Same Sex marriage - my view point

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: classy
There is a basic instinct of survival built in all of us. Homosexuality challenges that instinct regardless of color, religion, or financial status. But instinct will continue to override that challenge until mankind has vanishes off this planet.

Actually it doesn't challenge that instinct, but you'd have to read into the biological causes for homosexuality to understand why. There is a reason numerous species have "gay" creatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5Grxos&feature=related

This video pretty much destroys classy's argument. Many different species practice homosexuality and bisexuality...hasn't caused them to die off.

Gotta love uneducated bigots.

Comparing us to animals is a losing proposition. Lots of animals murder their young, have sex with siblings, and eat their mates, among other lovely activities.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: classy
You know I get so sick and tired of the comparative homosexual to a persons skin color. Homosexuality has to do with a person behavior, sexual behavior to be specific.

Just as you can't choose to be black/white/asian/etc, you don't choose your sexual orientation. They are quite similar, with the exception that one cannot be kept secret (race) and the other can (sexual preferences).

Whether or not a person is religous or not, its questionable on many levels.

Only if you're homophobic or have religious objections.

A person's skin color is not the same as a person's behavior. So this idea that allowing someone with dark skin marry someone without white skin is no where near the same as having two men or women marry each other.

Both are things that a person can't change about themself.

My opinion is homosexuality will never, ever be accepted as norm. Not today, tomorrow, next week, next million years.

Umm, then maybe you don't know your history. Look at a lot of cultures (namely ancient ones), homosexuality wasn't taboo. It's a social taboo, not a human nature one. Modern society views it as taboo, and "wrong". A lot of that stems from religious views.

You can give them all the rights in the world, most of world still is not going to accept it as a norm.

Refer back to the last comment. Learn about other cultures.

There is a basic instinct of survival built in all of us. Homosexuality challenges that instinct regardless of color, religion, or financial status. But instinct will continue to override that challenge until mankind has vanishes off this planet.

It only does "challenge that instinct" in so far as a base reproductive need. That said, in modern times it's a non-issue. Our species is reproducing much faster than we are dying. Homosexuality will never become so widespread that heterosexuality becomes "endangered". We are not the sole species that has homosexual matings.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

Originally posted by: nerp
That's just semantics. If it's the same as marriage except for the word, who gives a fuck what it's called?

If marriage has so much sanctity, I say prohibit divorce. That aught to shut everyone up.

Yes, it is just semantics as to changing terms, but most religious people have issues with calling it "marriage" because of it's religious aspects.

You can't realistically prohibit divorce. People in violent, abusive relationships would have to legally remain married to a person. You would effectively kill any kind of marriage in this country, because people wouldn't want to make that commitment since people change as do situations/circumstances.

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
The legal definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Life is not fair, Nothing is equal and truth is stranger then fiction.

So, because "God" views homosexuality as wrong our societies laws should prohibit same sex couples from having a legal "marriage" (call it a civil union if that makes you more comfortable, provided it legally is exactly the same as marriage)?

Originally posted by: Albus25
Marriage can't give their happiness , but they deserve the right.

Marriage can't provide heterosexual couples happiness either, but they have (and deserve) the right.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

What about Religious Institutions that allow same sex marriage. Should they have to abide by the mainstream religious Institutions archaic and discriminatory beliefs?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

What about Religious Institutions that allow same sex marriage. Should they have to abide by the mainstream religious Institutions archaic and discriminatory beliefs?

Here is my view on government and marriage.

The government should only call it a "civil union". There is no religious aspects to that, and it permits any person to marry any other person (with certain exceptions like incest). If a couple decides to call it a marriage (or any other term), that's their right. The government recognizes it as a "civil union", and the couple/religion can recognize it as whatever they want.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

What about Religious Institutions that allow same sex marriage. Should they have to abide by the mainstream religious Institutions archaic and discriminatory beliefs?

Here is my view on government and marriage.

The government should only call it a "civil union". There is no religious aspects to that, and it permits any person to marry any other person (with certain exceptions like incest). If a couple decides to call it a marriage (or any other term), that's their right. The government recognizes it as a "civil union", and the couple/religion can recognize it as whatever they want.

Why should Religious Institutions get to decide?

 

[BriGy86]

You think it's ok for the government to tell a church to do something that is against their religion? One of our main founding principles was to PREVENT things like that.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

What about Religious Institutions that allow same sex marriage. Should they have to abide by the mainstream religious Institutions archaic and discriminatory beliefs?

Here is my view on government and marriage.

The government should only call it a "civil union". There is no religious aspects to that, and it permits any person to marry any other person (with certain exceptions like incest). If a couple decides to call it a marriage (or any other term), that's their right. The government recognizes it as a "civil union", and the couple/religion can recognize it as whatever they want.

