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.
Again you are not understanding, either deliberately or just ignorantly. The contracts would not be called Marriage, that word would be dropped entirely, but all the benefits would be carried over to the Civil Union /Contract. This would be the ONLY legal contract recognized by The State.
This is not a hard thing to understand.
No one can understand because you are all over the place and make so many contradicting statements. First you want government and law completely out of it and call the contract as non-legal, and now you are saying it is a legal contract recognized by the State. Just FYI Marriage is a legal contract recognized by the State.
Again you are not understanding, either deliberately or just ignorantly. The contracts would not be called Marriage, that word would be dropped entirely, but all the benefits would be carried over to the Civil Union /Contract. This would be the ONLY legal contract recognized by The State.
This is not a hard thing to understand.
I think I had asked you this before, but I don't recall the answer...
Let me be clear, I agree with you in principle. I think having a domestic partnership for everyone is the most straightforward way to go.
That being said, why is it important to you that the word "marriage" not be part of the legal contract? You do realize that your stance would skyrocket the number of gay and poly marriages, right? There would be no legal definition of the word, so your approach would do more to normalize alternate marriages than any other method. Thus, I like your idea, but I am not sure why you do? Can you explain your thought process?
I think I had asked you this before, but I don't recall the answer...
Let me be clear, I agree with you in principle. I think having a domestic partnership for everyone is the most straightforward way to go.
That being said, why is it important to you that the word "marriage" not be part of the legal contract? You do realize that your stance would skyrocket the number of gay and poly marriages, right? There would be no legal definition of the word, so your approach would do more to normalize alternate marriages than any other method. Thus, I like your idea, but I am not sure why you do? Can you explain your thought process?
-NoCapo
Sure. I like this plan for the following reasons:
1-Everyone gets true equality without treading on anyone else. Gays would have equal rights (as they should) and the Government would not be trying to violate the definition of Marriage against The Will of the People (again gays deserve equal rights, not special rights. Society should not be forced to cater to their lifestyle).
2-It is the ultimate Conservative stance, it is the ultimate small Government stance. This is what conservativism is truly about. The Government would not be involved in Marriage in anyway whatsoever or vice versa, that's the way it should be.
3-I personally oppose Government efforts to redefine Marriage as I am a devout Christian and I cannot support something that goes against my values. But with the Seperation of Marriage and State my values are not being jeopardized nor are the rights of homosexuals, everyone is getting what they want without treading on the rights and values of others.
4-This is the best way to actually protect the definition of Marriage. The Government would no longer concern it's self with trying to redefine it as it would no longer be an issue.
5-I don't really care what people want to call their relationship, I already live in a state that allows gay marriage. I just don't believe that the Government should define it, it should be strictly a religious thing between Man and his God.
1-Everyone gets true equality without treading on anyone else. Gays would have equal rights (as they should) and the Government would not be trying to violate the definition of Marriage against The Will of the People (again gays deserve equal rights, not special rights. Society should not be forced to cater to their lifestyle).
2-It is the ultimate Conservative stance, it is the ultimate small Government stance. This is what conservativism is truly about. The Government would not be involved in Marriage in anyway whatsoever or vice versa, that's the way it should be.
3-I personally oppose Government efforts to redefine Marriage as I am a devout Christian and I cannot support something that goes against my values. But with the Seperation of Marriage and State my values are not being jeopardized nor are the rights of homosexuals, everyone is getting what they want without treading on the rights and values of others.
4-This is the best way to actually protect the definition of Marriage. The Government would no longer concern it's self with trying to redefine it as it would no longer be an issue.
5-I don't really care what people want to call their relationship, I already live in a state that allows gay marriage. I just don't believe that the Government should define it, it should be strictly a religious thing between Man and his God.
Then don't ever get a Civil Marriage because that is a definition that the government is able to change the definition to include same-sex marriage.
Ok, mostly makes sense... I totally agree on points 1, 2, and 5, but some of the others I am still having trouble wrapping my head around...
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast Republican
3-I personally oppose Government efforts to redefine Marriage as I am a devout Christian and I cannot support something that goes against my values. But with the Seperation of Marriage and State my values are not being jeopardized nor are the rights of homosexuals, everyone is getting what they want without treading on the rights and values of others.
So as long as it is not government, but informal social pressure that redefines marriage, you are ok with it? Because it seems to me that this is a fast track to making the common usage of the word marriage refer to same sex couples as well as poly relationships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Coast Republican
4-This is the best way to actually protect the definition of Marriage. The Government would no longer concern it's self with trying to redefine it as it would no longer be an issue.
Like I said above, it seems to me that removing the governmental limitation would increase the speed of the redefinition of marriage. After all, if a man introduces another man to you as his husband, having been married through their church, trying to argue with him over his use of the word husband would just put you in a bad light. It just seems to me that this would actually rapidly normalize the idea that a marriage can be same sex, multiple partners, whatever...
Like I said, I actually think your approach it the fundamentally correct one, I am just surprised that someone in the sanctity of marriage camp is interested in it, since it seems that it would make marriage mean more things than just adding same sex marriage to the list...
-NoCapo
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.
