Gay Marriage - Page 2

citizenzen · 02-17-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I am not denying anything. I am saying that in modern times in America it is a meaningless argument.

Analogy: I have you tied up, dangling over a growing fire. Your skin begins to blister and sear as you try everything you can to convince me to lower you to safety.

"Meaningless argument," I say.

Certainly not meaningless to you.

seattlegal · 02-17-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Couldn't have said it better myself, Jamazz.

I'd like to ask those whose oppose gay "marriage" whether they'd support a civil union law for any two* consenting adults**.

*We can always argue this point separately.

**No children. No donkeys. Adults... over 18... can we please keep this point in mind?

I would definately support civil unions, as long as they had the same legal standing as marriage. Civil unions could be employed by either homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, and would be available through the government offices that currently conduct weddings. A civil union ceremony would still be called a "wedding." The term "marriage" could then be used for the weddings conducted by religious ministers, which would also be in accordance to the religious tradition of the minister conducting the ceremony.

This arrangement would preserve the rights of citizens to legally register their weddings, while also protecting religious institutions to protect their religious traditions.

GlorytoGod · 02-17-2009, 09:22 AM

I love Gays and had many Gay lovers when I was gay, however I dont support Gay marriage. But I am all for a civil partnership and equality.

citizenzen · 02-17-2009, 10:16 AM

Huzzah! Then we're all in agreement! Civil unions with equal rights for gays and straights!

*hits the intercom* Higgins, patch me into the White House. I've got some good news for President Obama. We've got some legislation to enact!

(Why yes, I DO have a direct line to the president. Don't you?)

seattlegal · 02-17-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Huzzah! Then we're all in agreement! Civil unions with equal rights for gays and straights!

*hits the intercom* Higgins, patch me into the White House. I've got some good news for President Obama. We've got some legislation to enact!

(Why yes, I DO have a direct line to the president. Don't you?)

Trouble is, I've heard many gays say that they will not "settle" for civil unions... **shakes head**

citizenzen · 02-17-2009, 10:49 AM

I've also heard a number of rednecks say they would support any form of legalized unions.

And so it goes...

BTW, I was "married" to my wife by the county clerk in our backyard witnessed by two friends.

If THAT's not a civil union, I don't know what is!

Oh... and still going strong 12 years later.

Nick_A · 02-17-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Analogy: I have you tied up, dangling over a growing fire. Your skin begins to blister and sear as you try everything you can to convince me to lower you to safety.

"Meaningless argument," I say.

Certainly not meaningless to you.

This is the ancient question if the end justifies the means. In your analogy a person will say and do anything for the goal of safety which is the modern way. Yet there is a virtually forgotten other side. Since it is forgotten, equality under the law is meaningless as an ideal. It has been replaced by political correctness. We create our own meanings as we do our own reality and fight to have them considered politically correct. What does equality under the law have to do with it since it negates the fashionable dominant political correctness ?

Janz · 02-17-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I would definately support civil unions, as long as they had the same legal standing as marriage. Civil unions could be employed by either homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, and would be available through the government offices that currently conduct weddings. A civil union ceremony would still be called a "wedding." The term "marriage" could then be used for the weddings conducted by religious ministers, which would also be in accordance to the religious tradition of the minister conducting the ceremony.

This arrangement would preserve the rights of citizens to legally register their weddings, while also protecting religious institutions to protect their religious traditions.

Yes, I agree with you. Well said!! If the word marriage is no longer "embedded in the law" and a "new" definition of the legal arrangement of uniting 2 consenting adults (gay or straight) would then be the law of the land, why would anyone complain? I realize that not everyone would be happy with this change; but the government should not be in the marriage business.

There are several mainline Christian churches who perform marriages for gay couples and some conservative Evangelical Churches that won't. That is their right and those rights need protection.

citizenzen · 02-17-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick_A

What does equality under the law have to do with it since it negates the fashionable dominant political correctness ?

Political correctness began the moment we no longer let alpha males mate with all the females, chase away their competition and destroy the young that they didn't sire.

