Do YOU Want to Drink Out of the Special Fountain? (AKA Gay Marriage/Civil Unions)

[amileegirl]

I was on the answers section and someone said that "Gays should find Civil Union good enough, and leave the word Marriage to the religous people, because god-fearing people don't want to share..." 

So, I was thinking...would this person be okay with drinking out of the "special" fountain?   You know, like they did during segregation?         Of course, I had to do a google search because I know someone out there must have captured this idea visually:  

So, who wants to drink out of the special water fountain?

 

Think about it...

 

 

 

Segregarion is segregation. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you try to coat it in pretty frosting. It's still rotten on the inside.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind the official liscence being called a civil union contract that anyone can get -- I would call my atheist non-virginal outside wedding with a dash of pagan ceremonial handfasting a marriage anyway, but there are religous people who thumb their nose at that idea.   And that makes me think...why?    They can have their Holy Matrimony at their Chuch of choice already!    The government and state don't give a damn about the festivities or ceremony which is why they don't give a rat's behind if it happens in a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple, Gazebo, boat, train, on the back of a Harley, or while skydiving -- they just want the fee and the signatures.   

Insisting that gay people should find "civil unions" -- good enough when you yourself would object, is no different that having them drink out of a different water fountain. How would you feel if you were made to drink out of the "special" fountain -- not because it was a privilage or honor, but because other people don't think you are worthy enough to share the regular one?

If you don't want to drink out of that fountain, because you know damn well it isn't special or just as good, what makes you think that other people want to?

[Momma_Halo]

Apr. 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM

I saw that and it just made me shake my head. If we can use marriage for ANY religion why not sexual preference too? For a long time the Pagan priestess's and priests have married same sex couples but they were never legally binding.

So when will it ever end? I think we should ditch this whole marriage thing and just do legal documents that should be backed up by the law obeying the persons wishes of who chooses their medical choices and more.

[celticreverie]

Apr. 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM

I love it! :)

I agree. there are actually people who do not believe my DH and I are married because of the fact that we are not Christian.: / I rather enjoyed my pagan/agnostic wedding ceremony LOL :)

[SxdUpAngel]

Apr. 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM

I completely agree.  It's aggravating as hell.  People deserve the same rights, PERIOD.

[JoyeAustin]

Apr. 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Too many people have no historical perspective on how damaging any discrimination to civil liberties really is. We can't call ourselves a free country honestly. Not yet.

[Nysa]

Apr. 21, 2009 at 8:05 PM

I do agree that EVERYTHING involving the government should be a civil union, and let marriage be decided by the different religions.  That way if a church is ok with gay marriage they can do it, if not than they don't have to perform one.  But, I really think marriage the way that people have been describing the word should have nothing to do with the government.  They are making it a religious thing, and government and religion really need to be kept separate.

[RanaAurora]

Apr. 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Love ya, girl.  I feel the exact same way.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind the official liscence being called a civil union contract that anyone can get -- I would call my atheist non-virginal outside wedding with a dash of pagan ceremonial handfasting a marriage anyway, but there are religous people who thumb their nose at that idea.  

This is my thoughts exactly.

[justanotherjen]

Apr. 22, 2009 at 8:10 AM

Separate but equal is rarely actually equal and usually unconstitutional.

And I hate that whole..."marriage is a sacred union only between a couple and the Christian god, blah, blah, blah."  Really?  What about the millions of non-Christians that get married every year or get married by a JP?

We had a preacher do our wedding only because there was no JP in our town but he was light on the god stuff and, in the end, as two atheists god has nothing to do with our marriage.

[julie.r0cks]

Apr. 22, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Separate is not equal.

Does anyone remember the days back when blacks COULD NOT marry a white person?
Or when a black man would be beaten by the cops just for whistling at a white woman? Or when black people couldn't eat at the same establishments as whites, or had a special part of the bus to sit on?

Separate is not equal, no matter what REASON you are separating someone for.

Whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality, whether you believe they were born that way or chose to be gay doesn't matter....

What matters is this:

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLE!!!

[mogencreative]

Apr. 22, 2009 at 9:17 AM Unfortunately, people who are sue happy against religious institutions and individuals are not helping their cause, because people perceive that as a threat against freedom of religion.

So law makers get stuck with equal rights and freedom of religion being express parts of our constitution, and they don't know how to give to either one on this without diminishing from the other.

Hence, the invention of civil unions.

If they could stop the law suits for a year or two, I'm sure they would have a better chance.

[Katie911]

Apr. 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Let's agree to disagree