Marriage Rights

[lgoasklucyl]

Welcome to "religious" thought.

I spent 14 years in religious thought... It forced me where I am now

[mpjh]

Well we have something in common. I actually went to seminary for 4 years.

[Neoteny]

Huzzah. If you are looking for an interesting read, search for the "Gay Marriage" thread. It's an... interesting read.

Hmm.. I've skimmed through a few pages (beginning middle and end), and it seems like a lot of religious individuals flaming while producing no solid reasoning for church being oppressively written into legislature.

Heh. You might find it ironic that it is usually the atheists who are blamed for being uncivil around here. Obviously you are just biased, though.

[JACKAZZTJM]

sry guys the people voted against it i guess its a ull getem next time kinda thing but to only accuse the christians of this turnout is absurd why start a thread and ask otherminoraties the same question blacks were overwhelmingly against it hispanics slightly but u blame the "hardcore" catholics if those two groups had ur backs it woulda passed thats y i make a jk of this thread cause ur accusing only one group of homophobia a group who was brought up on the bible remember were talking about "hardcore" catholics people who know no other way! this law wont be passed until the gay minority has the backup of all the other minorities

theres an honest oppinion and i know i mispelled words and didnt use good grammer

[pimpdave]

Huzzah. If you are looking for an interesting read, search for the "Gay Marriage" thread. It's an... interesting read.

Hmm.. I've skimmed through a few pages (beginning middle and end), and it seems like a lot of religious individuals flaming while producing no solid reasoning for church being oppressively written into legislature.

Heh. You might find it ironic that it is usually the atheists who are blamed for being uncivil around here. Obviously you are just biased, though.

They might stage another crusade, and make the streets run red with blood, but that would only be because you were uncivil.

They might even do so on July 15, in honor of the time they did that (in the name of Christ) in 1099.

[FabledIntegral]

for fucks sakes... TLDR

You still have the right to wed because you are recognized as having the ability of having a natural family. You and your GF can knock boots and produce a kid. as such, you are then bound socially to both contribute to the well being of said kid. There is also the possibility that you can freak out, and actually come to Jesus. This would actually cause you to end up 150% Christian, which would be a 300% difference in what you are now, which is, impossible.

Truth be known, You are still "savable" and Christians would love to save you and your family too... should you actually procreate and produce one. Now, to be honest, I am guessing that no church worth their salt would "Marry" you and your bride unless you converted to their teachings or they just wanted to make the money and had a "don't ask, don't tell" rule. In that case, you would be free to go down to the local magistrate's office and "marry" there, but that is really just a legal contract known as a civil union. This is something that gays were, by and large, offered, but that wasn't good enough. Apparently, Gays are not willing to take small steps to accomplish their goals. they seem to have mistakenly thought that the liberal pendulum that ushered BO into office was also going to bring sweeping changes to the way that homo love was thought of in this country.

Prop 70 - Infertile males and females shall no longer have the right to wed.

[mpjh]

Precisely the law that Nazi Germany passed, among others of similar tone.

[PLAYER57832]

The country needs more Christians like you who can speak out and defend the rights of individuals who cannot fight for themselves. I thank you for your support in these matters and in your bravery in being able to maintain your opinion in the conservative community.

I have a LOT more company than you might think. I went into this in depth in the Homosexual marriage thread, but the basics are this:

Aside from a few specific (definitely powerful and growing) churches, the debate is over what goes on within our churches. That IS a debate. It is based upon what the Bible says. Period.

The debate you refer to is outside the church. I have no issue with anyone of any religion moving in next to me or having my children befriend thier children. However, I certain would object if a Buddhist tried to step in as Pastor for our church!

But, the analogy you drew between those of other religions is accurate. Marrying homosexuals within the church is similar to marrying Buddhists. My church would not marry 2 Buddhists in the church. Similarly, a church that does not believe homosexuality to be accepted by Biblical standards is not going to allow such a couple to marry within their church. In some cases, they may allow the couple to join (as they would accept any other sinner), but would draw the limit at actually sanctifying their marriage. Many churches would object to teaching that homosexuality is "OK", just as they would object to a Muslim substituting the Koran for the Bible. Of course, many churches DO welcome people of other religions to teach about their religions (and our pastors reciprocate). We do that both so kids don't believe the insanity that is sometimes put forward about various religions and to clarify why or church IS differant from those religions. (Thankfully, even ardent antisemites no longer believe that Passover cracker was made of sacrificed Christian children, but tamer variations certainly still exist.)

