I'm in favor of gays being allowed to marry. However, if both gays and straights can have the exact same type of relationship called the exact same thing by the government, why should it matter what the religion calls it? If us Catholics started saying we were "freeped" instead of "married" would you then complain that gays (or straights who were athiest) couldn't say they were "freeped?" I'm in favor of gay marriage not because of the definition of marriage but because I believe that gays should be able to enjoy the same rights and benefits that straights do when they get married. If the government wants to call that "civil unions" or "civil idiocy" or whatever it doesn't matter what the private religions call it.
so basically, you want the government to tell parents what they should teach their children, welcome to Batmans delusional world.
it's pretty cut and dry, I don't see why you seek to make it more complicated. a man and a woman is vastly different than a man and a man, or woman and a woman. regardless of religion.
This whole debate could be resolved if Major and Landlord Landry just went ahead and got married. Why fight it?
Not 50 years ago people were making your exact same arguments in order to stave off segregation and preserve their right to openly discriminate on the basis of race. Equal rights for blacks then seemed delusional to your sort back then too. You are a dinosaur and you don't even know it. But I don't want the government to tell you what to teach your children, just as the government doesn't prevent parents teaching children racist hate. You're protected under the law if you want to poison your children against a group of people, but I'm protected too when I tell you you are sick and wrong to do it.
Does allowing alcohal to be legal set an example to children that binge drinking is OK? There's lots of things that are legal that run counter to all sorts of religious beliefs. If you don't agree with that then teach your children it is wrong rather than looking for government to teach it.
How can I argue with logic like that? "Spewage?" "Sexual gender?" You're not just homophobic, you're pretty dumb too. (Why are the bigots always dumb? Things that make you go hmmmm...) I hope you'll see the light one day for your kids' sake but, as you literally have no arguments, you're no fun to argue with. Have a nice day and I'll see you again when I get sufficiently bored to come slap you around some more. Maybe later tonight if you keep up the crazy. We'll see.
are you talking about Carl Landry? I confess........high amounts of mancrush. If gay marriage is ever passed, I will propose to Carl Landry immediately.
My ideal view would be that government is totally out of the marriage business and by that I mean not just allowing anyone to get married but removing all legal benefits, and penalties, and leaving it to contract law. Anyone who wants to get married spells out what their rights are in a contract before they get married and the government's job is to enforce the contract.
fixed. Have a great day too Mr. Jones. Honestly, I hope you're feeling better from the accident. Cheers.
People were procreating long before there ever was such a thing as marriage. As I noted in the other thread procreation is only one reason for marriage and while governments might have looked to marriage for procreation there were many other issues why governments took an interest in marriage.
this is true. but people were also procreating long before there was ever such a thing as government. Irionic?
Not at all. That is one of the reasons why idealy I would like to see government having nothing to do with marriage.
If a denomination does not support gay marriage, it should not have to. However, I think the state should support gay "marriage" so that gay couples will have equal status under the law as regards inheritance, visitation et al. Why push the "marriage" button at all? The legal status is far more important than trying to extort the religious status against the will of a denomination, isn't it? What's stopping people from sacrificing a calf in someone's backyard before getting "married" and calling each other husband or wife? Nothing. It would seem that what gays are upset about is that they don't have a religious tradition large enough to have a traditional marriage ceremony even if they were allowed to "marry." Is that it? Some heterosexual couples don't get married either. The argument is that they could... but couldn't gays do it to if they wanted to establish a denominational tradtion once they are allowed to "unite?"
