atheism

[StillWondering]

Giving him the right to access his partner’s bank account when he’s unconscious in the hospital could be seen as denying them the right to a cheap house through a foreclosure auction.

There are legal means to take action. Honestly our legal system has so many flaws. So I understand your frustration. But I am not married right now. And while I love my family dearly. I entrust my medical and financial advocacy to my fiance. And I have done this all legally since I am not married yet. Even after marriage, I plan to take rigorous legal steps. Truth be told, being marriage does not give you full rights. You can read up on legal financial volatility from Susan Orman. She has dozens of books and is a well known author and teacher. I found her through PBS.

(BTW, PBS recently disallowed topics in favor of any of the five major religious groups. However, PBS is allowing proponents that are in disagreement with these believes. This is something I am very sad about and through my membership hope to change. )

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

Hello again. Well. In response, I prayed and am praying to not be arrogent or condesending. I think you misunderstand me in a few ways.

1. The reason I mentioned abortion is because this way of thinking that only looking at it form the outside is what leads humanity down both of this path. I am not villifying you. Did I mentioned you in particular? I said “this” is why. Are you a this? No, so no I was not talking about you believe this. I’m talking about this thinking that you are using is what leads to condoms and abortion and other things too.
2. When I say I pray for you, it is not condescending. I do believe that you are not seeing it. This is directly form what you said the Pope believes. You have it wrong. If you can ask the pope he will explain it to you. But listening to the media is not good enough. Maybe you read his encyclicals? If you did and you still feel this way, we should talk in private or you can talk with a Catholic priest. By stating that you do not know what you are talking about, am I being condescending? If so, we have a problem. If you said I do not know about Syrian language but I have a friend who speaks it and I think it’s a beautiful language, would that be condescending? If it is, than there is nothing I can say besides you are right and not be arrogant.
3. I already said I need you to rephrase. How could I answer a question that I cannot understand. So what is it you want me to describe, why is gay marriage a problem to the Catholic faith?
4. And last, I did pray for you just now. I was still typing other answers. I guess I could have stopped earlier and prayed. So I am sorry and had to pray for myself too. But yes I prayed for you not as a “poor lost soul” but for you to understand what the Pope really teaches. When I first heard it on the news, I was surprised and shocked too. But luckily I trust the Church to not be so blind and arrogant so I did my own research and do not feel the pope is stupid. In fact, he is so wise. I learned a great deal in that investigation.
5. Another thing I prayed for you for is that you can come to understand what Catholicism really is. It is a life, a hope, a religion, a home, a knowledge, a learning, a daily/weekly/yearly/ process. I also prayed that you will come to know God and can help others once you do.

You say these things now, but the tone in which you wrote does not match the tone in which you write now. However I will chaulk it up to difficulties in determining such things on the internet.

Please, instead of putting your hands together, DO something. If you think that I am misguided then tell me why, explain, show evidence, don’t pray and hope that god MAKES me see.

I never said that the Pope was stupid, only that he is blinded by dogma. He supported the excccommunication of a 9 year old girls (who was raped by her step father) family because they gave her an abortion (she wouldn’t have survived the pregnancy she was 65 pounds) and said that if she had died she would have been watched over by angels. Death is better than abortion? He didn’t excommunicate the step father because he believes that the step father can be saved, but not the family whose only concern was the safety of their little girl. Moral?

Peace

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

You wouldn’t be teaching them things that contradict your morality. (and you still can’t tell me why it is “wrong”) You are simply stating a fact, they are married. Saying that they are husbands is not taking away your right to anything. You are completely free to teach them that you don’t agree with their relationship, or whatever else you want to.

I misunderstood. But I disagree, you CAN help them as a couple. If they ARE a couple, and you treat them, you can PRETEND they are just friends all you want. Still doesn’t change what they really are. Your church didn’t marry them, so they don’t have to obey your churches dictates. This is no different than disagreeing with muslims or Scientologists. You don’t try and stop them from doing things that your god says is moral to you though. They beleive what they believe, and so do you.

