It's also so vaguely written that fucks over straight, non-married couples too, I believe.
I've already done the ironic "America! FUCK YEAH!" when a friend sent me the story, so I guess all that's left is to say that allowing the public to vote on a matter of someone else's civil rights is fucking ludicrous.
Marriage has existed outside of religion for 1000s of years (we're talking Ancient Greece); religion does not own the concept nor the name. Likewise, "just call it something else" smacks of 'separate but equal'. That didn't end well last time the US tried it, either.
DVS BSTrD: Came out of Nowhere? It came out of the South.
Pretty much all that needs to be said on the situation. Most of us rational americans would prefer to stay in denial that the south is part of the country.
I've looked through all the previous posters and have yet to find an NC resident. I happened to live in N. Carolina and voted against the Amendment, for all the good it did. There was actually quite a bit of resistance to the Amendment, mostly from young people, so there is hope. Its one of those things that is changing with time.
The religious Conservative people of the state are dying out quickly, as they are largely quite old. The young 20 somethings (like me) are almost completely for allowing gay marriage, and in the next decade or two, will become the dominant political force in the state. Another big factor was that African-Americans (who are mostly Democrats in NC) were overwhelmingly supportive of the ban.
However I have seen from a few posters some ridicule of N. Carolina in general as a redneck state or backward. Old-fashioned? Maybe. But NC is making a lot more strides in branching out politically than most any other southern state, and is one of the most economically diverse states in the nation. tl;dr dont be hating on my state.
rolfwesselius: Fuck religious people. People should be allowed to love their lives like they want to.
well fuck non religious people. (yeah, sounds bigoted and single minded doesn't it?)
we should be allowed to have opinions and views, you may not like it....but then again we may not like your view as well.
seriously, im religious, and i could care less either way, but its when people EXPECT me to accept something that i get pissed at. Just because some one has a right to do something, doesn't mean i have to like it. Your free to do what ever you do behind close doors, and your allowed to protest for civil partnership rights, but dont assume im against you when im not with you. thats really the one thing that pisses me off about this gay rights movement, its either you support them, or your an over religious zealot bigot. I know plenty of gay people who support gay marriage, what are they? self hating gays?
If a state votes and decides 'well, i guess we dont allow gay marriage here' who the fuck cares?! Other states allow it, this one doesnt. Some states allow certain items while some ban them. get over it! how many people who bitch about north carolina actually live in north carolina?
im guessing not many in this thread. so why is it hurting YOU? because you dont agree with it? WOOPDESHIT!!! other states do shit i dont agree with but i dont bitch about it!
Exactly! If it's not hurting you then why would you care about it?
Why are people complaining about violations of human rights? It's not like it's hurting them. I mean seriously, I wish all the people bitching about political prisoners in China who aren't actually living in China would just stop bitching about it. Just because they don't agree with it? WOOPDESHIT!!!
I've heard of plenty of Chinese people who support the Chinese government, what are they? Self-hating Chinese?[/sarcasm]
gay marriage is not paralleled to Chinese dictatorships who put to death thousands of people. there is a difference between "we do not recognize a civil union between two people of the same sex, and therefore do not feel obligated to give them the same financial privileges as other married couples" and "we feel as though free speech and protesting against our fascist communist regime is punishable by death, hence why we killed thousand in Tienanmen square for a peaceful protest"
and the fact that people would even compare the two, makes me sick to my stomach.
the only thing gay people are being denied, is the title of married or domestic partners, and some financial benefits.
this is why i find both sides, left and right completely full of shit and neither have any idea about what they are talking about, both sides are stubborn as mules, both sides have bigots in their own way, both sides are narrow minded and refuse to look at the others side from a new perspective. both are the same shit on the bottom of a different shoe.
Marriage is a human right.
