• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Solution to gay marriage

Todd33

Todd33

Diamond Member
If marriage is a religous cerimony, take it out of all forms of the goernment. Make the new contract a civil union or something. This is what the government uses for all contracts, taxes, laws, etc.

Marriage will now be a religous cerimony performed by the church and not used by the government. It's optional and seperate from the legal contract of a civil union.

I know it will never happen, but a rational, logical mind can always dream.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Todd33
Marriage will now be a religous cerimony performed by the church and not used by the government.
Click to expand...

So no other religions are allowed to have marriage?
Click to expand...

No marriage becomes something you do privately, he clearly didn't dictate that any specific church would have control just that the term marriage would no longer be recognized or afforded special benefits by the government.

As it should be, marriage for whoever wants it, or marriage for no one (as a governmentaly recognized state with afforded benefits)
 
Two problems with this:

"Marriage" by definition entitles people to certain protections which are not part of civil unions. By separating marriage into merely a religious component, and classifying civil unions as government marriages with the protections of marriages, you may have to eliminate privileges for married couples, which doesn't seem to be fair at all.'

Secondly, you still have to deal with those legal moralists who think imposition of private morality on the diverse public is a good thing - these people consider gay marriage a threat to the family and/or the institution and don't want to see them married, PERIOD.
 
This was done to death in the various same-sex marriage threads from a few months ago.

It boils down to two problems:

1) Bigots
2) Hangups on the term "marriage"

Eliminate those two and the problem is solved!
 
FACT:

Marraige has not been a Church institution under its total control since a horny King decided he wanted a divorce without the approval of the papacy. Our founders wanted to utterly separate the right to be married from the Church; without the ability to approve whom weds whom, the church lost a large portion of power over its members. Therefore, the right to grant the marraige LICENSES was granted to the US government, as well as the right to perform marraiges. You know, the kind done by a Justice of the Peace. Once you get the marraige license, whom you are married by is your decision; you can have a secular wedding, like my grandparents did, and I intend to do, or you can have a religious wedding, at the church of your choosing.

Legalizing gay marraige doesn't take any power or choice away from the churches because THEY HAVE NOT HAD THIS POWER SINCE THE COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED. They can refuse to do gay marraiges, because as private instititions, they do not have to admit or serve everyone. However, gays CAN get married at churches who will take them, such as UU and other such tolerant, progressive churches.

But first they need to gain their right to marraige licenses, something which they've been denied.

All of this cockamamie about marraige being a religious institution is bull. I can go tomorrow and get married to any woman I want without God or the Holy Mother Church having ANY SAY IN HELL.

As it damn well should be.

Marraiges were around long before organized religion tainted them.

Civil unions are, for all intents and purposes, moot, when you have a marraige system like we do in the US.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
This was done to death in the various same-sex marriage threads from a few months ago.

It boils down to two problems:

1) Bigots
2) Hangups on the term "marriage"

Eliminate those two and the problem is solved!
Click to expand...
Done to death? Hardly. You can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much. This problem will not go away till the bigots die and are replaced by uninfected people. Of course I know what you mean by done to death, however. Bigots are like the energizer bunny. They keep going and going and going. You just have to orient them toward the wall so they can walk into it forever.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
If marriage is a religous cerimony, take it out of all forms of the goernment. Make the new contract a civil union or something. This is what the government uses for all contracts, taxes, laws, etc.

Marriage will now be a religous cerimony performed by the church and not used by the government. It's optional and seperate from the legal contract of a civil union.

I know it will never happen, but a rational, logical mind can always dream.
Click to expand...

I supported this from the get go, people are so quick to shout seperation of church and state but then defend the governments use of a common term....quick and easy way to create a clear distinction would be by changing terminology of legal contracts...sure religions could also do that as well, but I personally feel it would be alot easier to accept if done at a government level....
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: conjur
This was done to death in the various same-sex marriage threads from a few months ago.

It boils down to two problems:

1) Bigots
2) Hangups on the term "marriage"

Eliminate those two and the problem is solved!
Click to expand...
Done to death? Hardly. You can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much. This problem will not go away till the bigots die and are replaced by uninfected people. Of course I know what you mean by done to death, however. Bigots are like the energizer bunny. They keep going and going and going. You just have to orient them toward the wall so they can walk into it forever.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have better qualfied "done to death".

Done to the death of logic.

How's that?

😉
 
I gots ta treat bigots light hearted and nice like in case I ever discover I'm one about something or other. That way, having a friendly attitude and all, I maybe won't have to go into instant denial. Nobody likes to discover they are what they don't like.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: conjur
This was done to death in the various same-sex marriage threads from a few months ago.

It boils down to two problems:

1) Bigots
2) Hangups on the term "marriage"

Eliminate those two and the problem is solved!
Click to expand...
Done to death? Hardly. You can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much. This problem will not go away till the bigots die and are replaced by uninfected people. Of course I know what you mean by done to death, however. Bigots are like the energizer bunny. They keep going and going and going. You just have to orient them toward the wall so they can walk into it forever.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have better qualfied "done to death".