That IS my definition of how things work, you are right. And you confirm it by telling me that you critically think about all of these things. So what is your critical thought for why gay marriage is wrong??

I know exactly where the church is coming from, and I disagree with it. I read the catachism, and went to study it as a youth as well. Individual scientists do not represent the church. The Pope himself JUST put out a press release saying that they now recognise evolution after MANY years of denial. How about denial of the findings about the shroud of turin? Even after their OWN scientists examined it and found the same thing?

I am about as open minded a person as you will find. All I need to convince me of a given idea is evidence. I have no dogma or bias directing me otherwise.

I am against dogma, because dogma means accepting without thinking.

Reason is the only way that we can live together peacefully

Peace

 

[StillWondering]

You say these things now, but the tone in which you wrote does not match the tone in which you write now. However I will chaulk it up to difficulties in determining such things on the internet.

Thank you for your understanding.

Please, instead of putting your hands together, DO something. If you think that I am misguided then tell me why, explain, show evidence, don’t pray and hope that god MAKES me see.

Well. I’m talking to you right now, even though I will need to leave by noon PST. That is doing something. Either way, I do not doubt prayer. I prayed for many years and after 8 years, a very special friend of mine is converting. I know 8 years is a long time, but I understand that human nature can not be rushed. Others may not feel this way, but what can I do. Heheh.

I never said that the Pope was stupid, only that he is blinded by dogma. He supported the excccommunication of a 9 year old girls (who was raped by her step father) family because they gave her an abortion (she wouldn’t have survived the pregnancy she was 65 pounds) and said that if she had died she would have been watched over by angels. Death is better than abortion? He didn’t excommunicate the step father because he believes that the step father can be saved, but not the family whose only concern was the safety of their little girl. Moral?

Peace

Well, if the pope is not stupid, can he be blinded by dogma? I guess you can say sure. Plenty of people are smart and blind. Well, do you mean that they are smart on other issues but not the issue at hand? A smart person that is knowledgeable and wise about a particular expertise, will not let a situation rest. He is either blind by arrogance or actively pursues it until he understands. Albert Einstein refuse to believe in Quantum Mechanics, but he still approves articles that are mathematically sound even though they support Quantum Mechanics. So the Pope should know something about moral and sexual issues. He is a celibate but he knows quite a bit as you can see form his writings.

As for the issue of the girl who was excommunicated. My friend who is converting asked me this same question. I told her I do not know but let us investigate. I read her the biblical quote saying losing God while gaining the world is worthless. My friend, now believes in God, admits this is true. Well, then I asked her if that girl died, and maybe the baby died, would trusting in God and going to heaven be a bad thing. My friend had to agree that if God is true and what God teaches is true and trusting in God is logical, then yeah it is better to have died then get the abortion. Now, then my friend asked, if she is excommunicated what will happen to her soul. I told her if she is a Catholic, she could find out why she is excommunicated, and then go confess with a contrite heart. My friend also was a proponent of abortion before this because my friend felt that we should have a “choice”. I asked my friend then, is the person inside the mother’s womb alive and a person. My friend was quiet. So we also looked into that and after some time she admits that the baby is alive and could be a person. Well then I asked if is right to kill the baby, live, and risk not going to heaven? Well, she said okay. Guess what, she decided that day that she will start reading about Catholic teachings. It made sense to her. Does this story make sense to you?

 

[StillWondering]

You wouldn’t be teaching them things that contradict your morality. (and you still can’t tell me why it is “wrong”) You are simply stating a fact, they are married. Saying that they are husbands is not taking away your right to anything. You are completely free to teach them that you don’t agree with their relationship, or whatever else you want to.

I misunderstood. But I disagree, you CAN help them as a couple. If they ARE a couple, and you treat them, you can PRETEND they are just friends all you want. Still doesn’t change what they really are. Your church didn’t marry them, so they don’t have to obey your churches dictates. This is no different than disagreeing with muslims or Scientologists. You don’t try and stop them from doing things that your god says is moral to you though. They beleive what they believe, and so do you.

That IS my definition of how things work, you are right. And you confirm it by telling me that you critically think about all of these things. So what is your critical thought for why gay marriage is wrong??