If you don't support gays receiving basic human rights then you are a zealous bigot
this right here is why the left is equally wrong and full of ignorant bigots. just because you are not in support of an idea, does not make you a bigot. there are some gay people who are indeed against the idea of gay marriage. some people have different reasons, it may be tradition, religion, dont care, thinks it may cause a cultural back lash, may be too soon, or maby they are bigots. and gays already have basic human rights, they have every right a straight person does. "but they can have a gay marriage!" neither can i...it just so happens that i would be ok with a straight marriage as opposed to a gay one. thats why instead of just saying "They should have those rights, no matter what the voters say!" we should find a compromise that satisfies both. and personally im sure my idea is the type of compromise that can work, ive even told some over religious people i know about that and almost all of them said "you know what...i can live with that" oddly the only ones who dont like it, are liberals...straight liberals i should say. (yeah where i live, even the gay people are conservative, its hilarious in a way)
DVS BSTrD: Came out of Nowhere? It came out of the South.
Pretty much all that needs to be said on the situation. Most of us rational americans would prefer to stay in denial that the south is part of the country.
yeah because everywhere else is clearly more rational and tolerant to different views and opinions not there own. /sarcasm
seriously bro, stop being the pot calling the tea kettle black.
Woodsey: It's also so vaguely written that fucks over straight, non-married couples too, I believe.
I've already done the ironic "America! FUCK YEAH!" when a friend sent me the story, so I guess all that's left is to say that allowing the public to vote on a matter of someone else's civil rights is fucking ludicrous.
Marriage has existed outside of religion for 1000s of years (we're talking Ancient Greece); religion does not own the concept nor the name. Likewise, "just call it something else" smacks of 'separate but equal'. That didn't end well last time the US tried it, either.
except in separate but equal, it was based of racial issues and blacks couldn't even vote and had to be removed from populations of whites. that is not parallel to this subject.
getting the same thing but just calling it something else is not even remotely the same as the separate but equal era. this is a solution for people to get the same rights and treatment, and to get them to shut the hell up so everyone can move on with their lives.
well fuck non religious people. (yeah, sounds bigoted and single minded doesn't it?)
we should be allowed to have opinions and views, you may not like it....but then again we may not like your view as well.
seriously, im religious, and i could care less either way, but its when people EXPECT me to accept something that i get pissed at. Just because some one has a right to do something, doesn't mean i have to like it. Your free to do what ever you do behind close doors, and your allowed to protest for civil partnership rights, but dont assume im against you when im not with you. thats really the one thing that pisses me off about this gay rights movement, its either you support them, or your an over religious zealot bigot. I know plenty of gay people who support gay marriage, what are they? self hating gays?
If a state votes and decides 'well, i guess we dont allow gay marriage here' who the fuck cares?! Other states allow it, this one doesnt. Some states allow certain items while some ban them. get over it! how many people who bitch about north carolina actually live in north carolina?
im guessing not many in this thread. so why is it hurting YOU? because you dont agree with it? WOOPDESHIT!!! other states do shit i dont agree with but i dont bitch about it!
Exactly! If it's not hurting you then why would you care about it?
Why are people complaining about violations of human rights? It's not like it's hurting them. I mean seriously, I wish all the people bitching about political prisoners in China who aren't actually living in China would just stop bitching about it. Just because they don't agree with it? WOOPDESHIT!!!
I've heard of plenty of Chinese people who support the Chinese government, what are they? Self-hating Chinese?[/sarcasm]
gay marriage is not paralleled to Chinese dictatorships who put to death thousands of people. there is a difference between "we do not recognize a civil union between two people of the same sex, and therefore do not feel obligated to give them the same financial privileges as other married couples" and "we feel as though free speech and protesting against our fascist communist regime is punishable by death, hence why we killed thousand in Tienanmen square for a peaceful protest"
and the fact that people would even compare the two, makes me sick to my stomach.
the only thing gay people are being denied, is the title of married or domestic partners, and some financial benefits.
this is why i find both sides, left and right completely full of shit and neither have any idea about what they are talking about, both sides are stubborn as mules, both sides have bigots in their own way, both sides are narrow minded and refuse to look at the others side from a new perspective. both are the same shit on the bottom of a different shoe.
They are both violations of human rights and as such they are wrong. That one is far, far more severe than the other should go without speaking. Yet just because there's worse things happening doesn't make the less bad stuff okay.
Denying gay people human rights is bad. It should not be done. End of story.
Marriage is a human right.