Why should Religious Institutions get to decide?

Why shouldn't they get to decide what they internally call something? Externally, it's a civil union. In that religious sect/group/family/etc, it can be called whatever floats their boat. I don't care what they internally call it, because it's that religious groups choice. People have a choice to be a part of that group or not, based on their own views. So, if they want two people "joining to become one unit" to be called marriage instead of civil union then so be it. From a legal, political, and governmental aspect though it should be called a "civil union" (or something along that line).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

What about Religious Institutions that allow same sex marriage. Should they have to abide by the mainstream religious Institutions archaic and discriminatory beliefs?

Here is my view on government and marriage.

The government should only call it a "civil union". There is no religious aspects to that, and it permits any person to marry any other person (with certain exceptions like incest). If a couple decides to call it a marriage (or any other term), that's their right. The government recognizes it as a "civil union", and the couple/religion can recognize it as whatever they want.

Why should Religious Institutions get to decide?

Why shouldn't they get to decide what they internally call something? Externally, it's a civil union. In that religious sect/group/family/etc, it can be called whatever floats their boat. I don't care what they internally call it, because it's that religious groups choice. People have a choice to be a part of that group or not, based on their own views. So, if they want two people "joining to become one unit" to be called marriage instead of civil union then so be it. From a legal, political, and governmental aspect though it should be called a "civil union" (or something along that line).

Why, so the Religious assholes don't get upset?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
You think it's ok for the government to tell a church to do something that is against their religion? One of our main founding principles was to PREVENT things like that.

No one is telling churches they need to marry gay people.

But you don't have to get married in a church as it currently stands. You can get a civil marriage, signed off by a judge/clerk/etc...

As for the whole "get government out of marriage and give everyone civil unions" business, as long as government is in the marriage business (because it is essentially a contract that government is overseeing and granting certain benefits with), any 2 consenting adults should be allowed to get married. If we change the laws so that it isn't called marriage anymore, but 'civil unions', fine, but until that happens, marriage should be open to all and not restricted based on sexual identity.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BriGy86
You think it's ok for the government to tell a church to do something that is against their religion? One of our main founding principles was to PREVENT things like that.

No one is telling churches they need to marry gay people.

But you don't have to get married in a church as it currently stands. You can get a civil marriage, signed off by a judge/clerk/etc...

As for the whole "get government out of marriage and give everyone civil unions" business, as long as government is in the marriage business (because it is essentially a contract that government is overseeing and granting certain benefits with), any 2 consenting adults should be allowed to get married. If we change the laws so that it isn't called marriage anymore, but 'civil unions', fine, but until that happens, marriage should be open to all and not restricted based on sexual identity.

In the 4th post up it sounds like this was what Red Dawn was getting after. If not sorry for the misunderstanding.

I just think there needs to be 2 different terms. One for the religious side and another for the government side. Then hopefully some people would quit whining about the technicality of the term "marriage".

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BriGy86
You think it's ok for the government to tell a church to do something that is against their religion? One of our main founding principles was to PREVENT things like that.

No one is telling churches they need to marry gay people.

But you don't have to get married in a church as it currently stands. You can get a civil marriage, signed off by a judge/clerk/etc...

As for the whole "get government out of marriage and give everyone civil unions" business, as long as government is in the marriage business (because it is essentially a contract that government is overseeing and granting certain benefits with), any 2 consenting adults should be allowed to get married. If we change the laws so that it isn't called marriage anymore, but 'civil unions', fine, but until that happens, marriage should be open to all and not restricted based on sexual identity.

In the 4th post up it sounds like this was what Red Dawn was getting after. If not sorry for the misunderstanding.

I just think there needs to be 2 different terms. One for the religious side and another for the government side. Then hopefully some people would quit whining about the technicality of the term "marriage".

No there is no need for two different terms. If the Religious assholes can't deal with it tough shit.

BTW when I say Religious Assholes I mean those who would impose their beliefs on others i.e to prohibit others from getting married

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Comparing us to animals is a losing proposition. Lots of animals murder their young, have sex with siblings, and eat their mates, among other lovely activities.

Good Grief! Would Moonbeam have a field day with this one.
The only difference, as I see it, is that the Chimps, Tigers and Monkeys don't gots no sheriff to lock em up when they do it...
We've got prisons filled with folks who have not fully evolved to human hood and do all you suggest the other animals do. Well, perhaps not too many eat their mates... Spiders come to mind.. but, oh what a pretty web we weave!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
From a legal, political, and governmental aspect though it should be called a "civil union" (or something along that line).

Separate but equal isn't legal.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Would the majority of gays be happy with civil unions that carried the same "rights" as a marriage?