I know exactly where the church is coming from, and I disagree with it. I read the catachism, and went to study it as a youth as well. Individual scientists do not represent the church. The Pope himself JUST put out a press release saying that they now recognise evolution after MANY years of denial. How about denial of the findings about the shroud of turin? Even after their OWN scientists examined it and found the same thing?

I am about as open minded a person as you will find. All I need to convince me of a given idea is evidence. I have no dogma or bias directing me otherwise.

I am against dogma, because dogma means accepting without thinking.

Reason is the only way that we can live together peacefully

Peace

Well, let me answer this in a train of thought way since I’m out of time for now.

1. Dogma should not mean accepting without thinking. You stated a few times that we need to think. If you told me what a rock was and I just took it as that without thinking about it, I would make a poor geologist. Well, the same thing with Catholic teaching. If you handed me a list of dogmas, and I just accepted it I would be a poor Catholic. I need to think about it and believe it. I need to know the in’s and out’s. Not all of us are required to know everything about our dogmas because it is beyond the scope of our learning. Some dogmas that I have trouble understanding and are still learning about is the Trinity. The reason this is hard to understand is because this is from divine revelation. What I do understand is that there are teachings and mentions of it. There are early church fathers writings on it. And I am reading it. We are all called to understand, whether we take that call or not is a different story. But we are called to understand it, especially dogmas.
2. I hope through your logic and reason you can understand that there are things you cannot understand. That’s why I mentioned these brilliant men and women. Well, they definitely understand things I do not. This realization of reality through reasoning gives me humility to know that I cannot possibly understand everything. I’m glad our Church has a Magisterium because I cannot understand everything. I try to fulfill my obligation by understanding what I can, but I have my limits. And I hope everyone will accept that their minds have limits too.
3. I’m sorry about the gay couple thing, but I cannot pretend they are a couple. I mean the strict married, one flesh, couple concept. They are a union and a couple in other ways, but not a union in the way of “one flesh” that I understand.
4. Lastly, you asked me why over and over calling someone a husband when they have no female wife is a problem. Well. I think you missed the part where I talk about scandal. This is one of many things. I can call a book a tree if I wanted to. But I would not tell my kids that is so without a theoretical explanation of this usage of language and conceptualization of reality. I would need to be clear with them that while I am calling this book a tree, and can do so at will there is a real difference between the essence of a tree as we know it and the essence of a book as we know it. Do you think I will not get sued if I talk to a gay couple as such. I would say your husband, however, I must state that while he is legally your husband I do not confine myself to the definition of husband and wife as one flesh in this instance of the usage of husband. Well. If i do not get sued, I guess then I’ll need another example. But if I do get sued, can you pay the bills and protect my license for me?

 

[StillWondering]

Did you mean this story or a story like this when you referred to the Church “accepting” evolution?

msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
The pope says that it is absurd to have all this contention between religious people and proponents of evolution? That is not dogma nor does it imply in any why the Church believed otherwise in the past.

It is like the Assumption. Some claim that the Church only recognized this in the last century or some value. Well, no. The Early Church Fathers always had this thought and early Christians took this as given. We can read quotes form the ECF here on this CAF if you search for Assumption and early church. Well, does that make the pope’s reassertion of Assumption false or new? Not quite. It does not. It is like I say I am a chocolate lover when I was 25. Does this mean that automatically I did not love chocolate at 15? It may or may not but to really know I should ask myself if that is true and I should look at statements I made at 15 to see. And I note that many times over the age of 15, I ate chocolate and enjoyed it. But then why did I only make that statement at 25? Well maybe someone finally asked me about it.

So the pope in the news talking about it is not making a dogmatically claim as far as I can tell. (News statements are never dogma in and of itself of course.) And dogmatic statements are there as guides. It is like the axiom of a point in math. Well, a point is an abstract thing and to make sure all mathematicians have the correct understanding there is an axiom for it. It’s a statement of faith (note the definition of faith) that a point is a localized existence in space that neither extends in space or varies in location. (I am paraphrasing from my head but you get the idea.)