Done to the death of logic.

How's that?
No good, the logic is all on our side and none on the other. 😀 What we done a few months back is show the head butters their butt headedness but acourse they never seen it. Don't have the mental RAM to process it. They just try to get your goat, I think.

😉
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Todd33
If marriage is a religous cerimony, take it out of all forms of the goernment. Make the new contract a civil union or something. This is what the government uses for all contracts, taxes, laws, etc.

Marriage will now be a religous cerimony performed by the church and not used by the government. It's optional and seperate from the legal contract of a civil union.

I know it will never happen, but a rational, logical mind can always dream.
Click to expand...

I supported this from the get go, people are so quick to shout seperation of church and state but then defend the governments use of a common term....quick and easy way to create a clear distinction would be by changing terminology of legal contracts...sure religions could also do that as well, but I personally feel it would be alot easier to accept if done at a government level....
Click to expand...

It's an easy distinction. Let's try this:

If you get married by a JotP, you just had a wedding.
If you get married by a church, you just had a church-santified wedding.

See, it's not that hard.
 
i think the whole arguement is stupid. why is the church and state concerned how i conduct my relationships, to hell with both of them. i have been and always will be with my girlfriend of 9 years. or if not que sera. i see no point in allowing the government or church to screw that up. i think that the government at least (since it's not in it's charter) should back off totally from marriage tax breaks or penalties it's stupid. i understand that the church has an excuse but the state does not.

Besides if we decide that it's time to part, that would mean i have to go to court. That is @#$%ing ridiculous.
 
email today;


( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )

"Next."

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples
who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you
can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I
have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a
woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us
just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,
Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June
and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can
express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the
constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a
marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of
marriage!" [/i]
 
Originally posted by: Chris A
email today [/i]
Click to expand...

So... what you're saying is that allowing gay marriage lead the whole institution down the slippery slope to depravity and abuse.

I see the light now -- we have to ban marriage altogether!
 
Originally posted by: judasmachine
i think the whole arguement is stupid. why is the church and state concerned how i conduct my relationships, to hell with both of them. i have been and always will be with my girlfriend of 9 years. or if not que sera. i see no point in allowing the government or church to screw that up. i think that the government at least (since it's not in it's charter) should back off totally from marriage tax breaks or penalties it's stupid. i understand that the church has an excuse but the state does not.

Besides if we decide that it's time to part, that would mean i have to go to court. That is @#$%ing ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So, say you get marriage and you had children and you just up and left and she had no legal recourse to obtain child support payments from you, you'd be ok with that?

If you and your wife are together another 30 years and she stays at home and doesn't work and then you die, you don't want her to be able to receive Social Security payments to be able to help sustain her life? And, should you have an estate to leave, you'd not want your g/f to have any legal recourse to receiving the assets in case your family came in and took it all?

You wouldn't want your wife to be able to receive insurance coverage from your employer-sponsored coverage?
 
Originally posted by: illustri
Originally posted by: Chris A
email today [/i]
Click to expand...

So... what you're saying is that allowing gay marriage lead the whole institution down the slippery slope to depravity and abuse.

I see the light now -- we have to ban marriage altogether!
Click to expand...

You presume too much.

Who cares what they call it.. Give them civil unions and the same rights and move on... What is there fixation with calling it Marrage?
 
Oh there's a slippery slope all right and it's that if we ban gays from getting married pretty soon we ban the feeble minded and that would be you, no? I mean, come on, I'm the only smart one here. Only a very few like me should be making babies or for that matter even having sex. Dang, maybe I'm wrong about this gay thing.
 
Isn't this basically Kerry's view on gay marriage? He supports civil unions, but not technical "marriage." What's the difference? I have no idea.
 
i know this is a bit off your point, but if she doesn't get a job i wouldn't be with her. i also don't buy into this sole bread winner thing, or this breeding thing. my relationship is two people who care about each other but are people who don't have this master servant relationship. as far as my insurance i can name whomever as a beneficiary. SS isn't going to do a damn thing for anyone and we all know it.
 
Who is talking about Baning? I thought that this was more about redefining... And some how from reading your posts I would think that you have no babies... And with the amount of posts here your chances of having sex seem pretty slim too...
 
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: illustri
Originally posted by: Chris A
email today [/i]
Click to expand...

So... what you're saying is that allowing gay marriage lead the whole institution down the slippery slope to depravity and abuse.

I see the light now -- we have to ban marriage altogether!
Click to expand...

You presume too much.

Who cares what they call it.. Give them civil unions and the same rights and move on... What is there fixation with calling it Marrage?
Click to expand...

What is the fixation with NOT calling it marriage? It *is* a marriage, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top