But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

[Bonestorm]

I just can't get over people letting the government into this at all. Why the hell do we need the government to define or "recognize" anything about this? It's none of their fricking business.

Because secular marriage has all sorts of legal niceties that are attendant thereto, as it has for quite some time.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, you claim reverence for the past while showing your ignorance of it. "Separate but Equal" has been tried and has failed miserably. There is no reason to repeat that.

Problem is, I don't advocate "separate but equal" here. I support Civil Unions legislation which would permanently remove the government from the marriage business altogether. Instead, any two adults could enter into a CU contract, with all benefits and trappings currently enjoyed by traditional married couples. There wouldn't be a 'separate' anything for heterosexuals or homosexuals, and nothing would be defined on the basis of sexuality or intimacy. A mother and daughter could get a CU contract if they so desired... or two platonic friends, who just wanted to form a partnership, without any sexuality involved.

Why are you opposed to that? Bigotry? Hate and revile of religion? Indifference for the problems of gay couples? Please tell me what your motive is, to refuse accepting my solution? I am interested in hearing this!

 

[Timshel]

Nope, but who says a 10-year-old is going to crash into my car? You presume a 10-year-old is not a safe driver or something. I'm sure they would probably be just as safe as the drunks and incompetents on the road today! So what's your problem, tight ass?

Stupid response. Your argument hinges on the fact that a 10 year old poses a probable threat to other drivers that is significantly higher than an adult driver. that is why they are not allowed to drive. It is not simply because people did not let kids drive cars back in the 1500s.

If the greater threat were not present then your argument would have even less merit. You would then be arguing something like "why not let left handed people drive."

So, how does a homosexual marriage pose any greater threat to you than a heterosexual marriage? Is the increased risk statistically significant?

 

[Bonestorm]

Problem is, I don't advocate "separate but equal" here. I support Civil Unions legislation which would permanently remove the government from the marriage business altogether. Instead, any two adults could enter into a CU contract, with all benefits and trappings currently enjoyed by traditional married couples. There wouldn't be a 'separate' anything for heterosexuals or homosexuals, and nothing would be defined on the basis of sexuality or intimacy. A mother and daughter could get a CU contract if they so desired... or two platonic friends, who just wanted to form a partnership, without any sexuality involved.

Why are you opposed to that? Bigotry? Hate and revile of religion? Indifference for the problems of gay couples? Please tell me what your motive is, to refuse accepting my solution? I am interested in hearing this!

How about we do the same thing and instead of calling it a "civil union" we call it a "marriage" and we let the religious folk do whatever it is they want to do involving their church, temple and cetera?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am one of those who believes that the state should get out of the marriage business.

I also believe that having the same institutions with two different names is pacification by semantics.

I also agree that the state should get out of marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let them decide whom they wish to marry.

If the Federal government is going to give benefits/rights etc... to couples, it should be done via civil unions and it should be open to all couples that are consensual and NON-related (sorry Ditzie)

 

[zappasguitar]

I don't recall anyone ever making the argument that Gay Marriage would effect their own marriage, so the premise is completely flawed and false. When people say it will "destroy the sanctity" of marriage, it means something more profound.

Bullshit! How SPECIFICALLY is the sanctity of marriage destroyed by gay marriage...no generalized platitudes...give some specifics.

Marriage is an important religious tradition and custom, and vital to the institution of family. It means something very specific, and it has a very specified purpose from a religious and moral standpoint. Not everyone respects that, but it doesn't change what it means to those who are religious.

Then by all means enlighten me...how EXACTLY is marriage an important religious tradition.

What SPECIFICALLY does it mean?

What is this so-called "very specific purpose" you mention...EXACTLY.



It's like prayer... What if someone wanted to change the definition of "prayer" to include Rap Lyrics? It wouldn't effect prayer for religious people, they could still do their thing, but it denigrates the sanctity of a religious tradition. Denying rap lyrics to be defined as prayer, doesn't prohibit a rapper from praying, or deny the rapper any right that others enjoy.