Would the majority of Afro-Americans be happy with "separate but equal" schools? They're not Constitutional, either.

Who are you to speculate about, let alone define, what diminshed rights others should accept short of equality?

Originally posted by: BriGy86

They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

That would be meaningless. You can't legislate the contemporary use of language, and changing the name of the same actions is a meaningless jack off... or jill off in the case of lesbians.

Originally posted by: classy

You know I get so sick and tired of the comparative homosexual to a persons skin color. Homosexuality has to do with a person behavior, sexual behavior to be specific. Whether or not a person is religous or not, its questionable on many levels. A person's skin color is not the same as a person's behavior. So this idea that allowing someone with dark skin marry someone without white skin is no where near the same as having two men or women marry each other.

So says the hypocritical guy with a dark skin and no sensitivity to the rights of others.

My opinion is homosexuality will never, ever be accepted as norm. Not today, tomorrow, next week, next million years. You can give them all the rights in the world, most of world still is not going to accept it as a norm.

No one is asking you to "accept" their behavior as your own. They just want you to get out of the way of other peaceful citizens to live their lives as they choose.

Remember, the Constitution regarded your ancestors as 3/5 of a person. Would you accept that as the norm, today? :shocked:

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Would the majority of gays be happy with civil unions that carried the same "rights" as a marriage?

Would biracial couples be?

Are they gay biracial couples? If not than waht's your point? Do you have one?

Why explain the point of something only a moron wouldn't get?

Go hate yourself in the corner troll.

I want to know if it's about the rights associated with marriage, or if it is agenda driven. If it's only about getting the same rights as those marriage brings, than fine, I support it, if it has to be called marriage than it is nothing more than agenda driven BS, and no, I don't. Other than that there is no reason whatsoever or the federal government to be involved.

It's agenda driven. It's specifically aimed at white people. They're trying to make your kids gay so they won't breed, and the white race will die out. BE VERY SCARED, WHITE MAN!

Seriously, gay couples want the same legal rights as a straight couple. Case closed.

They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion. It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

Yes you are a moron, no doubt. How does people getting married force their beliefs on others?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

What about Religious Institutions that allow same sex marriage. Should they have to abide by the mainstream religious Institutions archaic and discriminatory beliefs?

Here is my view on government and marriage.

The government should only call it a "civil union". There is no religious aspects to that, and it permits any person to marry any other person (with certain exceptions like incest). If a couple decides to call it a marriage (or any other term), that's their right. The government recognizes it as a "civil union", and the couple/religion can recognize it as whatever they want.

Why should Religious Institutions get to decide?

Because "marriage" is itself religious which is why the government has no business allowing or denying people the ability to marry. Just like the government has no business allowing or denying people the ability to receive communion.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: classy
There is a basic instinct of survival built in all of us. Homosexuality challenges that instinct regardless of color, religion, or financial status. But instinct will continue to override that challenge until mankind has vanishes off this planet.

Actually it doesn't challenge that instinct, but you'd have to read into the biological causes for homosexuality to understand why. There is a reason numerous species have "gay" creatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5Grxos&feature=related

This video pretty much destroys classy's argument. Many different species practice homosexuality and bisexuality...hasn't caused them to die off.

Gotta love uneducated bigots.

So some people may think that having homosexuality or any other sort of impediment to reproduction will cause a species to die off over time. However, this is only true if the impediment is sufficently large in effect. Homosexuality is not large enough of an effect in most species for this to happen. In most species, average # of offspring per female is pretty high. E.g. A cat or a dog. Each litter has many offspring and each female usually has multiple litters in her lifetime. The high fecundity of most animals is more than enough to compensate for the reduction in reproductive rate caused by homosexual individuals within the population.

Of course, being homosexual does cause negative selection pressure to be put upon individuals. So why hasn't homosexuality died off in various species? Well, nobody really knows for certain but there are various ideas. I'm too lazy to type any more though so I'm just gonna let it go.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Yeah, they believed in it so much that they found it necessary to guarantee us protection from that religion.

The bottom line is the government has no business being in the marriage business at all. I honestly don't understand why ANY religion would want the government controlling one of their sacraments. We have seen many times in history that what the government givith it can taketh away. Seriously, do you guys really want the government to have the power to deny you and your heterosexual spouse a marriage license for whatever reason they see fit? I guarantee yall will be screaming that the government needs to get out of your church and I agree.

Leave marriage up to the church where the church can make up any and all the rules they want. If the .gov sees fit to grant rights or privileges to consenting adults entering into a social contract then the government should not discriminate based on sex, religion, or race.

BTW, for the slow folk, this isn't about pedophilia or beastiality or any other dumb shit you want to try and associate with gays (ironically, almost every single news story I have read involving beastiality it was committed by a male in a heterosexual, traditional, church approved marriage). The conversation is about two consenting adults. If you have some urge to talk about boning animals this isn't the thread.