 

[yankee_doodle]

Sounds a lot like how China treats Catholicism. I hope you know some of the things the government and a large portion of the people do. I am not being racists or anti-Chinese. I have a great deal of respect and love for this heritage.

At the same time the government of this country does a great deal of very bad things and at the same time are very cruel to Catholics. It has improved over the last 10 years but being less oppressed, less sudden disappearances of people, less enslavement, less false trials, and less desecration is still bad when all these things are present in large measure.

Do you see Catholics doing evil things? You would claim the child molestation issue. Well I think the numbers come out to about 5%, which seems to be about the same in Protestant communities as well as other religious communities. More so in non-religious communities and greatly more so in cultist communities. Seems like it is not a “Catholic” thing. What about people claiming millions are dying because they cannot use contraception. This is faulty too because they are dying to the other sinful behaviors that are already present. Catholics are the worlds greatest food, aid, and hospital charity service out there. We are not causing this problem, we are at the frontlines working to else, resolve, and eliminate this problem.

What else can you cite. Are Catholics and Catholicism evil that you use that example above?

StillWondering:

I was addressing the speculative slippery slope proposed by Josie, who opined if we allow gay marraige then polygamy would be next. My example was designed to show why that’s an illogical basis for opposing gay marriage.

 

[StillWondering]

StillWondering:

I was addressing the speculative slippery slope proposed by Josie, who opined if we allow gay marraige then polygamy would be next. My example was designed to show why that’s an illogical basis for opposing gay marriage.

Well, then can you tell me why gay relationships and unions demand the right to be termed married? I mean there are legal statements made, but I do not see how that is definitive. I am not married and I have all the rights that a relevant to me including the right of my fiancee being in the same room with me in a hospital or to share bank accounts. This is not inherent of being a fiancee, it is inherent of the legal papers I have filed to make this true. My family who has ordinary legal rights to this already has a great deal to centend with and I do not want to burden them or endanger myself through their lack of familiarity with the legal system. Thusly I have legal documentation for my fiancee to take over if I so fell ill or have financial issues.

I can understand the want of the title. But I would see that as an arrogance. I could want to be called a minister but that would be arrogant of me. (I do not btw). What we are called is important in a secular world, but is that all that the gay marriage advocates have as reason?

Maybe there are others and I’m not too familiar. What are you reasons? Why is it so important to have this change?

 

[StillWondering]

I’m reminded of how I never had to use the word Traditions with a capital T before among my friends. I just use tradition because I told they knew what I meant when I was talking about the Church. Well it terms out I was wrong and it cause a lot of confusion. So I looked into it and now use Tradtion with a capital T. Well, I already have a definition of marriage right now. Would I need a Marriage with a capital M. And then what if other people want me to use Marriage with a capital M for them, do I need to use a cursive M? The states already give civil union rights and legal means of providing legal protection. Can you explain to me how this is more than a way to take a term that I am already familiar with away and replacing with another for no other reason than to do so?

I guess I’m confused, why?

 

[yankee_doodle]

The Church while it is in America (in the forms of physical churches and it’s related hospitals and schools) will have their rights diminished because of this. Yeah, you can say no the Church will have it’s freedom. I wish, you should know as well as I this is not going to be the case.

This is a pretty difficult and challenging legal question. On its face I wouldn’t be inclined to compel any health provider to provide a service they believe unethical (i.e. abortion). The obvious problem is what if every health facility were to opt out of providing abortion services? The aggregate impact would be a lack of providers to provide emergency abortion services (particularly in cases such as rape or to save the life of the mother during surgery or some sort of illness … which are usually the cases where a hospital would perform an abortion procedure).

First the only legal basis under which the federal government could compel such a thing is where it’s providing funding to the facility. If a Catholic health care organization is receiving public funds, then it’s permissible for the government to attach mandates to those funds. Arguably congress might be able to enact such a regulation under its commerce power, but it’s pretty questionable (and sketchy if you ask me).

This is probably a case that will appear before the Sup. Court in the coming years … it will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[gearhead]

Well, then can you tell me why gay relationships and unions demand the right to be termed married?

