You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #3: Yeah, I understand all that, but setting out a position like that [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yeah, I understand all that, but setting out a position like that
only continues the confusion.

No law passed allowing gay marriage would ever require any church to perform or sanction them. None.

So distinquishing between the two, for political expediency, seems to be a very short-sighted tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -CUs ok, marriage not. Can someone explain the reasoning for this? JerseygirlCT  Mar-15-07 07:35 PM   #0 
  - just semantics  MonkeyFunk   Mar-15-07 07:38 PM   #1 
  - The OP was asking for reasons, not possibilities  Bucky   Mar-15-07 07:50 PM   #9 
  - I hope you're right about that.  rep the dems   Mar-17-07 10:42 PM   #55 
  - Find out how your state designates the difference between marriages  LiberalFighter   Mar-17-07 11:26 PM   #56 
     - Many churches actually do allow same sex marriage now  JerseygirlCT   Mar-18-07 11:53 AM   #59 
  - The word "marriage" is loaded with religious connotation for many people  slackmaster   Mar-15-07 07:38 PM   #2 
  - Yeah, I understand all that, but setting out a position like that  JerseygirlCT   Mar-15-07 07:40 PM   #3 
     - It's taken centuries to get as weird as it is now  slackmaster   Mar-15-07 07:42 PM   #4 
     - Yeah, I know. I'm just impatient with Dems doing this. It's morally  JerseygirlCT   Mar-15-07 07:45 PM   #7 
     - no, it is a far-sighted tactic  orangepeel68   Mar-15-07 09:02 PM   #14 
        - I don't disagree with any of that --  JerseygirlCT   Mar-16-07 06:25 AM   #15 
  - marriage ought to be a strictly religious matter.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-15-07 07:44 PM   #5 
  - That's what frustrates me. Dems saying they're good with  JerseygirlCT   Mar-15-07 07:46 PM   #8 
  - Our party's leaders are not good at thinking things out.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-15-07 07:52 PM   #10 
     - "playing the issues best to their political advantage"  paulk   Mar-17-07 01:13 PM   #49 
        - Then getting elected turns into staying in office, and the thing  JerseygirlCT   Mar-17-07 08:54 PM   #53 
  - Having been through a divorce I agree completely...  twiceshy   Mar-16-07 09:00 AM   #25 
  - I agree. The state has no business  shimmergal   Mar-16-07 09:36 AM   #30 
  - I was going to say the same thing...  IA_Seth   Mar-16-07 11:47 AM   #33 
  - Simple and to the point.  Katzenkavalier   Mar-16-07 12:17 PM   #41 
  - Shall We Remove the Phrase, "Lawfully Wedded ______" From Marriage Ceremonies?  Crisco   Mar-16-07 12:22 PM   #42 
     - You can say whatever you want in your ceremony.  Warren Stupidity   Mar-16-07 12:45 PM   #44 
  - It is my guess,  liberalnurse   Mar-15-07 07:44 PM   #6 
  - Marriage, throughout history, wasn't about the bond between man and woman, but the ownership...  Solon   Mar-15-07 08:31 PM   #13 
     - And yet there were other kinds of ownership of women  igil   Mar-16-07 11:23 AM   #32 
        - Of course there were other forms of ownership of women...  Solon   Mar-17-07 04:04 PM   #50 
  - i think the right wing loonies that are against gay marriage  ellenfl   Mar-15-07 08:15 PM   #11 
  - I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here  JerseygirlCT   Mar-15-07 08:22 PM   #12 
     - i disagree. i don't think the rw could make a case  ellenfl   Mar-16-07 09:25 AM   #27 
        - Fortunately, yes, more and more voters are coming around  JerseygirlCT   Mar-16-07 12:07 PM   #37 
           - no argument with your last sentence. eom  ellenfl   Mar-16-07 12:37 PM   #43 
  - Its all labeling perception. Fundies equate marriage = religious or sacred union, and  Lerkfish   Mar-16-07 06:51 AM   #16 
  - Personally, I think heterosexuals ought to be allowed civil unions, too  depakid   Mar-16-07 07:01 AM   #17 
  - Well, truly, that's what secular marriage is, right?  JerseygirlCT   Mar-16-07 07:26 AM   #18 
  - I reckon so, but still  depakid   Mar-16-07 07:49 AM   #23 
  - me. too! my boyfriend is afraid that i want to marry him  ellenfl   Mar-16-07 09:29 AM   #28 
  - It mixed with religion  karynnj   Mar-16-07 07:29 AM   #19 
  - same reason they let blacks get on the bus but made 'em sit in the back  Skittles   Mar-16-07 07:35 AM   #20 
  - It's a shame to see Dems perpetuating that. nt  JerseygirlCT   Mar-16-07 07:37 AM   #21 
  - yes it is  Skittles   Mar-16-07 08:41 AM   #24 
     - An alternative way of looking at it  karynnj   Mar-16-07 09:46 AM   #31 
        - No, I don't think it's worth an all or nothing gambit.  JerseygirlCT   Mar-16-07 12:11 PM   #38 
  - you are absolutely right but the rw probably will never see  ellenfl   Mar-16-07 09:34 AM   #29 
  - Could it be due to the "Christian" voting bloc?  JNelson6563   Mar-16-07 07:48 AM   #22 
  - typical waffling polspeak if you ask me n/t  HuffleClaw   Mar-16-07 09:19 AM   #26 
  - Yeah, that's what I think, too. I was just curious if there really  JerseygirlCT   Mar-16-07 12:13 PM   #40 
     - a local politican once showed up to a gay rights groups' christmas dinner  HuffleClaw   Mar-17-07 02:56 AM   #47 
  - Probably because  ProudDad   Mar-16-07 12:03 PM   #34 
  - All "Marriage" licenses should be Civil Unions in the eyes of the State.  slampoet   Mar-16-07 12:03 PM   #35 
  - You're absolutely right  ProudDad   Mar-16-07 12:06 PM   #36 
  - I'd guess your numbers are a bit off -- but your point still holds  JerseygirlCT   Mar-16-07 12:13 PM   #39 
  - I will reiterate, in a different form, what's already been said  casus belli   Mar-16-07 12:47 PM   #45 
  - Because without the tradition of man-woman & babies  sandnsea   Mar-16-07 01:13 PM   #46 
  - If it were about babies You would see more hostility towards the infertile.  slampoet   Mar-17-07 03:30 AM   #48 
  - Can you imagine the outcry if...  Withywindle   Mar-17-07 08:30 PM   #51 
     - That's just it -- there really isn't a single, secular reason for  JerseygirlCT   Mar-17-07 08:51 PM   #52 
        - They are utterly silly when looked at rationally, because they're not rational.  Withywindle   Mar-17-07 10:34 PM   #54 
  - The justification is:  bluedawg12   Mar-18-07 01:20 AM   #57 
     - The political problem is:  bluedawg12   Mar-18-07 01:30 AM   #58 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC