If 2 men or women want to get married it doesn't effect me at all so why should I object? More people just trying to tell others what they can or can't do which I'm opposed to.
Gov't ain't getting out of the marriage business. Good luck to the politician who runs on that! Plus why should they? You don't disband the club just because you have to admit the gay folks. That's almost MORE petty and insulting!
Who cares? Setting that example and making people uncomfortable isn't something protected in the constitution. Not allowing discrimination is. plenty of things such as cigarettes, carrying concealed weapons etc. are legal, but parents can teach their children it's wrong if they choose. They may be right or wrong, but that option still exists.
I mean in the context of this thread. And of course, I don't mean everyone on both sides of this discussion. But read through this thread and people have all sorts of ideas about what marriage is that they seek to apply universally.
I love the "setting an example" rhetoric with respect to a given group's religious beliefs. Please follow that out logically and see what would be forbidden absolutely in the US if we wanted to avoid setting "bad examples:" * coffee * beer * pork * the combustion engine Those are just some basic examples. Instead, we choose to let people have a lot of freedoms in America and let people follow whatever religion they choose within their own religious communities. Beautiful system! Yes to coffee, beer, and pork, for those who so choose. And yes to gay marriage, for those who so choose.
I'm still kind of confused. If I'm included in that group I hope you'll explain what I'm doing there. Literally the only change I seek is that all Americans be treated equally. In the context of marriage, that means that I advocate legal recognition of two people who have decided to commit to each other for life, regardless of sexual orientation.
Agreed - which is why it shouldn't matter if it's called "marriage", as it has been for thousands and thousands of years, both inside and outside of religion. Marriage isn't a religious institution, as much as people would like to claim it is.
Because I have to wonder why the fuss over marriage when a civil union would give them the legal status that they mostly want. Marriage is a religious institution and usually you follow the traditions of a religion rather than upend them... or you depart and form your own tradition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism). You seem to have a very narrow and egocentric view of things. It might help to think things through or inquire a bit more before tossing off insults....
Agreed. I agree - why push the marriage button at all? Marriage isn't a religious status - it's a legal status here and in countries all over the world. If you're OK with gay people having that legal status, why try to rename?
You keep repeating this nonsense over and over - it's not true. Do you believe an atheist couple that gets a license and has a wedding is not married? Where on earth do you get this idea that marriage is a religious institution?
You can't force a religious tradition to conform to your will-- unless they are violating some kind of law, I suppose. They may conform over time but if their religious tradition defines marriage as being between a man and a woman then it would be better to start a new denomination that is as inclusive as you would want it to be. As I pointed out, Protestantism has been a very successful movement. What do you see as the distinction between a marriage and a civil union? Isn't a marriage essentially a religious tradtion which has been granted the power of the state to unite a man and a woman legally? If that religious tradition chooses not to perform a union between two men or two women, shouldn't that be their right? Why break down the door when you could just go around?
What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Part of the problem is the language here; everybody means something different when using the same words.... What power or privilege does a marriage have that a civil union does not?
No one's asking any religion to perform or recognize a gay marriage. Nothing. It's currently called marriage. You're the one asking for it to be renamed. Why? Umm, no. There are plenty of non-religious weddings. And they are called marriages. Same reason people weren't OK with "separate but equal".
Uh, yeah, but many Christian churches WILL perform a marriage between two gay people, shouldn't that be THEIR right? There are many gay Christians who belong to churches that do not view homosexuality as a sin. Why do those churches' opinions not matter? Religious dogma is all across the board, man...
That isn't the argument here. If religious gays want to have an argument with their particular church to try to change the church's rules, that's another matter entirely. The argument here is whether or not the government will participate in a different set of rules for gays and straights when it comes to marriage. Nobody in this fight is arguing the religious aspects. The debate comes down to this: If a gay couple chooses to be married, either in a secular service or a religious one (where the church in question agrees to marry them), will the federal government recognize it as a legitimate marriage or not? The side argument has to do with states recognizing the marriage or not and whether or not a marriage performed in one state will carry over to another. None of that has anything at all to do with religion. It has to do with the government and the Constitution, which currently guarantees equal rights and protections for all. The problem with "civil union" versus "marriage" is that it constitutes a"separate but equal" remedy, a concept which has been struck down by the SC as unconstitutional.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If your church will perform a ceremony, great, but there seems to be a movement afoot that would compel all churches to do the same. They should not be required to do so.
Well I'm all for gay marriage in every sense of the word-- except that I'm already married to a great lady! My lingo is to use "marriage" as a religious ceremony plus legal union and "civil union" as an explicitly legal one with no religious ceremony attached.
