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.
Why don't the hateful opposers just understand that for the most part all gays want is legal protections and tax incentives that come with getting married
Then what was wrong with civil unions? Didn't it provide all of the benfits of marriage withour being called marriage? What is in the NAME that you want it so badly? So anyone that opposes your desire, whether active or passive, is hateful? Now who is being stereotypical?
Leave the religion and reproductive arguments out of this as they have no merit.
Yes religion DOES have merit if you are talking forcing churches/religious institutions to marry people they or their congregations choose not to. It also has merit if you are talking forcing religious people to accept your lifestyle.
The church should stay out of marriage because how can one determine who's church makes the rules. The church's do not play fair, they pick and choose who can be allowed and who cannot be allowed.
No, the church and it's members SHOULD be in it as far as whom they choose to marry or not to marry. It is THEIR right to make this decision regardless of whether anyone thinks it's hateful or not. Otherwise pick a church that WILL marry you or go to a justice of the peace. What you are actually saying to Christians and others (I am SURE that ther are other religions that do NOT approve of same-sex marriage) is "know you place and stay in it". In other words keep you "religion" to Sundays or Saturdays in your church and be an athiest at all other times.
Religion did not create marriage.
God ordained marriage as far as the church (whichever one we are speaking of) is concerned. Get married by a justice of the peace if you don't like it. There are plenty of places in this country where you can do this.
I agree with one thing. Let's get government out of it (although today that would be next to impossible) and let the churches/congregations/town&state institutions that perform marriages make their own minds up. And we will put in a provision exempting ANY entity from civil or criminal lawsuit if they refuse or decide to perform same-sex marriages. Let's let the people in all of these religious bodies/towns/cities/states/counties choose for themselves.
Why don't the hateful opposers just understand that for the most part all gays want is legal protections and tax incentives that come with getting married
Then what was wrong with civil unions? Didn't it provide all of the benfits of marriage withour being called marriage? What is in the NAME that you want it so badly? So anyone that opposes your desire, whether active or passive, is hateful? Now who is being stereotypical?
Leave the religion and reproductive arguments out of this as they have no merit.
Yes religion DOES have merit if you are talking forcing churches/religious institutions to marry people they or their congregations choose not to. It also has merit if you are talking forcing religious people to accept your lifestyle.
I don't care what you call it, I'll be fine with a civil union if it provided all the same rights. The only thing that will give us the same rights is at this moment is called "marriage". Again, I don't care if you come up with some other word for it as long as the rights are the same. This is my personal opinion as some people will only accept marriage, but I'm not that picky.
Religion does not have any merit. I am absolutely the furthest thing from religious and I don't care what your God tells you is wrong or right. No one is forcing churches to do anything and I would not get married or whatever in a church. No one is forcing religious people into anything. How can you even say that, it makes zero sense. How are you being forced into my life style? Are you going to go and get married to a person of the same sex once it is legal? No sense.
And in all honesty, Dauntless Dan, you should accept my lifestyle just as I accept yours. There will always be things in this world that you don't like or don't approve of, but no one is talking about banning sales of chocolate ice cream because YOU don't like it.
You can think what you want there is no law yet against politically incorrect thinking, nor will there ever be a law that invades the mind. No one is stopping anyone who wants to live together. If you want to be together be together - the need for formal recognition is a mute issue. Coupling is a private matter. As that creepy now deceased Canadian Prime Minister said.. "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" -
I don't want to know your business and you don't need to know mine. I wish all parties would shut up and stop trying to re-engineer society. No group has the right to dominate...not gay or straight. If they want to call it marriage let them...but don't make it a public event. Where is the privacy these days? Of course they will talk about spousal rights and benefits...Hire a lawyer and let them draw up an agreement...I am tired of this stuff.
And yet you yourself felt the need - TWICE - to let the world, the government, and your community know your private business when you had not one, but at least TWO marriages.
