But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

[Timshel]

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?

First off, I doubt the truth that a 10 year old is as safe as a drunk on average. Regardless, we do not allow people to drive on the road drunk. They do so in violation of the law.

Larry King will not be stopped from marrying and calling it a marriage, for the 20th time if he so chooses. There is no law stopping him, nor should there be.

Neither Larry King nor homosexuals entering into marriage pose any safety risk to you whatsoever. Your analogy fails just as miserably as your worn out "solution."

 

[Bonestorm]

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. There is no valid reason for government to be sticking their fingers into this pie, it isn't the purpose of government to define this kind of activity, that we allow them to and still call ourselves "free" boggles the mind.

But the government doesn't compel people to get married. The government is only involved to the extent that the people requesting that the government recognize their relationship as one that is recognized legally as having all the attendant niceties of what the state defines as a "marriage."

The government doesn't "stick its fingers" into anything except at the request of the people ask the government to recognize their relationship as a "marriage."

The idea that people are not "free" because they ask the government to legally recognize their relationship in a certain manner is probably the stupidest fucking thing I've read in quite a long time. You are indeed free to not get married. And you are free to go get married in the eyes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster while refraining from submitting your relationship to the state.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

I never argued they were the same. The point is, the traditional marriage is a fundamental aspect of religion and religious tradition. It is something sacred to the religious, a sacred institution, fundamental to the family and the values of the church. It doesn't matter what it is to others, that is what it means to the church, and why there is so much animosity over changing or altering the meaning of 'marriage' in our vocabulary.

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.

I presented the only solution that can work. The only reasonable solution that respects traditional religious customs, morals, and values, and also provides homosexual couples (or any two adults) the same benefits of traditional married couples. It removes the government from the 'marriage' issue altogether, which it shouldn't really even be involved in to begin with.

World hunger is not analogous, there is no tenable solution to the problem... on THIS issue, there IS a tenable solution, I just presented one!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

100% Agree with the above. This is why the government should not be involved in marriages.

 

[Timshel]

Courts are going to play some role in resolving contractual disputes. So the state may certainly place some conditions on who may enter a contract with regards to the person's ability to contract. The courts should not recognize the marriage of a 6 year old or someone who is mentally impaired. Ideally, that would be the limit of the government's involvement.

The GOP is not promoting Dixe's bs. They instead are seeking to amend our Constitution so that they may make their bigotry more permanent.

 

[Bonestorm]

I never argued they were the same. The point is, the traditional marriage is a fundamental aspect of religion and religious tradition. It is something sacred to the religious, a sacred institution, fundamental to the family and the values of the church. It doesn't matter what it is to others, that is what it means to the church, and why there is so much animosity over changing or altering the meaning of 'marriage' in our vocabulary.

No one intends to change what marriage means to the church. The church can define it however the hell it wants to. The state can do the same. One does not impact the other.

I presented the only solution that can work. The only reasonable solution that respects traditional religious customs, morals, and values, and also provides homosexual couples (or any two adults) the same benefits of traditional married couples. It removes the government from the 'marriage' issue altogether, which it shouldn't really even be involved in to begin with.

World hunger is not analogous, there is no tenable solution to the problem... on THIS issue, there IS a tenable solution, I just presented one!

Actually, just letting the state define marriage as it sees fit and letting the church define marriage as it sees fit is a perfectly workable solution and is one that does not force everyone to change to accommodate the irrational protestations of bible-thumpers.

 

[Damocles]

But the government doesn't compel people to get married. The government is only involved to the extent that the people requesting that the government recognize their relationship as one that is recognized legally as having all the attendant niceties of what the state defines as a "marriage."

The government doesn't "stick its fingers" into anything except at the request of the people ask the government to recognize their relationship as a "marriage."

The idea that people are not "free" because they ask the government to legally recognize their relationship in a certain manner is probably the stupidest fucking thing I've read in quite a long time. You are indeed free to not get married. And you are free to go get married in the eyes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster while refraining from submitting your relationship to the state.

No, they incentivize "right" action by giving out "benefits" (other people's money) if you act "rightly"...

There is no purpose for the government to play in this arena other than minute control.

Again, that people (like you) argue that they should be there because they incentive they provide isn't given to others who act in a way you want to support is just more example of what I am saying. It isn't "freedom" to have the government providing benefits to people in order to get them to act like they want.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

First off, I doubt the truth that a 10 year old is as safe as a drunk on average. Regardless, we do not allow people to drive on the road drunk. They do so in violation of the law.

Larry King will not be stopped from marrying and calling it a marriage, for the 20th time if he so chooses. There is no law stopping him, nor should there be.