If you don't support gays receiving basic human rights then you are a zealous bigot
this right here is why the left is equally wrong and full of ignorant bigots. just because you are not in support of an idea, does not make you a bigot. there are some gay people who are indeed against the idea of gay marriage. some people have different reasons, it may be tradition, religion, dont care, thinks it may cause a cultural back lash, may be too soon, or maby they are bigots. and gays already have basic human rights, they have every right a straight person does. "but they can have a gay marriage!" neither can i...it just so happens that i would be ok with a straight marriage as opposed to a gay one. thats why instead of just saying "They should have those rights, no matter what the voters say!" we should find a compromise that satisfies both. and personally im sure my idea is the type of compromise that can work, ive even told some over religious people i know about that and almost all of them said "you know what...i can live with that" oddly the only ones who dont like it, are liberals...straight liberals i should say. (yeah where i live, even the gay people are conservative, its hilarious in a way)
Marriage is a basic human right as stipulated in article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights. Gays do not possess that right. Gays do not have basic human rights.
On the subject of human rights there should be no compromise. It's never okay to bend those rights even a little bit in order to satisfy public opinion. Everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion or nationality deserves those human rights. No matter what public opinion says.
And not supporting human rights does make you a bigot. Those gays who do not support gay marriage? They're bigots. Those people who do it for other reasons? They're bigots.
And yes, I will call everyone who does not support human rights a bigot and deny any accusations of hypocrisy. By simple definition of the word bigot you are one if you do not support human rights. All humans deserve the same rights, no exceptions. Gays deserve the right of marriage.
DVS BSTrD: Came out of Nowhere? It came out of the South.
Pretty much all that needs to be said on the situation. Most of us rational americans would prefer to stay in denial that the south is part of the country.
yeah because everywhere else is clearly more rational and tolerant to different views and opinions not there own. /sarcasm
seriously bro, stop being the pot calling the tea kettle black.
Yea yea "there's exceptions to the rule everywhere" and all that jazz.
Shouldn't you be directing that jab at one of the non-US escapists who are now judging the rest of the country to be the same as North Carolina? Quick, before you lose the chance to look witty!
Seriously, what did you expect to find in this thread?
Cant gay people fly to a state that allows Gay marriage get married and come home? Not saying I solved any problems here just asking if that would work.
verdant monkai: Cant gay people fly to a state that allows Gay marriage get married and come home? Not saying I solved any problems here just asking if that would work.
As I understand it, from how it's worded, North Carolina won't recognize that marriage as valid.
Fuck knows why so many people (all conservatives, all religious, I have yet to meet anybody who is an exception to this)
I am a religious conservative and I think that gay marriage should never have been a matter of debate. As homosexuality became more open and hate crimes against homosexual people were condemned, marriage rights for homosexual couples should have followed immediately after.
So yeah, sorry, not all religious conservatives are as ignorant as Al Sharpton tells you they are.
for fuck's sake, I thought we had evolved passed the 1970's when it came to people getting civil rights. Also, I don't see how these people even have any basis in argument in a country where there is supposed to have a separation of church and state. Can anyone explain that one to me?
Funny, all over this site I see people saying marriage is a dying and unnecessary institution but then suddenly, in this thread, it's a basic human right. Holy crap people, make up your mind.
MysticToast: Funny, all over this site I see people saying marriage is a dying and unnecessary institution but then suddenly, in this thread, it's a basic human right. Holy crap people, make up your mind.
Simple. It's a "dying and unnecesary institution" that people should be free to commit to if they want, without being limited by what some other douchebag says they can and can't do. Just like all the other "pointless crap" people should be free to do.
rolfwesselius: Fuck religious people. People should be allowed to love their lives like they want to.
well fuck non religious people. (yeah, sounds bigoted and single minded doesn't it?)
we should be allowed to have opinions and views, you may not like it....but then again we may not like your view as well.
seriously, im religious, and i could care less either way, but its when people EXPECT me to accept something that i get pissed at. Just because some one has a right to do something, doesn't mean i have to like it. Your free to do what ever you do behind close doors, and your allowed to protest for civil partnership rights, but dont assume im against you when im not with you. thats really the one thing that pisses me off about this gay rights movement, its either you support them, or your an over religious zealot bigot. I know plenty of gay people who support gay marriage, what are they? self hating gays?