The definition of prayer ALREADY INCLUDES rap lyrics. I've listened to rap songs that are prayers to God. I've listened to some of the most ear-shatteringly hard grindcore "tunes" that are testimonials to God's power.

Just because YOU don't like something doesn't make it an affront to God.



Let me turn Soc's 'dick-in-cheek' OP around on you... Does the possession of a piece of paper issued by the State, with the word "marriage" at the top, have anything to do at all, with how much the two gay people love each other? Why is that piece of paper with that word so important to a gay couple? If it is a matter of benefits or rights, we can remedy that with comprehensive civil unions legislation, and I think it would probably pass. Most people I know who are opposed to gay marriage, are not opposed to gay couples having the same benefits or rights of traditional married couples. Their position is based on a respect for religious customs and traditions, against what they view as an affront to those customs and traditions.

If the "issue" is benefits, privileges, or rights, then it is the "Pro-Gay-Marriage" crowd who is preventing that from happening! And they are supposedly doing so, for the sole reason of a piece of paper with "marriage" at the top, and nothing more. That doesn't seem to make much sense, so we have to conclude the REAL reason they continue to push for Gay Marriage, is specifically to destroy a religious tradition and custom.

If the issue is the "sanctity" of marriage, then perhaps it's time for "family values" crowd started treating marriage with the respect they claim others are lacking.

 

[Bonestorm]

I also agree that the state should get out of marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let them decide whom they wish to marry.

If the Federal government is going to give benefits/rights etc... to couples, it should be done via civil unions and it should be open to all couples that are consensual and NON-related (sorry Ditzie)

The government has been neck deep in marriage since day one. I don't really see the need to change that because some people are under the mistaken impression that gay people getting married in a secular setting somehow impacts the separate and distinct religious institution.

 

[zappasguitar]

How about we do the same thing and instead of calling it a "civil union" we call it a "marriage" and we let the religious folk do whatever it is they want to do involving their church, temple and cetera?

BINGO!

Give that man a cookie!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The government has been neck deep in marriage since day one. I don't really see the need to change that because some people are under the mistaken impression that gay people getting married in a secular setting somehow impacts the separate and distinct religious institution.

1) really? The state issued marriage licenses in the late 1700's and early 1800's? I was not aware of that.

2) Regardless, marriage IS a religious ceremony. I could care less if we are talking about a gay couple or a straight couple. The government should not be involved. Just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How about we do the same thing and instead of calling it a "civil union" we call it a "marriage" and we let the religious folk do whatever it is they want to do involving their church, temple and cetera?

How about we respect religious traditions, values and customs and NOT call it "marriage?" As long as gay couples get to enjoy the same benefits as every other couple, what difference does it make to anyone what we call it? Marriage is important to religion and religious customs, and it should be respected as such. To simply take a contrary position because you don't wish to respect those values, is not something I can accept as a valid reason for doing it.

I presented a viable solution to the problem, and you aren't willing to accept that, and you can't really articulate a good reason why, so I must assume it is solely for the reason of denigrating religion and religious practices. Sorry, but I don't agree with that philosophy, and about 75% of Americans are on my side. If you want to attack and destroy religion, you'll have to find another way.

 

[Timshel]

Problem is, I don't advocate "separate but equal" here. I support Civil Unions legislation which would permanently remove the government from the marriage business altogether. Instead, any two adults could enter into a CU contract, with all benefits and trappings currently enjoyed by traditional married couples. There wouldn't be a 'separate' anything for heterosexuals or homosexuals, and nothing would be defined on the basis of sexuality or intimacy. A mother and daughter could get a CU contract if they so desired... or two platonic friends, who just wanted to form a partnership, without any sexuality involved.

Why are you opposed to that? Bigotry? Hate and revile of religion? Indifference for the problems of gay couples? Please tell me what your motive is, to refuse accepting my solution? I am interested in hearing this!