Neither Larry King nor homosexuals entering into marriage pose any safety risk to you whatsoever. Your analogy fails just as miserably as your worn out "solution."

And I doubt that homosexual couples could instill family values and religious morals into their children. Our "doubts" are not at issue here. 10-year-old drivers would pose no more of a risk to me personally, than the drunk drivers on the road currently, so I don't see the problem with allowing them to drive! Why should they suffer because of YOUR bigotry?

What if we legalize Gay Marriage and also pass a law that forbids all divorce forever? Once you've been married, that's it for life! You okay with that? I didn't think so!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No one intends to change what marriage means to the church. The church can define it however the hell it wants to. The state can do the same. One does not impact the other.

Actually, just letting the state define marriage as it sees fit and letting the church define marriage as it sees fit is a perfectly workable solution and is one that does not force everyone to change to accommodate the irrational protestations of bible-thumpers.

Nope... doesn't work because the Constitution doesn't allow churches to discriminate. They would have to recognize "Gay Marriage" the same as traditional marriage, because it is the law, it's protected by our Constitution.

If you think about what I proposed, you and I are not that far off! We both agree that the state should provide the same consideration for homosexual same-sex couples as traditional married couples. My solution allows that, without denigrating religious custom and tradition, your solution doesn't. Results are the same, so what is the problem? Let me help you with that one... The problem is, you don't get to wag your queer dick in the face of religion and make the church submit to sucking it for you! That's what you are after here, and it's just not going to happen.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, they incentivize "right" action by giving out "benefits" (other people's money) if you act "rightly"...

There is no purpose for the government to play in this arena other than minute control.

Again, that people (like you) argue that they should be there because they incentive they provide isn't given to others who act in a way you want to support is just more example of what I am saying. It isn't "freedom" to have the government providing benefits to people in order to get them to act like they want.

The idea that government is curtailing your freedom by not requiring you to do anything at all is fucking stupid, plain and simple.

My freedom to not buy a new refrigerator is not being at all restricted because I could get a rebate from the government if I buy a new one. And my freedom was not restricted when I decided to get married because there are governmental benefits (note: I don't recall getting a check from the government, i.e. other people's money) attendant thereto.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Courts are going to play some role in resolving contractual disputes. So the state may certainly place some conditions on who may enter a contract with regards to the person's ability to contract. The courts should not recognize the marriage of a 6 year old or someone who is mentally impaired. Ideally, that would be the limit of the government's involvement.

The GOP is not promoting Dixe's bs. They instead are seeking to amend our Constitution so that they may make their bigotry more permanent.

What you are getting from the right is exactly what you deserve, and what will ultimately be the case, because you are too stupid to realize what you want is not acceptable to most Americans.

I proposed a solution, and not a single one of you has articulated why my solution is not acceptable, or wouldn't suffice in giving you everything you claim to want! I admit, my idea is not "right wing" or something the GOP is advocating, I guess you could say I have a very "MODERATE" view on this! ...Who'da thunk it? I am a moderate, and YOU are an extremist! OMG!

 

[Bonestorm]

Nope... doesn't work because the Constitution doesn't allow churches to discriminate. They would have to recognize "Gay Marriage" the same as traditional marriage, because it is the law, it's protected by our Constitution.

It doesn't work that way. At all. Not. Even. Close. To put it succinctly, the Constitution applies to the government, state actors, not the church.

If you think about what I proposed, you and I are not that far off! We both agree that the state should provide the same consideration for homosexual same-sex couples as traditional married couples. My solution allows that, without denigrating religious custom and tradition, your solution doesn't. Results are the same, so what is the problem? Let me help you with that one... The problem is, you don't get to wag your queer dick in the face of religion and make the church submit to sucking it for you! That's what you are after here, and it's just not going to happen.

I agree that we are not that far off. If you knew what you were talking about with respect to the applicability of the provisions of the Constitution to churches I believe you would come around to my school of thought, notwithstanding that my "queer dick" (which, I'll have you know, doesn't really wag but more sways in the breeze) is tickling the tonsils of the bride of Christ.

 

[Timshel]

Nope... doesn't work because the Constitution doesn't allow churches to discriminate. They would have to recognize "Gay Marriage" the same as traditional marriage, because it is the law, it's protected by our Constitution.

Huh? Catholic's only allow male priests. Churches enjoy "ministerial exceptions" that are extremely broad.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It doesn't work that way. At all. Not. Even. Close. To put it succinctly, the Constitution applies to the government, state actors, not the church.

No, the Constitution applies to ALL AMERICANS. Sorry you don't comprehend that. Churches aren't 'exempt' from following the Constitution and the law, they can't have white/colored water fountains and restrooms! They can't segregate blacks and make them sit in the balcony! They can't even disallow blacks from attending the church on the basis of their race. So, yes, the Church must still adhere to the Constitution, just as everyone else.

