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.
Complete and utter non-issue. Religious marriages and civil marriages are separate, unrelated things. Plus I've never come across any gay marriage advocate - gay or straight - who advocates for what you fear. Plus we have a first Amendment that enshrines a separation between church and state that would prevent any such government intrusion into religion.
Wow chill. I said I would not want to see that happen, not that gays wanted it or would try and force it but you know as well as I do people sue for everything now a days. I was simply saying I would not want to see that happen. Relax.
It wouldn't matter if you called it a civil-union anyway, because gay couples are still going to be getting married in churches, referring to their marriages as such, and no amount of GOP bigotry can stop that.
So yeah, those folk can try to be morally superior by saying only Real True Christians (TM) can get married, but nobody cares what those ****s think.
So, here is the question...do you think this argument could have been won long ago had gay activists dropped the word "marriage" from their arguments and instead chose another word or phrase, something like "legal partnership" or the like? Do you think we get hung up on the word rather than the rights they are seeking?
Absolutely. And if this were just about seeking rights, instead of sticking it to (fill in your favorite narrow minded religious person name or phrase), then that would have happened long ago. What's wrong with terms like civil union or some other term to define the relationship if they convey the same rights?
Wow chill. I said I would not want to see that happen, not that gays wanted it or would try and force it but you know as well as I do people sue for everything now a days. I was simply saying I would not want to see that happen. Relax.
I'm completely chilled. Just pointing out why your "issue" is unfounded.
It wouldn't matter if you called it a civil-union anyway, because gay couples are still going to be getting married in churches, referring to their marriages as such, and no amount of GOP bigotry can stop that.
So yeah, those folk can try to be morally superior by saying only Real True Christians (TM) can get married, but nobody cares what those ****s think.
Getting married in a religious institution does not make you married. The license you get from the state does. So all this stuff you spout has zero to do with the issue.
I have no problem with the government offering civil unions to everyone (exceptions for age, relation) and not recognize marriage as a legal institution, how many already legally married couples would go for that?
Getting married in a religious institution does not make you married. The license you get from the state does. So all this stuff you spout has zero to do with the issue.
It doesn't prevent gay couples from getting married in a church either with a real marriage certificate from the church. So you can call it a civil union, but gay couples would still be getting married.
Absolutely. And if this were just about seeking rights, instead of sticking it to (fill in your favorite narrow minded religious person name or phrase), then that would have happened long ago. What's wrong with terms like civil union or some other term to define the relationship if they convey the same rights?
I don't think any gay person would take issue with renaming "civil marriage" as "civil union" and then letting everyone have equal access to "civil unions." Why do that though when the simplest recourse is to give gay couples equal access to the law as currently titled?
I completely chilled. Just pointing out why your "issue" is unfounded.
I made that statement because I am pretty sure if gay marriage were the law of the land there would be someone that would attempt to force a religious institution to marry them. Not saying they would be successful but look at Obamacare and the abortion issue. Religious institutions are forced to go against what they believe in this issue why would gay marriage be different. See what I am saying?
I made that statement because I am pretty sure if gay marriage were the law of the land there would be someone that would attempt to force a religious institution to marry them. Not saying they would be successful but look at Obamacare and the abortion issue. Religious institutions are forced to go against what they believe in this issue why would gay marriage be different. See what I am saying?
I see what you're saying, but I don't "see" it even remotely being an issue. I can't imagine anyone trying to force a religious institution to marry somebody against the wishes of that religious institution, and if by chance someone did, their attempt would go absolutely nowhere because of our 1st Amendment.
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.