If a state votes and decides 'well, i guess we dont allow gay marriage here' who the fuck cares?! Other states allow it, this one doesnt. Some states allow certain items while some ban them. get over it! how many people who bitch about north carolina actually live in north carolina?
im guessing not many in this thread. so why is it hurting YOU? because you dont agree with it? WOOPDESHIT!!! other states do shit i dont agree with but i dont bitch about it!
I DO live in North Carolina, I voted against the amendment. And I can honestly say that it's implications reach far beyond our state borders. This amendment not only bans gay marriage, but unmarried civil unions as well. Which means that unmarried straight couples that had their significant other covered on their health insurance no longer get that benefit, or that children living with spit up parents no longer get health coverage.
This bill may only be in the state constitution but its unintended consequences will ripple through the nation. Every American everywhere has a right, and in this case a duty, to bitch about it.
Woodsey: It's also so vaguely written that fucks over straight, non-married couples too, I believe.
I've already done the ironic "America! FUCK YEAH!" when a friend sent me the story, so I guess all that's left is to say that allowing the public to vote on a matter of someone else's civil rights is fucking ludicrous.
Marriage has existed outside of religion for 1000s of years (we're talking Ancient Greece); religion does not own the concept nor the name. Likewise, "just call it something else" smacks of 'separate but equal'. That didn't end well last time the US tried it, either.
except in separate but equal, it was based of racial issues and blacks couldn't even vote and had to be removed from populations of whites. that is not parallel to this subject.
getting the same thing but just calling it something else is not even remotely the same as the separate but equal era. this is a solution for people to get the same rights and treatment, and to get them to shut the hell up so everyone can move on with their lives.
It's not the same treatment if you have to change the name. And no, the parallel is pretty bloody obvious; it doesn't need to be as extreme to be comparable.
MysticToast: Funny, all over this site I see people saying marriage is a dying and unnecessary institution but then suddenly, in this thread, it's a basic human right. Holy crap people, make up your mind.
Define "Nothing wrong with first cousin marriage". I mean, morally? Sure, there is nothing wrong. Unless you consider bringing a child with a significantly higher chance of genetic diseases into the world wrong. That is a pretty big basis in reality. Unless, like, your "In most cases" is a subclause that they promise not to breed under any circumstance?
Or is genetic science a myth?
Actually I mean from a genetic sense as well it doesn't matter. The science is in, the belief that a single first cousin-first cousin marrage is dangerous is disproven. The risk of a birth defect of a woman having a baby over 45 is something like 10 times higher and we wouldn't dream of banning women over 45 from marrying or having kids, would we? And of course the risk of a person who has an inheritable mental disorder is order of magnatude higher, but we don't ban them from marrying or having kids either. Nope, nothing in science supports a ban on it unless you really want to get into eugenics on a lot more things we allow today.
Also, the second part of your comment seems to indicate that you think gay marriage should face "unreasonable restrictions".
It wasn't meant to be read that way. I was trying to say that they face unreasonable restrictions NOW. I believe any two or more people who have the legal capacity to consent should be allowed to marry.
DISCLAIMER:
I admit that my view that knowlingly bringing a child into this world with a crippling disability of any kid is imoral might not sit well with everyone. But that is, quite simply, my view. Consiering the nature of medical testing it is easy enough to abort and, in my eyes, that is the only sane option. But that is not what this thread was created to discuss. So just accept it, ignore it and get back to speaking about homosexuals getting married.
I didn't bring up cousin marriage, but I agree with your point of view above in general.
The entire debate on if homosexuals should be able to get married or not is just pants on head retarded. In my eyes there are two options. Legalise gay marriage and give gay couples exactly the same rights, responsibilities, tax breaks and the like as strait couples get. Or get rid of all of the perks that married couples get.
I agree with your sentiment, but would point out it can have perks, but it also adds OBLIGATIONS and that's often the more important part.
I also believe more regions need to adopt "common law" marriages the recognize long term live in relationships as equivilent to married automatically.
What happens if a gay couple get married in one of the states where its legal then head back home to a state where it isnt? Does the marriage get recognised? Probably not...
it wasn't they just made it more illegal aswell as removing rights from gay civil unions and the like.