I, personally, have no real answer on homsexuality. Two things I do know. Church is a place for sinners, not perfect people. Christ teaches us that judgement is for God, not us. Paul teaches us that even the least of sins is enough to draw us away from God and no act but faith and grace can bring us back. To quote Christ "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

The only real reason to exclude someone is actual danger. A homosexual is not harmful to me, at least no more than a Buddhist. Yes, a predator is harmful, but contrary to what many homophobes assert, a heterosexual is far more likely to be a pedophile than a homosexual. As for harrassment ... I cannot even count the number of times I have been subjected to harrassment or observed harrassment by heterosexual males (and even females). I have never been harrassed by any of the many homosexual females or seen harrassment by any homosexual males with whom I have worked, gone to school and with whom I have otherwise associated.

[black elk speaks]

for fucks sakes... TLDR

You still have the right to wed because you are recognized as having the ability of having a natural family. You and your GF can knock boots and produce a kid. as such, you are then bound socially to both contribute to the well being of said kid. There is also the possibility that you can freak out, and actually come to Jesus. This would actually cause you to end up 150% Christian, which would be a 300% difference in what you are now, which is, impossible.

Truth be known, You are still "savable" and Christians would love to save you and your family too... should you actually procreate and produce one. Now, to be honest, I am guessing that no church worth their salt would "Marry" you and your bride unless you converted to their teachings or they just wanted to make the money and had a "don't ask, don't tell" rule. In that case, you would be free to go down to the local magistrate's office and "marry" there, but that is really just a legal contract known as a civil union. This is something that gays were, by and large, offered, but that wasn't good enough. Apparently, Gays are not willing to take small steps to accomplish their goals. they seem to have mistakenly thought that the liberal pendulum that ushered BO into office was also going to bring sweeping changes to the way that homo love was thought of in this country.

Prop 70 - Infertile males and females shall no longer have the right to wed.

Yeah, sure... Christians would say that science can always be overturned by miraculous intervention of God. in truth, it may well be the case that some have actually had a "miraculous" change in their fertility. This is not, possible in the case of making two of the same sex, as in, they are not going to bump 2 sperm together and have a baby. That would be a miracle indeed.

Let me just re-iterate my stance on the issue.

Marriage is currently dictated by the state. The concept of marriage is one that stems from religious beliefs. Having the state dictate who can or cannot marry is a violation of the separation of church and state. It should, then, for the purpose of legality sake only, be the state's responsibility to recognize civil unions between 2 (or, in my opinion, more) consenting adults.

Marriage is then controlled by the church, where it rightfully belongs.

I think that there are at least 2 benefits from doing things this way:

1. Churches can mandate whatever they want to constitute a marriage, even so far as to outlaw divorce if they want. You can only ever get married once, unless you are a polygamist, and if you decide to get a divorce, then you are only afforded the benefits granted by the state, which would be in accordance with your will.

2. Churches can afford what ever additional social privileged that they want to for their congregations. I have no idea what that might be, perhaps additional support for granting adoptive rights to people, etc.

3. Everyone is now equal in that legal benefits are only constructed at the individual state levels.

In short, I think that it is something that needs to be accomplished in steps. Going outright for marriage is a violation of the Constitution, IMHO, as in reality, this is a faith issue that the state has no real authority on anyway.

So, you gays out there... set your sites on the nearer objective of civil unions. When you are hunting for deer, and all you see is squirrel, its always best not to go home empty handed. It is for the sakes of your children, fight for what is right today, not yourselves... oops... I forgot... sorry.

[Snorri1234]

for fucks sakes... TLDR

You still have the right to wed because you are recognized as having the ability of having a natural family. You and your GF can knock boots and produce a kid. as such, you are then bound socially to both contribute to the well being of said kid. There is also the possibility that you can freak out, and actually come to Jesus. This would actually cause you to end up 150% Christian, which would be a 300% difference in what you are now, which is, impossible.

