Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion, state should stay out of defining what's a marriage. That needs to be left to religious organizations.
State should make laws laying down legal boundaries of what constitutes a civil union, what are parties' rights and responsibilities, what kinds of unions are allowed and so on, but not call it a marriage. If two people want to enter into a legally recognized union, they should go and obtain a license - just don't call it a marriage license. This way both parties' interests and rights are legally protected in case of divorce or death.
Then if you're gay and, say, Catholic, whether or not your union is a "marriage" should be an issue between you and the Catholic church.
And if you are non-denominational and want to call it a "marriage" all power to you, just don't expect everyone else to consider your legal union a marriage under their belief system.
That is the way this should work. Ass opposed to the laws being written right and left defining what's a marriage. Keep the government out of this.
(None of this has anything to do with business' refusal to provide services).
I think this would have been a great way to go. Unfortunately, civil unions do not bestow the same legal rights and protections that marriage does. It is unfair to deny those rights and protections to some while giving them to others. Perhaps religious people could adopt a new term to distinguish religiously approved marriages from non religiously approved. Of course, as you mention, religiously approved is going to be relative to each religion.
I think this would have been a great way to go. Unfortunately, civil unions do not bestow the same legal rights and protections that marriage does. It is unfair to deny those rights and protections to some while giving them to others. Perhaps religious people could adopt a new term to distinguish religiously approved marriages from non religiously approved. Of course, as you mention, religiously approved is going to be relative to each religion.
I thought religions already had another word. Holy matrimony.
In my opinion, state should stay out of defining what's a marriage. That needs to be left to religious organizations.
State should make laws laying down legal boundaries of what constitutes a civil union, what are parties' rights and responsibilities, what kinds of unions are allowed and so on, but not call it a marriage. If two people want to enter into a legally recognized union, they should go and obtain a license - just don't call it a marriage license. This way both parties' interests and rights are legally protected in case of divorce or death.
Then if you're gay and, say, Catholic, whether or not your union is a "marriage" should be an issue between you and the Catholic church.
And if you are non-denominational and want to call it a "marriage" all power to you, just don't expect everyone else to consider your legal union a marriage under their belief system.
That is the way this should work. Ass opposed to the laws being written right and left defining what's a marriage. Keep the government out of this.
(None of this has anything to do with business' refusal to provide services).
Should civil union replace marriage in all legal rights such as property, visitation or taxes? If marriage is a religious only meaning it should have no standing outside a church. If you want those rights that being married currently provide you then need to get a civil union as well. Would this satisfy or do you wish the churches to control who can get married and who is entitled to marriage rights. If I am reading you correctly a man and a woman who are non believers have no rights to the word marriage. If it is purely for the religious then it should have no value beyond the church, be similar in legality as being an altar boy.
Having been married for more than 40 decades I do not see the point in this. Non believers were allowed to get married for a long time but now that gays wish to the religious wish to own the word. At one time all a couple had to do was make a vow between themselves and the church accepted it, no church involved but now you wish to have it only for yourselves. Which religions would you allow and would you have some churches control the others. If one church allowed same sex marriage would that be permissible?
]"Love thy neighbor" does not equate to embracing their sinful actions.[/b] You think religious people should love a person engaging in pedophilia or bestiality? Those sinful acts are listed right along with homosexuality in the Torah.
If you don't think society should embrace all the sexual activities that the Torah sets out as abominations and moral sins (which includes incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, rape and bestiality), then why do you have the right to condemn others for their belief that it is against God to embrace all of the sexual activities that the Torah sets out as abominations and moral sins.
I am sure if a Christian/Jew/Muslim, refused to provide services (cake, flowers, etc.) for a getting out of jail party for a repeat child rapist, there would be no bullying or threats to that business owner.
I am equally sure that no one would be demeaning a business owner who refused to cater a Night of Bestiality event either.
Hypocrites!
Do you ever read the context of a response before going on your little rants? She called the previous poster "stupid." That is what was highlighted and that is what my response addressed.
Do you think calling someone stupid represents the christian ethic the writer claims to embrace?
What is the severe burden imposed on a florist to supply a product to a customer as she had dozens of times in the past?
Just so you know, adoption credits are based on expenses actually incurred to adopt a child. If you don't adopt a child, it stands to reason you did not incur any adoption expenses.
My right as an individual is being denied. The individual down the street can legally form a civil marriage with another individual that is female, but I am banned from doing so.
Why should one individual have rights that another individual does not have?
You have the same rights as the individual down the street. Is the individual down the street a man? Can that individual legally for a civil marriage to a man? Can you? So your argument is not that you are not treated equally under the legal requirements to marry, your argument is that you want the requirements changed because of the nature of your relationship, not because you as a person are denied the right to marry on the same basis as every other citizen.
More and more people consider themselves non-religious. Why should they hold to values and principles which they do not share? Isn't forcing them to do so establishing religion?
That is why the 1st Amendment was put in place. To guarantee the religious that they would not be forced to deny their faith in a secular society.
You are forcing the florist to uphold your "non-secular" values by enlisting the power of the state to force her to participate or be punished.
Really, didn't you just admit that gay marriage is your Selma? That is EXATLY the point of that article.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