Because “separate but equal” is never actually equal.

I mean there are legal statements made, but I do not see how that is definitive. I am not married and I have all the rights that a relevant to me including the right of my fiancee being in the same room with me in a hospital or to share bank accounts. This is not inherent of being a fiancee, it is inherent of the legal papers I have filed to make this true. My family who has ordinary legal rights to this already has a great deal to centend with and I do not want to burden them or endanger myself through their lack of familiarity with the legal system. Thusly I have legal documentation for my fiancee to take over if I so fell ill or have financial issues.

There are more rights associated with marriage than can be granted by lawyers. And even for those rights that can, I see no point in forcing same-sex couples to go through a long and expensive process to get them when a simple, easy, inexpensive and tested option is readily available.

I can understand the want of the title. But I would see that as an arrogance. I could want to be called a minister but that would be arrogant of me. (I do not btw).

But if you did want to be a minister, you could accomplish it within a couple of days: ulc.net/index.php?page=ordain

What we are called is important in a secular world, but is that all that the gay marriage advocates have as reason?

Personally, I think the more important question is why anti-same-sex marriage activists would demand that a relationship not be called a marriage when it has all the attributes of a marriage.

Maybe there are others and I’m not too familiar. What are you reasons? Why is it so important to have this change?

Keep in mind that not every jurisdiction even offers same-sex civil unions. They’re actually relatively rare. Most places, the choice isn’t between same-sex marriage and civil unions; it’s between same-sex marriage and nothing.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well, then can you tell me why gay relationships and unions demand the right to be termed married? I mean there are legal statements made, but I do not see how that is definitive.

I’ve been through this with Josie in this thread & have elaborated on my reasoning in great detail. If you wish to learn my opinion I encourage you to review the last few pages of this thread (but I’m not going to keep repeating myself for every new poster who appears in this thread).

I am not married and I have all the rights that a relevant to me including the right of my fiancee being in the same room with me in a hospital or to share bank accounts. This is not inherent of being a fiancee, it is inherent of the legal papers I have filed to make this true. My family who has ordinary legal rights to this already has a great deal to centend with and I do not want to burden them or endanger myself through their lack of familiarity with the legal system. Thusly I have legal documentation for my fiancee to take over if I so fell ill or have financial issues.

good for you, but what’s your point?

I can understand the want of the title. But I would see that as an arrogance. I could want to be called a minister but that would be arrogant of me. (I do not btw). What we are called is important in a secular world, but is that all that the gay marriage advocates have as reason?

Frankly you’re not being very coherent here … and I’m not sure how the heck one draws a correlation between gay marriage and arrogance; but let me guess, anything that doesn’t jive with the dogma of your mythological system you define as arrogant?

 

[gearhead]

The states already give civil union rights and legal means of providing legal protection.

Not “the states”, “a state”.

Only Vermont, Conneticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire offer same-sex civil unions, and all but New Jersey are in the process of phasing them out as same-sex marriage becomes legal in those states.

Other states (Nevada, California, Washington, Oregon, District of Columbia, Maine, Hawaii, Colorado, and Maryland) offer varying benefits and rights for same-sex couples, but not at the same level as a marriage.

The rest of the states don’t offer anything approaching a civil union or domestic partnership for same-sex couples.

Also, even in states with civil unions, domestic partnerships or same-sex marriages, civil unions aren’t recognized from state to state the same way that marriages are.

 

[StillWondering]

This is a pretty difficult and challenging legal question. On its face I wouldn’t be inclined to compel any health provider to provide a service they believe unethical (i.e. abortion). The obvious problem is what if every health facility were to opt out of providing abortion services? The aggregate impact would be a lack of providers to provide emergency abortion services (particularly in cases such as rape or to save the life of the mother during surgery or some sort of illness … which are usually the cases where a hospital would perform an abortion procedure).