Kinda assbackward you ask me, but then again america doesn't even have proper healthcare so i cant say im overly surprised.
Agreed. I once saw a demotivational poster of the "Not Bad" face captioned "This is the only good thing Obama contributed".
I just thought: "Well maybe it wouldn't be if you fuckers had looked past that month's tax payment and backed Obama-care!
Kendarik: There is really nothing wrong with first cousin marriage in most cases.
Really? REALLY? Dude. You're really not helping the USA in their quest to look sane.
I'm not from the USA.
But your comment is an indication of social conditioning based on incorrect sterotypes and incorrect "science" that was guessed at a couple thousand years ago. Science indicates it isn't an issue, I'll go with that.
Care to suggest why you think cousins shouldn't be allowed to marry other than the "they will have 3 headed babies" type arguments that are thoroughly disproven by science?
Wait, nevermind, you probably won't get past your predudice and this will just further derail this thread, its not worth it...
They are both violations of human rights and as such they are wrong. That one is far, far more severe than the other should go without speaking. Yet just because there's worse things happening doesn't make the less bad stuff okay.
Denying gay people human rights is bad. It should not be done. End of story.
no bro, both are shitty, yes. but there is nothing barring gays from any right to vote, right to property, or right to do anything a straight man can do.
the only thing they cant do in most states, is have a same sex civil union! you know what else...straight people cant have that either. so there is a difference between a lack of human rights, and something that turns out to be unfair based on sexual orientation.
Marriage is a basic human right as stipulated in article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights. Gays do not possess that right. Gays do not have basic human rights.
heres what it said: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
It does not take homosexual unions into account, it does not actually guarantee them that right. it only states that you cant be denied based on race, nationality, or religion a marriage.
at the same time this document is not even well thought out because opinions on rights differ between cultures.
oh and while i went through reading this....yeah, no one is actually enforcing this thing from what i have been seeing.
On the subject of human rights there should be no compromise. It's never okay to bend those rights even a little bit in order to satisfy public opinion. Everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion or nationality deserves those human rights. No matter what public opinion says.
which is why we have civil unions to work as a compromise that hurts no one.
and i find it ironic that the left, who is the biggest supporter of this human right, thats wants no compromise, is the same side that wants to remove handguns from law abiding citizens, even though its been proven time and time again, thats one of the stupidest thing you can do...ever, and also ban cigarettes and trans fats. you know its all bullshit politics for votes right? its all they just want. say things you like for votes. they claim you cant compromise, which is bullshit, compromises on human rights happen all the time. such as you have the right to free speech, but you cant harm anyone physically doing it (yelling fire in a theater) you see?
And not supporting human rights does make you a bigot. Those gays who do not support gay marriage? They're bigots. Those people who do it for other reasons? They're bigots.
both single minded and wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry if they are doing it because they just dont like gays, its bigotry. if its other reasons like tradition, religion, or what ever reason you have that isnt rooted in hate, its a view, not bigotry.
And yes, I will call everyone who does not support human rights a bigot and deny any accusations of hypocrisy.
oh boy, narrow minds.....this cant end well
By simple definition of the word bigot you are one if you do not support human rights. All humans deserve the same rights, no exceptions. Gays deserve the right of marriage.
not even remotely close, you cant bend a definition to your liking. what if you were say...a communist who didnt believe in private/personal property, but i as a capitalist, argue personal and private property is a basic human right? are you a bigot? NO! you hold an opinion! it doesnt make you a bigot, because your view is not rooted in any hatred.
Rastien: Well apprently you can/can't do the following in NC.
Be careful about taking girls/hookers to hotels and signing in as married you might be screwed and not in the good way :P
Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields. If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married. All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart. Making love in the space between the beds is strictly forbidden. It is illegal to have sex in a churchyard. A marriage can be declared void if either of the two persons is physically impotent. Fights between cats and dogs are prohibited. You may not ride a bicycle without having both your hands on the handle bars. It is against the law to rollerblade on a state highway.
You can't ride your bike with no handlebars? No handlebars? No handlebars?