Truth be known, You are still "savable" and Christians would love to save you and your family too... should you actually procreate and produce one. Now, to be honest, I am guessing that no church worth their salt would "Marry" you and your bride unless you converted to their teachings or they just wanted to make the money and had a "don't ask, don't tell" rule. In that case, you would be free to go down to the local magistrate's office and "marry" there, but that is really just a legal contract known as a civil union. This is something that gays were, by and large, offered, but that wasn't good enough. Apparently, Gays are not willing to take small steps to accomplish their goals. they seem to have mistakenly thought that the liberal pendulum that ushered BO into office was also going to bring sweeping changes to the way that homo love was thought of in this country.

Prop 70 - Infertile males and females shall no longer have the right to wed.

Yeah, sure... Christians would say that science can always be overturned by miraculous intervention of God. in truth, it may well be the case that some have actually had a "miraculous" change in their fertility. This is not, possible in the case of making two of the same sex, as in, they are not going to bump 2 sperm together and have a baby. That would be a miracle indeed.

Let me just re-iterate my stance on the issue.

Marriage is currently dictated by the state. The concept of marriage is one that stems from religious beliefs. Having the state dictate who can or cannot marry is a violation of the separation of church and state. It should, then, for the purpose of legality sake only, be the state's responsibility to recognize civil unions between 2 (or, in my opinion, more) consenting adults.

Marriage is then controlled by the church, where it rightfully belongs.

I think that there are at least 2 benefits from doing things this way:

1. Churches can mandate whatever they want to constitute a marriage, even so far as to outlaw divorce if they want. You can only ever get married once, unless you are a polygamist, and if you decide to get a divorce, then you are only afforded the benefits granted by the state, which would be in accordance with your will.

2. Churches can afford what ever additional social privileged that they want to for their congregations. I have no idea what that might be, perhaps additional support for granting adoptive rights to people, etc.

3. Everyone is now equal in that legal benefits are only constructed at the individual state levels.

In short, I think that it is something that needs to be accomplished in steps. Going outright for marriage is a violation of the Constitution, IMHO, as in reality, this is a faith issue that the state has no real authority on anyway.

I think the problem is that marriage is a state-issue. At least, it is now. I don't think any pro-gay marriage people have any problem with your solution, but one of the main problems is the fact that the ones who are against gay-marriage are very frequently against your solution too. Some people just want to define marriage by law as "between a man and a woman", which is one of the problems with a state where religious belief is so often intertwined with politics.

It's happening even here though, christians who want to make marijuana illegal because they think it's immoral, even though looking at it from a rational viewpoint makes it obvious legalisation is a far better solution.

[black elk speaks]

sure... but biblically speaking, God made all plants to bear seed such that mankind can use them. This would include MJ. but back to the topic of marriage, its just like prohibition in that the state is "controlling" the definition of "marriage" which is a religious institution. Why can't I have three wives if I want them? Jacob did. From a biblical standpoint, marriage should be what ever the consenting adults want it to be. Not what your neighbors want it to be.

[lgoasklucyl]

for fucks sakes... TLDR

You still have the right to wed because you are recognized as having the ability of having a natural family. You and your GF can knock boots and produce a kid. as such, you are then bound socially to both contribute to the well being of said kid. There is also the possibility that you can freak out, and actually come to Jesus. This would actually cause you to end up 150% Christian, which would be a 300% difference in what you are now, which is, impossible.

Truth be known, You are still "savable" and Christians would love to save you and your family too... should you actually procreate and produce one. Now, to be honest, I am guessing that no church worth their salt would "Marry" you and your bride unless you converted to their teachings or they just wanted to make the money and had a "don't ask, don't tell" rule. In that case, you would be free to go down to the local magistrate's office and "marry" there, but that is really just a legal contract known as a civil union. This is something that gays were, by and large, offered, but that wasn't good enough. Apparently, Gays are not willing to take small steps to accomplish their goals. they seem to have mistakenly thought that the liberal pendulum that ushered BO into office was also going to bring sweeping changes to the way that homo love was thought of in this country.

Prop 70 - Infertile males and females shall no longer have the right to wed.

Yeah, sure... Christians would say that science can always be overturned by miraculous intervention of God. in truth, it may well be the case that some have actually had a "miraculous" change in their fertility. This is not, possible in the case of making two of the same sex, as in, they are not going to bump 2 sperm together and have a baby. That would be a miracle indeed.

Let me just re-iterate my stance on the issue.

Marriage is currently dictated by the state. The concept of marriage is one that stems from religious beliefs. Having the state dictate who can or cannot marry is a violation of the separation of church and state. It should, then, for the purpose of legality sake only, be the state's responsibility to recognize civil unions between 2 (or, in my opinion, more) consenting adults.