I have read that there are 1 million abortions performed in America a year or some large number as such. How many of these are emergency cases? Well I read that about 2-3% are. Well, if this is the case then what you said is not true. There are surely enough facilities to perform 2-3% of the abortions for emergency cases if there are more then 95% other abortions being performed. So I guess, I need proof of what you say. Can you find documentation that states that most abortions done are such or even only in hospitals. Well, there are plenty of non Catholic hospitals out there. I do not think what you are saying is practically true. If we do not mandate abortion rights for all hospitals, there are still *plenty *to provide for your needs despite any feelings I may have.

First the only legal basis under which the federal government could compel such a thing is where it’s providing funding to the facility. If a Catholic health care organization is receiving public funds, then it’s permissible for the government to attach mandates to those funds. Arguably congress might be able to enact such a regulation under its commerce power, but it’s pretty questionable (and sketchy if you ask me).

This is probably a case that will appear before the Sup. Court in the coming years … it will be interesting to see the outcome.

I think it would be very interesting to see what comes out of it. Currently Catholic hospitals already provide a great deal of free or low cost care. It is taking financial hits to continue to provide. One thing that many forget its that Catholic hospitals were the predominant ones before and now are only 1/6 hospitals. This is not due to bad practice =). It is due to government regulations and health care systems that are taking away and preventing Catholic hospital growths over the last 60 years. So there are definite choices for everyone, but Catholics had to give up on many things for this nation already.

 

[StillWondering]

Not “the states”, “a state”.

Only Vermont, Conneticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire offer same-sex civil unions, and all but New Jersey are in the process of phasing them out as same-sex marriage becomes legal in those states.

Other states (Nevada, California, Washington, Oregon, District of Columbia, Maine, Hawaii, Colorado, and Maryland) offer varying benefits and rights for same-sex couples, but not at the same level as a marriage.

The rest of the states don’t offer anything approaching a civil union or domestic partnership for same-sex couples.

Also, even in states with civil unions, domestic partnerships or same-sex marriages, civil unions aren’t recognized from state to state the same way that marriages are.

Yes, but how are they unable to get other rights. Rights that I have with my fiancee are obtainable for me. Does being gay prevent them form getting these legal protection. No. They can go and get the same protection I have with my fiancee the same why I did it. Through the legal system. And as I stated, being married is not enough. Many times your rights can be challenged or denied. You need to do more than just being married if cases of emergencies. Which is what you are referring to. In everyday cases, these issues do not apply since I am not married and have these protection.

 

[dangel]

Ever since I have really embraced my faith and embraced Jesus and pray everyday, I find atheism to be actually insulting…I feel atheist are insulting Jesus, and I can’t help it but take it personal.

That doesn’t sound healthy.

If you let things affect you personally than you are letting people out there who may want to hurt you, hurt you.

Remember, not all atheists are bad people, the majority of them just want to live their lives how they wish to live them and not want to tread on anyone else’s toes.

 

[gearhead]

Yes, but how are they unable to get other rights. Rights that I have with my fiancee are obtainable for me. Does being gay prevent them form getting these legal protection. No. They can go and get the same protection I have with my fiancee the same why I did it. Through the legal system.

How would someone go “through the legal system” to get, say, the right to sponsor their same-sex partner for immigration purposes?

There are important rights attached to marriage that aren’t obtainable by a lawyer.

And as I stated, being married is not enough.

No, but it’s still important.

Many times your rights can be challenged or denied. You need to do more than just being married if cases of emergencies. Which is what you are referring to. In everyday cases, these issues do not apply since I am not married and have these protection.

Even in everyday cases, you don’t have all the rights of marriage. For example, in many places, you wouldn’t have the right to go to a parent-teacher interview for a child who was biologically your fiancee’s but was being raised by both of you.

 

[StillWondering]

How would someone go “through the legal system” to get, say, the right to sponsor their same-sex partner for immigration purposes?

You are speaking to a Vietnamese who became a refugee in both Malaysia and Philippines here, so I recognize this issue. Well, how did my uncle sponsor my dad to come here? Or now did my other relatives from my dad side get here who were sponsored by a Church member who is completely unrelated in blood. They did it legally. There are ways, you can talk to a immigration lawyers about this.

There are important rights attached to marriage that aren’t obtainable by a lawyer.

