy (TRiG) http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-89723 Timothy (TRiG) Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:44:13 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-89723 <blockquote>To the Christians, mosques and synagogues are inferior.</blockquote> Aren't they? TRiG.

To the Christians, mosques and synagogues are inferior.

Aren’t they?

TRiG.

]]> By: Priya Lynn http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88351 Priya Lynn Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:11:42 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88351 Thankyou. No I wasn't trying to say that but I acknowledge I didn't explain myself fully in that first comment. I was trying to make Throbert's religion analogy more like the situation with marriage, and it would be if the government said some people were allowed to attend churches and others were not. Those who wanted to attend christian churches but were prevented by law from doing so (I think) would be highly unlikely to think the right to attend a mosque or synagogue instead would be just. Thankyou. No I wasn’t trying to say that but I acknowledge I didn’t explain myself fully in that first comment. I was trying to make Throbert’s religion analogy more like the situation with marriage, and it would be if the government said some people were allowed to attend churches and others were not. Those who wanted to attend christian churches but were prevented by law from doing so (I think) would be highly unlikely to think the right to attend a mosque or synagogue instead would be just.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88349 Timothy Kincaid Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:06:27 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88349 my apologies if your comment was not intending to suggest that to the Christians, mosques and synagogues are inferior and that a person seeking the same rights as christians is inferior as well. my apologies if your comment was not intending to suggest that to the Christians, mosques and synagogues are inferior and that a person seeking the same rights as christians is inferior as well.

]]> By: Priya Lynn http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88346 Priya Lynn Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:11:17 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88346 Timothy, you see anti-christian attacks where there are none. What I'm saying is that if the government passed a law saying some christians weren't allowed to attend churches, only synagogues or mosques, precious few of those christians would find that to be just as good or superior to allowing them to attend churches. Timothy, you see anti-christian attacks where there are none. What I’m saying is that if the government passed a law saying some christians weren’t allowed to attend churches, only synagogues or mosques, precious few of those christians would find that to be just as good or superior to allowing them to attend churches.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88345 Timothy Kincaid Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:51:52 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88345 <blockquote>In a country where at least 8 out of 10 people are Christian, are “mosques” and “synagogues” inferior to “churches”?</blockquote> This is a bogus argument Any synagogue may call itself a church or a mosque or a cantaloupe if it so wishes. For that matter, many Christian meeting houses are called "chapels" or "temples". There are no distinctions under the state between any of these - no separate laws, no separate nomenclature, no separate process. The Angelus Temple and the Wilshire Boulevard Temple are indistinguishable in the eyes of the state. But were one to be registered in one form and the other be given some other procedure in order to "protect the traditional definition of 'church'," then yes, one would have an inferior status. <blockquote>To the Christians they are. And if a person was seeking the same rights as christians they would be as well.</blockquote> You never miss an opportunity to throw in an anti-Christian attack, do you? Kinda like the Peter LaBarbera of antiChristians, aren't you. No one has to "seek the same rights as Christians." They all have the same rights.

In a country where at least 8 out of 10 people are Christian, are “mosques” and “synagogues” inferior to “churches”?

This is a bogus argument

Any synagogue may call itself a church or a mosque or a cantaloupe if it so wishes. For that matter, many Christian meeting houses are called “chapels” or “temples”.

There are no distinctions under the state between any of these – no separate laws, no separate nomenclature, no separate process. The Angelus Temple and the Wilshire Boulevard Temple are indistinguishable in the eyes of the state.

But were one to be registered in one form and the other be given some other procedure in order to “protect the traditional definition of ‘church’,” then yes, one would have an inferior status.

To the Christians they are. And if a person was seeking the same rights as christians they would be as well.

You never miss an opportunity to throw in an anti-Christian attack, do you? Kinda like the Peter LaBarbera of antiChristians, aren’t you.

No one has to “seek the same rights as Christians.” They all have the same rights.

]]> By: Regan DuCasse http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88342 Regan DuCasse Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:58:15 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88342 As I recall...Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was married a short time ago. She and her husband live in separate cities. Their's is a long distance marriage, and without any children. According to NOM and others, it's not a 'real' marriage, if compared to ANY relationship that gay people have. But by their standards, is a useless illegitimate marriage because no children are there. And likely won't because of the ages of the couple and assumed infrequency of their sex lives. According to NOM, Giffords and Kelly don't even deserve to marry, and should be discriminated against. That's what I mean by the constant and infuriating inconsistency of the anti gay, compared with the consistency of what marriage is and means. Not only to a state, but an individual couple. This couple were conferred every respect for their union, given every accommodation in their crisis and as one was incapacitated, Kelly was accorded every decision for his spouse. Although they don't even live together. Apparently EQUAL TREATMENT in the eyes of the anti gay, is defined by their individual contempt, even if heteros meet the same criteria for their contempt. They simply choose not to act AGAINST straight people...and we all know why. The cowardice of the anti gay, let alone their lack of consistency...seems to have no bounds. As I recall…Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was married a short time ago. She and her husband live in separate cities. Their’s is a long distance marriage, and without any children.

According to NOM and others, it’s not a ‘real’ marriage, if compared to ANY relationship that gay people have. But by their standards, is a useless illegitimate marriage because no children are there. And likely won’t because of the ages of the couple and assumed infrequency of their sex lives.

According to NOM, Giffords and Kelly don’t even deserve to marry, and should be discriminated against.

That’s what I mean by the constant and infuriating inconsistency of the anti gay, compared with the consistency of what marriage is and means. Not only to a state, but an individual couple.

This couple were conferred every respect for their union, given every accommodation in their crisis and as one was incapacitated, Kelly was accorded every decision for his spouse.
Although they don’t even live together.

Apparently EQUAL TREATMENT in the eyes of the anti gay, is defined by their individual contempt, even if heteros meet the same criteria for their contempt.
They simply choose not to act AGAINST straight people…and we all know why.

The cowardice of the anti gay, let alone their lack of consistency…seems to have no bounds.

]]> By: TonyJazz http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88339 TonyJazz Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:40:52 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88339 One way to move the bar (to lower the percentage of US population opposed) towards gay marriage is to always rephrase it 'civil marriage'. It removes the religious implications, and it is just as legitimate as a cause. Call it 'civil marriage' and people see it as a government construct with the associated appropriate benefits. One way to move the bar (to lower the percentage of US population opposed) towards gay marriage is to always rephrase it ‘civil marriage’. It removes the religious implications, and it is just as legitimate as a cause.

Call it ‘civil marriage’ and people see it as a government construct with the associated appropriate benefits.

]]> By: Darina http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88336 Darina Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:30:27 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88336 So the Irish Republic missed Slovenia (registered partnership). So the Irish Republic missed Slovenia (registered partnership).

]]> By: Priya Lynn http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88334 Priya Lynn Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:13:26 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88334 To the Christians they are. And if a person was seeking the same rights as christians they would be as well. To the Christians they are. And if a person was seeking the same rights as christians they would be as well.

]]> By: Throbert McGee http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/29/30137/comment-page-1#comment-88328 Throbert McGee Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:40:50 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30137#comment-88328 In a country where at least 8 out of 10 people are Christian, are "mosques" and "synagogues" <i>inferior</i> to "churches"? In a country where at least 8 out of 10 people are Christian, are “mosques” and “synagogues” inferior to “churches”?

]]>