Exactly as was the case with that devilish interracial marriage. The old argument went something like this: Everybody has the right to marry someone of the same race. Why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah.
Ya........like ours. But “marriage” is just a word. From a legal perspective--if you purport to have a secular government--a civil union doesn't need to be called "marriage." Call it something else for state purposes (like civil union), and let churches own the word "marriage." Of course, if you don’t want a separation of church and state, that’s a different argument. I personally don’t want church doctrine legislated, but that’s just me, and I only have one vote.
Tschmal fake voted so it's now even-steven. Half of conservatives on this site oppose gay marriage. Shame on you.
why? We were ok with the word being used for non religious ceremonies before. Didn't matter if marriage happened in a church, synagogue, mosque, city hall, vegas parking lot, or Utah and whether or not it had the church's blessing. How 'bout we don't mandate what the church has to do...but we continue to use the word 'marriage' as we have in the past?
Before I was offended on behalf of my gay friends. Now I'm offended on behalf of my atheist self. I've been with my girlfriend six years, we're married in every way but in the eyes of the law. We have every intention of marrying. But we have zero intention of doing it in a church or as a part of a religious ceremony. We are not religious. In this proposed system of leaving the term marriage "strictly to the churches" are you telling me that unless I have a religious ceremony I won't be married? That in order to keep gays out of the marriage club you're throwing secular people out too even if they're straight? I understand that you might find the distinction to be small, it is only semantic it's true. But the word matters. Should I, because I and my girlfriend do not believe in God, not be privy to the word that my parents used and hers did to express to each other their eternal love? The word that their parents used, the word that their ancestors as far back as memory used? In order to keep the gays out? I don't think that's what they meant when they made up the idea of freedom of religion.
Oh brah, don't you remember? You're not allowed to make up your own facts. Or I guess you are allowed -- it's a "free" country after all, right? -- but nobody will listen to you.
I'm perfectly fine with that......as long as a consenting adult can "marry" any consenting adult he or she chooses. After all, and like I said, it's just a word. But as along as religions confuse their sacrament of marriage with the state definition (even though the two have appeared to be historically aligned), my “suggestion” of calling them different names renders the current argument a bit more moot. It lets churches practice what they want and marry who they want while keeping a wall of separation between church and state and providing the rights equally to all adults—regardless of any type of orientation.
Are you two the only atheists in the world..........surely there has to be more. Why can't you be "married" (if that word is important to you) by one of your like minded brethren. Instead of by some justice of the peace who probably thinks you're a couple of crazies. But then, I imagine you already thought of that. I forgot I stepped into a place where people like to argue just to argue. My apologies.
I get what you're saying Pole...but it's an unnecessary concession. The Catholic church's recognition of marriage is already different from....um....normal?...peoples definition. (Sorry papists...I is technically one of you....just rather severely lapsed -- and hence not eligible to be married in by a priest -- which was totally fine by me). It's actually HUGE progress that in most current gay marriage debates the biggest objection is to a term rather then the concept or rights inherent. Huge progress in a relatively short time. The final step...to accepting the same term to describe this legal partnership of two individuals as we have traditionally used to describe such a partnership with all its legal rights and obligations seems so small. Yet important. I'd hate to have to get an endorsement by a church (or like minded brethrens) to continue using the word marriage in my family. And it doesn't seem right that a gay couple should be excluded from using it either if that's important to them -- especially if you're going to let crazies like batman join the club! PS -- bats! -- congrats on your pending Civil Unionitis...should you go that route .
Even if this were true (what with his "evolving self"), you can just add it to the list of things most liberals would oppose Obama about. yay critical thinking.
As a conservative, I don't oppose gay marriage. Why are straight folks the only ones who are punished by marriage??
Extremely doubtful. He had determined he had to say he was against it just like Dick Cheney before him or it would have been political suicide and that was wrong from my point of view and a shame. He is actively weighing now whether to change his position and announce his support for gay marriage. There are stories in various papers from the last few days about it. It's a shame that support of equality for gays has at least right up to now been considered an absolute death sentence in politics, so I give him a little leeway on this, but I do believe he is lying about it and I don't like that at all. To me, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, and Obama may wind up doing that, late yes but better than never, and before the general election whether he judges it to be politically expedient or not. I like to hope he will.
Not everybody wants to be ridiculed by you and your type who are intolerant of people who disagree with them.
I'm not arguing to argue. You're moving the goalpost. Before you proposed leaving the word marriage "strictly to the churches." Now you're suggesting that we can marry anywhere we want other than a justice of the peace? That is not what you said in the post I responded to. You said "strictly to the churches." And, by the way, "thinks us crazies" why? People have been married by justices of the peace for decades if not centuries in this country. Why would one think we were crazy for wanting to be married that way if we did?