What makes you think that marriage is naturally within the dominion of religion? I'm Chinese and marriage has never been much about religion in China. And that's true for a lot of other groups of people as well. Marriage has always been a societal and familial thing in China.

Nobody knows for certain but I bet marriage predates religion. And it definitely predates organized religion.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

Won't happen anytime soon. Marriage should be a religious term only, and civil union should be the term used by the government. Then again I think the government should get out of the marriage business, but that's just me.

I think we're on the same page. I think we should completely separate church and state and allow the same civil union rights for all. Then if there continues to be issues with gay marriage it can be taken up with the church(s) and the state will be free and clear.

What about Religious Institutions that allow same sex marriage. Should they have to abide by the mainstream religious Institutions archaic and discriminatory beliefs?

Here is my view on government and marriage.

The government should only call it a "civil union". There is no religious aspects to that, and it permits any person to marry any other person (with certain exceptions like incest). If a couple decides to call it a marriage (or any other term), that's their right. The government recognizes it as a "civil union", and the couple/religion can recognize it as whatever they want.

Why should Religious Institutions get to decide?

Because "marriage" is itself religious which is why the government has no business allowing or denying people the ability to marry. Just like the government has no business allowing or denying people the ability to receive communion.

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

They don't want just equal rights, if they did, having a civil union with the exact same legal rights (which I support) as a marriage would end the discussion.

Why are you so hung up on a word? It's just a collection of letters representing a vocal speach pattern that represents a complex CIVIL legal status and associated rights, duties and privileges. You can call it "Fred" for all I care, but very few others will know what you mean, and they'll still be just as wrong as you are.

It's funny that people say things like "religious people want to force their beliefs on others", and then turn around and do the exact same thing to religious poeple, but some self righteous indignation apparently makes it ok, and anyone that can see that a "bigot".

That's because YOU are advocating against the personal rights of other peaceful citizens. OTOH, no one ist forcing YOU to accept their personal beliefs or conform YOUR personal behavior to their standards. That defines a you as a BIGOT.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

That would be meaningless. You can't legislate the contemporary use of language, and changing the name of the same actions is a meaningless jack off... or jill off in the case of lesbians.

How would it be meaningless? We aren't talking about legislating the contemporary use of the language this is about getting the government out of religion. Marriage is a religious sacrament and therefor the government has no business allowing or denying access. Both straights and gays would enter into some sort of civil union or whatever they come up with, no separate but equal anything. What you and your spouse do in church is between yall and the church.

I am actually quite shocked about how many people here are dead set on using the word marriage instead of another term being applied across the board. I know a ton of gay folk and none of them give half a shit about the word marriage. They just want to be treated equally and most realize that it will be a LOOONG time before the federal government legislates that gays be allowed to get "married". There are simply to many religious districts that will vote out any rep who voted for it and reps care far more about their jobs than any of us. On the other hand, leaving marriage up to the churches and the government using civil unions for everyone is actually becoming more politically feasible everyday. Hell, once the economy settles down a bit, with the right leadership I think its quite possible to get it passed today (well, maybe after the 2010 elections, doubt Obama would touch it till his 2nd term though).

Are there actually any gay folk here that disagree with removing marriage from the government and everyone being treated equally with civil unions?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

That would be meaningless. You can't legislate the contemporary use of language, and changing the name of the same actions is a meaningless jack off... or jill off in the case of lesbians.

How would it be meaningless? We aren't talking about legislating the contemporary use of the language this is about getting the government out of religion. Marriage is a religious sacrament and therefor the government has no business allowing or denying access. Both straights and gays would enter into some sort of civil union or whatever they come up with, no separate but equal anything. What you and your spouse do in church is between yall and the church.

I am actually quite shocked about how many people here are dead set on using the word marriage instead of another term being applied across the board. I know a ton of gay folk and none of them give half a shit about the word marriage. They just want to be treated equally and most realize that it will be a LOOONG time before the federal government legislates that gays be allowed to get "married". There are simply to many religious districts that will vote out any rep who voted for it and reps care far more about their jobs than any of us. On the other hand, leaving marriage up to the churches and the government using civil unions for everyone is actually becoming more politically feasible everyday. Hell, once the economy settles down a bit, with the right leadership I think its quite possible to get it passed today (well, maybe after the 2010 elections, doubt Obama would touch it till his 2nd term though).

Are there actually any gay folk here that disagree with removing marriage from the government and everyone being treated equally with civil unions?

Marriage is not just a religious sacrament, get that through your thick skull! You knuckleheads didn't have a problem with it being a civil ceremony when straight couple were getting married outside the god damn church.