Males have enjoyed living this "politically correct" way for so long that they take it for granted. What you deem political correctness I see as intelligence and civility. I don't think you'd enjoy returning to the old ways of determining social rank. I fear it would be bad for your health.

seattlegal · 02-17-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Political correctness began the moment we no longer let alpha males mate with all the females, chase away their competition and destroy the young that they didn't sire.

Males have enjoyed living this "politically correct" way for so long that they take it for granted. What you deem political correctness I see as intelligence and civility. I don't think you'd enjoy returning to the old ways of determining social rank. I fear it would be bad for your health.

Janz · 02-17-2009, 05:23 PM

^ Ditto.

Thanks citizenzen for your astute observation. I have never understood the black and white thinking that labels this and that as politically correct or incorrect.

bob x · 02-17-2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamarz

I believe that ultimately, the government should get out of the marriage business.

No: CHURCHES need to get out of the "marriage" business. If they want a verbal distinction between the legal and religious institutions, then the churches are welcome to the word "wedding" for the ceremony they do, and to the word "matrimony" for the state created by that ceremony, since neither of those words is embedded in 1000+ legal statutes, but they are not entitled to usurp the word "marriage", which is the LEGAL term.

Faithfulservant · 02-17-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob x

No: CHURCHES need to get out of the "marriage" business. If they want a verbal distinction between the legal and religious institutions, then the churches are welcome to the word "wedding" for the ceremony they do, and to the word "matrimony" for the state created by that ceremony, since neither of those words is embedded in 1000+ legal statutes, but they are not entitled to usurp the word "marriage", which is the LEGAL term.

The problem with this is that the churches believe that God created marriage between man and woman... .so they wont "get out of it" no matter how many homosexual couples wish it were so. You can go back to Genesis which is a lot further back then the Unites States govt. The churches believe that we are to uphold the laws of the land as long as they do not supercede Gods law.

as far as the civil union.. Im all for it.. Give them all the rights afforded a married couple.

bob x · 02-17-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

The problem with this is that the churches believe that God created marriage between man and woman...

Yes, I know they believe God created THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. But, they need to have their own special word for THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION: use the word "wedding", use the word "matrimony", but don't interfere with the word which the law uses, for THE LEGAL INSTITUTION. The churches keep insisting that the law has to be the one to change its word, but that means over a thousand legislative amendments, which is a big waste of time and money. It wouldn't cost the churches anything to start saying "God created matrimony between man and woman..." meaning the exact same thing they meant the day before.

Janz · 02-17-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob x

No: CHURCHES need to get out of the "marriage" business. If they want a verbal distinction between the legal and religious institutions, then the churches are welcome to the word "wedding" for the ceremony they do, and to the word "matrimony" for the state created by that ceremony, since neither of those words is embedded in 1000+ legal statutes, but they are not entitled to usurp the word "marriage", which is the LEGAL term.

I totally disagree with you. This whole issue is a remnant of state-run churches. As I see it, in the church, marriage is a sacrament--a holy act. The state has no business licensing people to engage in holy acts. Neither should it be in the business of granting special privileges or tax benefits to people who have engaged in a holy act.
The state should have no more right to license marriages than it should to license whether people have children. It's absurd on its face. The state oversees oaths in only two instances: marriages and civil service. What's wrong with that picture? And do we allow private religious figures to officiate in administering oaths of office? No. Marriage may be secular or religious, but it has no business being the business of the state. I'm personally offended by the notion that two people ought "apply" to the "state" for a "license" to legitimize their promise to each other. No self-respecting American ought to accept this kind of perverse overstepping of legitimate government authority. It's tradition and nothing more. And it ought to be abandoned.

The government has only one concern: contractual obligations. What rights do we grant you and what responsibilities will you accept in exchange? And that is called a civil union. Making changes in the legal code ie paperwork, is not that big of deal. Think of the economic stimulus this project will generate, jobs will be created, money exchanged and goods purchased. Sounds like a win win situation to me.