So no one would be married? Where is the logic in that? Let's protect the institution by denying to all.

Your argument is nothing but a bs rationalization for your bigotry. I'd love to get the government out of marriage entirely, but it is not going to happen. We both know it. You pretend that this is the option the
GOP offers, but it is not.

Until the government is removed , it must not be allowed to discriminate based on trivial nonsense that does not involve the proper interests of the state.

 

[Socrtease]

I think that is Prissy's dick in his cheek. But to each his own!



Right... and it's hilarious that people claim 10-year-old drivers would destroy highway safety, when the drunks and incompetents have already done more harm than 10-year-olds could possibly do!



10-year-old's driving would have no effect on my driving or yours!

I don't recall anyone ever making the argument that Gay Marriage would effect their own marriage, so the premise is completely flawed and false. When people say it will "destroy the sanctity" of marriage, it means something more profound. Marriage is an important religious tradition and custom, and vital to the institution of family. It means something very specific, and it has a very specified purpose from a religious and moral standpoint. Not everyone respects that, but it doesn't change what it means to those who are religious. It's like prayer... What if someone wanted to change the definition of "prayer" to include Rap Lyrics? It wouldn't effect prayer for religious people, they could still do their thing, but it denigrates the sanctity of a religious tradition. Denying rap lyrics to be defined as prayer, doesn't prohibit a rapper from praying, or deny the rapper any right that others enjoy.

Let me turn Soc's 'dick-in-cheek' OP around on you... Does the possession of a piece of paper issued by the State, with the word "marriage" at the top, have anything to do at all, with how much the two gay people love each other? Why is that piece of paper with that word so important to a gay couple? If it is a matter of benefits or rights, we can remedy that with comprehensive civil unions legislation, and I think it would probably pass. Most people I know who are opposed to gay marriage, are not opposed to gay couples having the same benefits or rights of traditional married couples. Their position is based on a respect for religious customs and traditions, against what they view as an affront to those customs and traditions.

If the "issue" is benefits, privileges, or rights, then it is the "Pro-Gay-Marriage" crowd who is preventing that from happening! And they are supposedly doing so, for the sole reason of a piece of paper with "marriage" at the top, and nothing more. That doesn't seem to make much sense, so we have to conclude the REAL reason they continue to push for Gay Marriage, is specifically to destroy a religious tradition and custom.

Then the state should only issue civil union licenses. If only breeders get marriage licenses then the state is legitimizing religious cermonies done by churches that ONLY marry men to women but not churches that perform marriages of same sex couples. The Unitarian Church is one of those that springs immediately to mind.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stupid response. Your argument hinges on the fact that a 10 year old poses a probable threat to other drivers that is significantly higher than an adult driver. that is why they are not allowed to drive. It is not simply because people did not let kids drive cars back in the 1500s.

If the greater threat were not present then your argument would have even less merit. You would then be arguing something like "why not let left handed people drive."

So, how does a homosexual marriage pose any greater threat to you than a heterosexual marriage? Is the increased risk statistically significant?

No, MY argument is the same as yours! A 10-year-old driver is no less safe on the road than a drunk! Allowing them to drive would pose no more risk to me than the thousands of drunks on the road daily! It's the same argument as the OP makes. Drunks and incompetent drivers have already compromised highway safety, so what harm would there be in allowing 10-year-olds to drive?

 

[Bonestorm]

1) really? The state issued marriage licenses in the late 1700's and early 1800's? I was not aware of that.

2) Regardless, marriage IS a religious ceremony. I could care less if we are talking about a gay couple or a straight couple. The government should not be involved. Just my opinion on the matter.

1) I don't know that the state necessarily issued licenses as is done today, but marriage was an institution in the civil law during that period.

2) "Marriage" is not a religious ceremony. There are religious marriage ceremonies that have nothing to do with the state (although the state will generally recognize religious marriage ceremonies provided the state legal niceties are complied with). There are also marriage ceremonies that have absolutely nothing to do with any religious institution whatsoever. The conflation of the two separate and distinct institutions is silly.