I agree that we are not that far off. If you knew what you were talking about with respect to the applicability of the provisions of the Constitution to churches I believe you would come around to my school of thought, notwithstanding that my "queer dick" (which, I'll have you know, doesn't really wag but more sways in the breeze) is tickling the tonsils of the bride of Christ.

You are just a sick pervert who is mired in your own bigotry. You can't tell me why you oppose my solution, and the only real reason you can find, is because it doesn't allow you to take a dump on religion, which is what you are after. You don't really care what gay couples have or don't have, it makes absolutely no difference to you whatsoever, this is all about YOU and your hatred for religion and religious customs. You see an opportunity to denigrate and destroy a religious tradition, and that's what you are all about here.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Huh? Catholic's only allow male priests. Churches enjoy "ministerial exceptions" that are extremely broad.

Of course they are! I never said otherwise! Catholics can't prohibit women from entering a Catholic church or being a member, can they? All kinds of 'restrictions' and 'requirements' exist in society that are not indicative of 'discrimination' and I don't have time to list examples, but they are numerous. Our Constitution specifically protects our fundamental rights from discrimination based on race and sex, and this applies to churches as well.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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

not in this case...if it is not recognized, you can't actually be conferred with the RIGHTS of marriage given the by the fucking state

the state DEFINES marriage....we are talking about MARRIAGE that has RIGHTS SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATE CONFERRED SUCH RIGHTS. all i am saying is, you cannot deny those RIGHTS to homosexuals. and by not recognizing a state marriage, you are in fact forbidding them those rights.

period.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

First of all, the example you used are all dangerous drivers. So the analogy is worthless.

There have been plenty of arguments that gay marriage would harm their marriage. Its ridiculous, but do not claim it has not been said.

YOur comparison with prayer and rap music is accurate but your conclusion is wrong. If I pray by rapping, it has absolutely no effect on your prayer. You do it your way and I'll do it mine. Since prayer, like marriage, is a private thing it is no one's business how you do it.

Now you and I have discussed the state getting out of the marriage business entirely, and we agreed on that at one time.

Why do you insist that gays have civil unions, but straights have marriages whether it is religious or not? If its about the religious beliefs, then make marriages for religious ceremonies and civil unions for all secular ceremonies.

You have continually claimed that it is about destroying religious traditions and customs. That is such horseshit.

What I want to know is why you think that your religious views are the only ones that should be followed?? What about religious beliefs that have no problem with gay marriages? You are going to deny them their religious traditions and customs (and choices) because a few of the biggest faiths don't agree?

Either opposing gay marriage is about religious beliefs or its not. If it is, then make the secular licence and all the benefits be separate from the religious ceremony. And everyone who wants the benefits has to get a civil union licence.

 

[WinterBorn]

IMO, Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. The fact is (yes it is a fact) there are many churches that provide marriages for homosexual couples, and IMO they would be as married as any couple with a government issued "license" to be married.

The passive acceptance of the government stepping into "marriage" is just fundamentally wrong to me. If you want to be "married" go to a church and get married, let's get rid of these stupid laws that "sanctify" one relationship over another. It isn't their business who you "marry" (so long as they are of age and willing). The only legitimate place for government in such relationships is to ensure that kids are not abused by being forced into a spousal relationship before they have the capacity to understand and make such a choice.

Why are we ever so willing to accept another layer of government into our personal relationship with whatever Deity (or non-Deity) we choose to believe in? What is so fundamentally "good" about having the government "bless" your relationship with another?

Well said!

 

[Timshel]

What you are getting from the right is exactly what you deserve, and what will ultimately be the case, because you are too stupid to realize what you want is not acceptable to most Americans.

I proposed a solution, and not a single one of you has articulated why my solution is not acceptable, or wouldn't suffice in giving you everything you claim to want! I admit, my idea is not "right wing" or something the GOP is advocating, I guess you could say I have a very "MODERATE" view on this! ...Who'da thunk it? I am a moderate, and YOU are an extremist! OMG!

The times are changing and your bigotry will be nothing more than a shameful memory soon. Republicans of the future will apologize for your stupidity just as you do now for racist.

It's not acceptable because you have no capacity to implement it. It is not on the table outside of your fantasy world and you have not likely made any effort to make it a reality.

 

[WinterBorn]

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!

The only thing I have ever had against this is the desire (by some) to include nonreligious ceremonies for straights as "marriages" and the religious ceremonies for gays as "civil unions".

If its a religious issue, then all nonreligious ceremonies need to be civil unions. Of course, this ignores any religions that want to perform gay marriages.