Why? Why didn't you just go to a lawyer and have private contracts drawn up between you and your sweetheart?
Heck, old Hammurabi goes on and on about bride-prices and inheritance and infidelity and whatnot, very worldly matters. The old Romans had a clear idea of the distinctions between the legal and the religious part of entering into marriage.
Distinguishing between the worldly and the religious part of the marriage contract way predates Christianity. It's only when you start intermingling law and religion - old Mosaic law, modern Sharia, that kind of deal - that you have religious authorities making decisions in what is considered a legal field in modern society.
Interesting, nobody told the government to get out of marriage until homosexuals wanted in. Amazing that people are so threatened by someone else's marriage that they'd rather disassemble the whole thing than let gays marry. Of course, it's all for naught anyways since there are churches that willingly wed gay couples.
Then what was wrong with civil unions? Didn't it provide all of the benfits of marriage withour being called marriage? What is in the NAME that you want it so badly?
Because people like you would lose no time in arguing that "if government had meant for your union to come with the same rights as marriage, they would have called it marriage". I think the gays have it right - all or nothing, and if people want to grit their teeth and whine "I don't think it's a real marriage", the gay couple can say "We're married in the eyes of the law and that trumps whatever you think", which is frankly, fine by me.
As most bigots run away once they find themselves on the losing side, the issue would be forgotten by most half a decade later, anyway.
Why don't the hateful opposers just understand that for the most part all gays want is legal protections and tax incentives that come with getting married
Then what was wrong with civil unions? Didn't it provide all of the benfits of marriage withour being called marriage? What is in the NAME that you want it so badly? So anyone that opposes your desire, whether active or passive, is hateful? Now who is being stereotypical?
Leave the religion and reproductive arguments out of this as they have no merit.
Yes religion DOES have merit if you are talking forcing churches/religious institutions to marry people they or their congregations choose not to. It also has merit if you are talking forcing religious people to accept your lifestyle.
The church should stay out of marriage because how can one determine who's church makes the rules. The church's do not play fair, they pick and choose who can be allowed and who cannot be allowed.
No, the church and it's members SHOULD be in it as far as whom they choose to marry or not to marry. It is THEIR right to make this decision regardless of whether anyone thinks it's hateful or not. Otherwise pick a church that WILL marry you or go to a justice of the peace. What you are actually saying to Christians and others (I am SURE that ther are other religions that do NOT approve of same-sex marriage) is "know you place and stay in it". In other words keep you "religion" to Sundays or Saturdays in your church and be an athiest at all other times.
Religion did not create marriage.
God ordained marriage as far as the church (whichever one we are speaking of) is concerned. Get married by a justice of the peace if you don't like it. There are plenty of places in this country where you can do this.
I agree with one thing. Let's get government out of it (although today that would be next to impossible) and let the churches/congregations/town&state institutions that perform marriages make their own minds up. And we will put in a provision exempting ANY entity from civil or criminal lawsuit if they refuse or decide to perform same-sex marriages. Let's let the people in all of these religious bodies/towns/cities/states/counties choose for themselves.
Why are you bringing religious psychobabble into the mix? The federal government is not a church. Let me repeat that. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A CHURCH. Religion has no place in government and government has no place in religion. Churches still oppose interfaith marriages and interracial marriages and that is their right, but the government does not have that right.
The supreme court case is about whether the federal government has the right to discriminate against a gay married couple. The state of NY recognizes gay marriage, but the federal government doesn't, which would be fine except the gov decided to dole out benefits and rights to married couples.
Btw, civil unions never provided marital benefits or protections and republicans would never allow that anyway.
Interesting, nobody told the government to get out of marriage until homosexuals wanted in. Amazing that people are so threatened by someone else's marriage that they'd rather disassemble the whole thing than let gays marry.
The Western concept of marriage, pretty much. The first Christian Emperors were quite content following the Roman government's laws on marriage.
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.