Hagi: Marriage is a basic human right as stipulated in article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights. Gays do not possess that right. Gays do not have basic human rights..
That's a weak leg to stand on.
1) UDHR is not universal in reality, its the work of a committee. It isn't the be all and end all.
2) All rights have limits
3) The UDHR doesn't actually give a definition that supports gay marriage, it can be understood to oppose it (and may even have been inteneded that way)
In particular (1) lists the things you can't discriminate based on, and gender isn't listed. Frankly, that section was designed to stop eugenics type descrimination. (3) uses language similar to those that support "traditional" marriage ("natural and fundamental group unit of society").
I think its much wiser to just point out there is no sensible reason to prohibit gay marriage, and in the absense of a good reason, why would we restrict what those with the ability to consent to give consent?
I don't want to get involved in this debate, for obvious reasons, but I want to chime in and remind everyone that this wasn't a landslide vote, and it doesn't reflect the viewpoints of all of North Carolina residents.
Woodsey: It's also so vaguely written that fucks over straight, non-married couples too, I believe.
I've already done the ironic "America! FUCK YEAH!" when a friend sent me the story, so I guess all that's left is to say that allowing the public to vote on a matter of someone else's civil rights is fucking ludicrous.
Marriage has existed outside of religion for 1000s of years (we're talking Ancient Greece); religion does not own the concept nor the name. Likewise, "just call it something else" smacks of 'separate but equal'. That didn't end well last time the US tried it, either.
except in separate but equal, it was based of racial issues and blacks couldn't even vote and had to be removed from populations of whites. that is not parallel to this subject.
getting the same thing but just calling it something else is not even remotely the same as the separate but equal era. this is a solution for people to get the same rights and treatment, and to get them to shut the hell up so everyone can move on with their lives.
It's not the same treatment if you have to change the name. And no, the parallel is pretty bloody obvious; it doesn't need to be as extreme to be comparable.
MysticToast: Funny, all over this site I see people saying marriage is a dying and unnecessary institution but then suddenly, in this thread, it's a basic human right. Holy crap people, make up your mind.
Those aren't incompatible opinions.
Yes they are. A basic human right isn't something that can just die out or become "unnecessary".
Besides, just because I thought that marriage was a dying or outdated institution does not necessarily mean that I would not care that people aren't being treated equally and not arbitrarily segregated based on prejudice.
I don't get what the yes voters don't like about Gay Marriage.
Will it affect them? Not unless they want to get gay married or, god forbid they see two gay people holding hands or showing affection.
Will it corrupt their children? Well, it'll give them something to think about rather than whatever you spoon feed with your narrow-minded bigotry. If it does turn them gay, that's not really a problem.
Will it destroy the economy? No.
Is there any reason other than religion or homophobia to not let gays marry? Neither of which should be sounds reasons in relation to governing in the United States (separation of church and state/Free Speech)? It confounds me.
Exactly my point. Going back to my first post here, I was commenting on how many posters in this thread are claiming marriage is a human right.
Ah yeah, I misread you. I read it as you saying people were hypocritical for supporting gay marriage whilst simultaneously arguing marriage was redundant.
Well that's pretty shit. If two grown adults love each other, they should be able to pledge themselves to each other. Denying them from doing so is just... fucking stupid.
omicron1: The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.
Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.
I think this picture is quite fitting here:
Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuY3JldGhpcGxldGhpLmNvbS93cC1jb250ZW50L3VwbG9hZHMvMDQuMTAuMjEuRGVtb2NyYWN5LVguZ2lmIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==
As long as gay people are denied something that straight people can have, it's not equality.
I find it funny that a country specifically founded on the separation of church and state has so many laws which have no basis or necessity outside of religion at all.
It's also so vaguely written that fucks over straight, non-married couples too, I believe.
I've already done the ironic "America! FUCK YEAH!" when a friend sent me the story, so I guess all that's left is to say that allowing the public to vote on a matter of someone else's civil rights is fucking ludicrous.
Marriage has existed outside of religion for 1000s of years (we're talking Ancient Greece); religion does not own the concept nor the name. Likewise, "just call it something else" smacks of 'separate but equal'. That didn't end well last time the US tried it, either.