Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-27-2008, 11:21 AM
 
273 posts, read 343,300 times
Reputation: 72

Advertisements

"Marriage on the other hand is a religious commitment to live as a committed couple sexually and spiritually and is signified by vows before a deity."

Plenty of people get married in civil ceremonies, with no reference to religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2008, 11:24 AM
 
3,255 posts, read 5,086,608 times
Reputation: 547
Don't you think many marriages today are civil unions? I mean I have been to weddings where the people have had to shop for a church as a back drop because they have not set foot in one in years. The ceremony lasts about two and a half minutes and the picture taking about an hour. The marriage may last about five to ten years and then the contract is broken and a new contract set up with a new wife, husband, partner? How many really are taking marriage vows these days for eternity?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 11:25 AM
 
3,255 posts, read 5,086,608 times
Reputation: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by chauncy View Post
"Marriage on the other hand is a religious commitment to live as a committed couple sexually and spiritually and is signified by vows before a deity."

Plenty of people get married in civil ceremonies, with no reference to religion.
And years ago, those civil weddings were not recognized by the churches. They were, hmm, civil unions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,951,314 times
Reputation: 10028
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
That is not equal. I would accept only having a civil union or domestic partnership, if they had all the exact rights as marriage, but they do not. I am going to fight tooth and nail to keep my marriage, but I will give it up for civil union or domestic partnership when I see all the straight people flock to the courthouse and turn over their marriage license for a civil union or domestic partnership. Equal marriage or civil unions for all, or none for everyone. I will not accept a separate set of rules, it only creates a second set of citizens, that may as well be second class citizens.
It's not meant to be equal! That is the whole point. You have a problem with it but, really, its not about you. I have gay friends. I would not presume too much about being gay, but come on. Lets be practical. There is a big. A very big difference between being gay and being straight. A 100% gay lifestyle is not sustainable. A 100% straight lifestyle is sustainable. Civil Unions are a huge step forward in the civil rights of gay people. "Marriage" is sacred. Gay's cannot, must not, have access to "marriage" unless they can fulfill the dictates and mandates of "marriage". The difference IMO between gay adults and every single other category of 'alternative lifestyles' is that gays want straight society to accept them on equal terms. It is never going to happen. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is. And don't come to me about African Americans either. Two hundred years after Emancipation, African Americans are still not equal. And, they never will be. That too, is the way it is.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,951,314 times
Reputation: 10028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predos View Post
For many years there was, and still may be, a system termed common law marriage. Essentially people living together and declaring themselves to be married. This was/is legally accepted. Why change now?
Common Law marriage isn't something a couple does. Common Law is something the state does! I know a guy who moves every six years because to remain at the same address with his girl-friend would in effect marry them. This, he absolutely does not want. Personally I wonder why, if he is so rabidly in fear of being legally married to her he has been with her all this time but the point is, it isn't up to him. Stay together long enough and the state will marry you, lest the day come when she is abandoned by you and comes to the state seeking support for herself. The children are protected by Child Support statutes but keeping her in the manner to which she has become accustomed is the husbands responsibility.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,925,543 times
Reputation: 1701
I would vote for equality... and if it meant everyone under the law.. were equal.. I'd vote for it.. what a church wants to do is their business.. two people gay or straight rolling up to the courthouse should be given the same documentation... if we as a society don't like the idea of gay's having the term marriage under the law... then fine... nobody gets it under the law.. take it up with your church...
needless to say though.. many churches do perform weddings for gays... so.. in the end.. everyone would be equal and it would turn into a religious debate rather than a civil rights debate....
I just don't think it will ever end from some of these people that don't like the idea of anything gay being recognized on par with them and thier relationships... It's not about hurting gays.. its about keeping them "not as good".... its really sad...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,951,314 times
Reputation: 10028
Quote:
Originally Posted by janeannwho View Post
And years ago, those civil weddings were not recognized by the churches. They were, hmm, civil unions.