 

[Timshel]

How about we respect religious traditions, values and customs and NOT call it "marriage?" As long as gay couples get to enjoy the same benefits as every other couple, what difference does it make to anyone what we call it? Marriage is important to religion and religious customs, and it should be respected as such. To simply take a contrary position because you don't wish to respect those values, is not something I can accept as a valid reason for doing it.

I presented a viable solution to the problem, and you aren't willing to accept that, and you can't really articulate a good reason why, so I must assume it is solely for the reason of denigrating religion and religious practices. Sorry, but I don't agree with that philosophy, and about 75% of Americans are on my side. If you want to attack and destroy religion, you'll have to find another way.

Marriage is not exclusively a religious practice. I don't believe in God and I am married. No one calls it a civil union. I am married.

Fuck you, you do not own love.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, sorry... DOMA doesn't "forbid homosexuals from marrying!"

Do you have any other examples to offer up???

don't be stupid....by not recognizing the marriage, it is the same thing as forbidding it

if i get my pastor to give me a driver's license, no state would recognize it as valid, thus, of course it is prohibited for me to get a LICENSE from any except the state

the same is true for marriage, you cannot get a marriage license except from the state....

 

[Damocles]

Because secular marriage has all sorts of legal niceties that are attendant thereto, as it has for quite some time.

That's the fricking point. Such niceties are specifically the government stepping into an arena they don't belong. They want you to act a certain way, so they pick the "traditions" of a specific group (a religion), make laws based on that, then make "secular" people follow the same idiotic rules.

They have no purpose in the marriage business other than to try to control your actions and make them fit within the rules of the religious tradition of the majority, or to attempt to get people to work towards the "benefit of society". There is no valid reason for government to be sticking their fingers into this pie, it isn't a valid purpose of government to define this kind of activity, and the fact that we allow them to and still call ourselves "free" boggles the mind.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Then the state should only issue civil union licenses. If only breeders get marriage licenses then the state is legitimizing religious cermonies done by churches that ONLY marry men to women but not churches that perform marriages of same sex couples. The Unitarian Church is one of those that springs immediately to mind.

That's been my position all along! Take government out of the "marriage license" business completely! Let them issue CU contracts instead! And while we're at it, why 'discriminate' on the basis of what kind of personal intimate relationship people may or may not have? It's not our business, is it? What difference does it make to you and your gay lover if a mom and daughter have a CU together?

 

[Bonestorm]

How about we respect religious traditions, values and customs and NOT call it "marriage?" As long as gay couples get to enjoy the same benefits as every other couple, what difference does it make to anyone what we call it? Marriage is important to religion and religious customs, and it should be respected as such. To simply take a contrary position because you don't wish to respect those values, is not something I can accept as a valid reason for doing it.

I presented a viable solution to the problem, and you aren't willing to accept that, and you can't really articulate a good reason why, so I must assume it is solely for the reason of denigrating religion and religious practices. Sorry, but I don't agree with that philosophy, and about 75% of Americans are on my side. If you want to attack and destroy religion, you'll have to find another way.

1) Your conflation of two separate and distinct institutions (1) secular marriage and (2) religious marriage is nonsense. They aren't the same. Religious entities have no obligation to recognize secular marriages and what happens with secular marriage has zero impact on the other.

2) You presented a "solution" to the "problem" that will never be adopted by anyone anywhere any time soon. It's kind of of like me proposing a solution to world hunger by saying that everyone should get three squares a day. It's kind of nice to think about but it isn't reflective of reality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

don't be stupid....by not recognizing the marriage, it is the same thing as forbidding it

if i get my pastor to give me a driver's license, no state would recognize it as valid, thus, of course it is prohibited for me to get a LICENSE from any except the state

the same is true for marriage, you cannot get a marriage license except from the state....

No, I am sorry, "not officially recognizing" something, is NOT the same as "forbidding" something... TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!