Can you definitively give me these rights or some of them as examples so I can look up and learn? (The only thing I can think of right now is a non legal right. That is to have children from their own flesh.)

No, but it’s still important.

It is important for us too. The fact that some states already have civil unions and some have domestic partners (these work for both heterosexual and homosexual couples), seems to imply that marriage is important but there are other ways. By saying we are all recognize gay marriages, what happens to churches, hospital, or schools. Will we have a conscience clause that says we can give them legal rights as if they did legal documentations for the rights but not use the terminology? What do gay activists really say about this?

Even in everyday cases, you don’t have all the rights of marriage. For example, in many places, you wouldn’t have the right to go to a parent-teacher interview for a child who was biologically your fiancee’s but was being raised by both of you.

During my early years here in America (I was smuggled out of Vietnam and it was expensive so not everyone in my family could leave), my legal guardian attended my parent-teacher interviews? Is she my mom or dad? No. Once again the example does not work.

 

[gearhead]

You are speaking to a Vietnamese who became a refugee in both Malaysia and Philippines here, so I recognize this issue. Well, how did my uncle sponsor my dad to come here? Or now did my other relatives from my dad side get here who were sponsored by a Church member who is completely unrelated in blood. They did it legally. There are ways, you can talk to a immigration lawyers about this.

You said that you were a refugee; did that have something to do with it? From what I’ve been told, not just anyone can sponsor a regular immigrant.

Can you definitively give me these rights or some of them as examples so I can look up and learn? (The only thing I can think of right now is a non legal right. That is to have children from their own flesh.)

Off the top of my head, here are some major differences between civil unions and marriages:

• out-of-state marriages are recognized; civil unions aren’t.
• civil unions aren’t recognized at all by the Federal government, so they get none of the Federal rights, responsibilities or benefits of marriage.

Here’s a list of some of the many Federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that civil unions don’t receive. I know people sometimes have issues with Wikipedia, but the original sources are listed so you can confirm:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

As for state benefits, IIRC, civil unions offer all the same state benefits as marriage, but domestic partnerships don’t… but the specific differences between a domestic partnership and a marriage vary from state to state.

It is important for us too. The fact that some states already have civil unions and some have domestic partners (these work for both heterosexual and homosexual couples), seems to imply that marriage is important but there are other ways.

No, it implies that flawed, inferior compromises are better than nothing at all. It doesn’t mean that domestic partnership legislation is ideal.

By saying we are all recognize gay marriages, what happens to churches, hospital, or schools.

What do you mean? I don’t see what you’re getting at. How do you think same-sex marriage would affect churches, hospitals or schools?

Will we have a conscience clause that says we can give them legal rights as if they did legal documentations for the rights but not use the terminology?

Churches already have a “conscience clause”: the First Amendment. As for hospitals and schools, what effects are you worried about?

What do gay activists really say about this?

I think the general consensus is that individual religions should be free to decide amongst themselves to grant or deny same-sex marriages based on their own teachings. I think there’s some division in the same-sex marriage camp about whether public officials involved in marriages (e.g. town clerks or justices of the peace) should be free to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages.

During my early years here in America (I was smuggled out of Vietnam and it was expensive so not everyone in my family could leave), my legal guardian attended my parent-teacher interviews? Is she my mom or dad? No. Once again the example does not work.

The key words there are “legal guardian”. Also, there tends to be much less intolerance for people who help refugees than there is for homosexuals. And that’s only one way that the issue affects people.

 

[StillWondering]

I’ve been through this with Josie in this thread & have elaborated on my reasoning in great detail. If you wish to learn my opinion I encourage you to review the last few pages of this thread (but I’m not going to keep repeating myself for every new poster who appears in this thread).

good for you, but what’s your point?

Frankly you’re not being very coherent here … and I’m not sure how the heck one draws a correlation between gay marriage and arrogance; but let me guess, anything that doesn’t jive with the dogma of your mythological system you define as arrogant?

No, that is not what I think is arrogant. I say a name is only important if you care about what others call you. If you care about your name more than what others call you then that is arrogance. That just how I understand it.