It sounds as if you believe that churches should recognize gay civil unions as "marriage". I think I am being fair to ask you why you feel that churches that have had thousands of years of tradition of not recognizing gay unions or even the lifestyle should do so now. Remember, we are only talking about the churches. I for one think it is hugely interesting that gay people care so deeply about church laws and doctrine and largely support the tenets and teachings up to the point where the church defines monagamy and marriage. That churches don't simply roll over and embrace the new definitions of committment desired by gay couples is not surprising to me. What is, is that any gay individuals would fail to understand the church's position. "Stand for something or you will fall for anything". -?. The church is on thin ice in the 21st Century. Increasingly, the fact that the laws and proscriptions of most modern day religions date back thousands of years is beginning to chafe. I don't think mainline Protestant, Judaic or Islamic belief systems are up to the task of ordering the lives of any present day humans let alone gay ones. Why gay people want to force churches to their way rather than simply leave the church to it and get on with founding something built with their needs in mind is puzzling. Have not Christians in particular proven to be quite a hardy and resistant lot? Do the issues of abortion or creation vs intelligent design vs evolution appear to be settled? Will they be? Do gays really think they can make headway against an entrenched body of tradition and thought that can exist and flourish without an objective base? Good luck.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,951,314 times
Reputation: 10028
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
It's not about hurting gays.. its about keeping them "not as good".... its really sad...
It has nothing to do with "not as good" so much as "different". Being gay is different. Different rules, terminology and sociology must be applied. Without this you have confustion. I was reading a newsletter from Powell's Bookstore last week. A local author was being interviewed. I saw his picture at the top of the article. Later in the narrative he was asked about influences on his work. He said "my husband is a painter and we talk about color a lot ..." Well I have to tell you I spent five minutes scanning the article again from top to bottom to see where I missed the part about him being a woman. Was the picture in fact of the male columnist and not actually of the author. Finally I concluded that he might be, must be borrowing the term 'husband'. Either that or there was an editorial lapse in the publication. In the end I'm not really certain. Confusion. Hardly planet jeopardizing but don't you see... ... My GF uses the term 'partner' to refer to me on occasion, as we are not married. I know that this automatically tells some people that I am actually a woman unless she refers to me by name or gender. Sometimes you can hear the sigh of relief on the other end of the line when the confusion is cleared up. It cuts both ways I suppose. However, it simply isn't true that "marriage" can be expanded to include gay unions and still retain the status and privilege that it currently has. It isn't true that no one straight is hurt by gay people gaining the right to call themselves 'husband and wife'. It makes a caricature of the entire institution and lowers the validity of it for both gay and straight people. As long as Civil Unions do in fact confer the proper and neccessary legal protections for the principals in a union, gay or straight then it is all the accomodation that need be made. Seperate but equal under Jim Crow was a sham. Anyone could see that the facilities created for the use of 'colored' people were far inferior to those created for the use of whites. If the facilities and institutions built to serve 'colored' people had actually been 'equal' there might never have been a Civil Rights movement. I've known my gay friend for twelve years now. I don't think a single day goes by where the issue of his being gay doesn't come up. Its a defining point and it is a very different way of being in and looking at the world. Gay people want it both ways. To celebrate and revel in their difference and yet be accepted as equal. In other words, no different, than anyone straight. For all my arguments to the contrary I actually don't harbor any malice towards gay people. I am not religious so I am amused rather than outraged at the way gay people seek recognition from religious bodies. My only reason for posting is to offer explanations for why the churches in particular must behave as they do towards gays.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 12:49 AM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,302 posts, read 37,255,625 times
Reputation: 16404
Leave "marriage" alone, and provide legal unions to those who want to marry each other (same sex, opposite sex, or even a toaster).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2008, 02:01 AM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,925,543 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predos View Post
Just a quick thought here. For many years there was, and still may be, a system termed common law marriage. Essentially people living together and declaring themselves to be married. This was/is legally accepted. Why change now?
the christians got a hold of it and nosed themselves in on everything because they feel their little families and marriages are somehow under attack...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top