I've not heard of this...if a church is against gay marriage they definitely won't be forced to perform them...but because some do, the government needs to recognize it as a marriage ceremony and therefore a marriage. But Batman is right...this is foremost about the federal government recognizing each marriage as a legitimate marriage.
It's clear that your heart's in the right place on this. Kudos. "Marriage" has a lot of connotations. It's only recently (in fact, mostly owing to this very debate) that the religious one has come to the forefront. I think the basic issue is as simple as this: We all grow up knowing about marriage and weddings and as children we all think about a future which includes marrying our one true love. Gays have been denied that idea. They've been told that they can't marry the one that they love and that if they do it won't be recognized by the government. That is what they seek to change. They want to think of and introduce their true loves as their husband or their wife. They don't just want the legal advantages of marriage, they want to "be married." Again, none of this has to do with religion and no one in this debate is trying to change the rules of any particular religion. Religions have always been free to discriminate however they like; the government has not. And yet, as recently as a few years ago, the president of the United States tried to amend the Constitution to ensure that no gay couple could ever be married in this country. This is the argument. It is about equal rights versus the denial of same. And it's got nothing to do with religion.
Because of all the "famous" gay marriages that were performed at court houses? Most of the arguments are about why gay people deserve spousal privileges: inheritance, visitation et al.. those are legal issues.
you were not included. there was some posts (and i've seen them before) saying marriage is nothing more than a contract...a business deal, basically. that is not the least bit true of my marriage, though i'm sure it is for some. honestly, having someone tell me my what my marriage is borders on being offensive to me...which is funny, because i don't get worked up about much here.
So in your version, heterosexual atheists would no longer be married? And people who marry outside of their religion and choose not to have a Church/religious ceremony would no longer be married? Your reasoning is that it would be simpler, but your lingo is a bigger and more widespread change than what is otherwise being proposed.
I'm not sure where you are getting those conclusions. In my lingo both "marriage" and "civil union" have legal status. Married and Marriage seem to be getting mixed up as a casual or colloquial term and as a legal term. Casually, any couple together with a legal union "should" be able to call themselves married because it is just a descriptive term of their relationship status not their legal status. We need more words!
As the poster who believes that government should be out of marriage totally and have it left to contract law I don't see how that is defining your marriage. You are still free to define your marriage emotionally and spiritually and your church is free to define it religiously. All I am stating is that the government doesn't define what it is legally. I'm not sure how the absence of an imposed definition is telling you what your marriage should be.
are you picking an argument where there isn't one? i haven't argued with you at all over this. i don't care to. i don't give two rips how the government defines marriage.
Possibly if I can in a respectul manner, since I've recently been accused of being too polite, but you stated that you felt some posts were reducing marriage to a business contract and you were offended with that. In my view from the government's standpoint it should be a contract so I responded to your post since mine appears to be one of the posts that you were mentioning. If you consider that picking an argument then it is but no offense intended on my part just wondering if you felt that my position was one of those you didn't agree with.
my point is that if you choose to define marriage as merely a contract, then go right ahead....but please don't apply that to my marriage...and i won't apply my definitions of marriage to you or anyone else, unless they ask me to. i find nothing of a business contract at all in respect to my relationship with my wife...and it seems cold and crass and sterile to me. things a marriage should not be, in my humble opinion.
So when my wife and I got married, nay, "unified" by the JP it was only a civil union? Then, when we got married in the church it became a marriage? I think I understand it now... Just don't tell my wife that we weren't really "married" for four years.
You are obviously in love with your wife, and passionately so. That gives us something in common. I agree that a "contract" seems pretty sterile, which is one reason we put off getting married for a few years after we fell in love (where we differ, I bet!). That was 31 years ago (the marriage, not falling in love). I suspect that a lot of Americans that happen to be gay feel the same way. They'd like the whole shooting match. They'd like the same choice heterosexual Americans have to a civil union and a marriage in the setting of their choice, if they desire one. We had a non-denominational service at the non-denominational church on a well known university campus. The organ was awesome!
This is so incredibly ignorant and offensive. Religions have a CODE OF VALUES that they believe in and adhere to -- homosexuality is not a part of that value system. Should the Church sacrifice everything that it stands for and condone this hedonistic disease? NO. A Church should not have to give up its honor and dignity to appease people who violate its core beliefs in such an overt manner. Governments don't discriminate? Sorry, but why is my tax rate so much higher than those of poor people? Why do AA's get preferential government treatment in hiring? Why do poor people not have to pay for health care? I could go on all day. Why does NATURE discriminate by not letting homosexuals reproduce? This is unjust!
there are evolutionary reasons for the existence of homosexuality. There is a genetic basis for it, and that means that somewhere along the lines of the development of mankind, NATURE discriminated positively for social groups where homosexuality existed. Otherwise the genetics for it wouldn't exist. Of course, you probably think evolution is liberal witchcraft, but whatever. The point is that anyone who calls homosexuality a hedonistic disease has far bigger issues than gay marriage.
i get it. and honestly, i wasn't arguing against that. i have no business denying someone else the right to be married. and yes, i'm in love with my wife.
OK. I can understand that. My own view is that marriage should be whatever people getting married decide it to be and the government shouldn't define it for them. Some people might approach that as a business contract some might approach it very differently.
At the risk of being crass and sterile the more I think about the idea of having a couple getting married define the marriage as a contract the more I like it. I'm not married but one problem I've noticed among marriages that failed is that they are rushed into. It seems to me that if all couples had to think about defining what their rights and responsibilities of ahead of time that might either make the marriage stronger or let the couple know that things aren't meant to be. I understand some churches do this and there is pre-marriage counseling but I think taking it further by negotiating a marriage contract would be helpful. I can see how that could suck all the romance out of a marriage but a lot of marriages based on undying love have fallen apart once it comes down to who pays bills. Sorry for the tangent just rambling.