Marriage is then controlled by the church, where it rightfully belongs.

I think that there are at least 2 benefits from doing things this way:

1. Churches can mandate whatever they want to constitute a marriage, even so far as to outlaw divorce if they want. You can only ever get married once, unless you are a polygamist, and if you decide to get a divorce, then you are only afforded the benefits granted by the state, which would be in accordance with your will.

2. Churches can afford what ever additional social privileged that they want to for their congregations. I have no idea what that might be, perhaps additional support for granting adoptive rights to people, etc.

3. Everyone is now equal in that legal benefits are only constructed at the individual state levels.

In short, I think that it is something that needs to be accomplished in steps. Going outright for marriage is a violation of the Constitution, IMHO, as in reality, this is a faith issue that the state has no real authority on anyway.

I think the problem is that marriage is a state-issue. At least, it is now. I don't think any pro-gay marriage people have any problem with your solution, but one of the main problems is the fact that the ones who are against gay-marriage are very frequently against your solution too. Some people just want to define marriage by law as "between a man and a woman", which is one of the problems with a state where religious belief is so often intertwined with politics.

It's happening even here though, christians who want to make marijuana illegal because they think it's immoral, even though looking at it from a rational viewpoint makes it obvious legalisation is a far better solution.

Yeah- I agree entirely. BES, marriage may be an issue that should be left up to the church that sanctions it- but when it becomes such a legally binding ordeal as it has in the United States it seriously needs to be controlled by the state. Perhaps not marriage ceremonies within the specific religions but at least a form of civil unions that will hand every citizen wed in such a way equal rights.

I know this is a cliche argument, but there have been a great number of cases when who member of a same-sex marriage is terminally ill and in the hospital in a wing such as intensive care etc... where the law dictates only "family members and legally bound individuals are allowed to visit". In many cases, the homosexual partner has been turned away simply because of the rights they were refused. That's a human right- not a religious one.

Honestly, as stated before by I'm not 100% sure who, everyone on this side is entirely for the church/other religious organization (as, I'm sure we all know: Christians are not the only religious establishment in the country, and will soon not be the largest religious organization if the trend continues (Islam is only behind by barely half a million world-wide and is improving at a lot quicker rate than Christianity is in numbers) and therefore each religion would have to dictate it's own ceremony and it's own 'rights' and 'wrongs'. Doing so will, if left in legislation, in some way screw over a minority regardless of which religion is left to decide.

I blame 'Christianity' for the vote (not blacks, not hispanics) because it's not being black or hispanic that leads someone to vote against another human beings rights- it's being religious (not even just 'Christian'). Especially from an African American perspective I'm sure they are damn sure more willing to vote for the rights of a minority group oppressed in a similar way to themselves in the past. If not, I'm flabergasted.

[black elk speaks]

I blame 'Christianity' for the vote (not blacks, not hispanics) because it's not being black or hispanic that leads someone to vote against another human beings rights- it's being religious (not even just 'Christian'). Especially from an African American perspective I'm sure they are damn sure more willing to vote for the rights of a minority group oppressed in a similar way to themselves in the past. If not, I'm flabergasted.

Not so fast there... You would be surprised at how bigoted blacks can be, after all, they are human too. I have known lots of non-religious black people that hate homosexuality. While the election may have been entirely to blame on this most recent election in Cali, I am pretty sure that historically it has been a social prejudice that has been around for a very long time. So long in fact, I would be willing to bet that animosity against gays (not lesbians,they are HOT!!!11!! ) predates religion. My point is that you can blame Religion on the social prejudice against homosexuality, but religion may have a case for blaming society for its write in to the foundation of religious doctrines.

[PLAYER57832]

I blame 'Christianity' for the vote (not blacks, not hispanics) because it's not being black or hispanic that leads someone to vote against another human beings rights- it's being religious (not even just 'Christian'). Especially from an African American perspective I'm sure they are damn sure more willing to vote for the rights of a minority group oppressed in a similar way to themselves in the past. If not, I'm flabergasted.

Not so fast there... You would be surprised at how bigoted blacks can be, after all, they are human too. I have known lots of non-religious black people that hate homosexuality.

In fact, the increase of blacks voting in California is cited a one reason the measure passed.

It would be nice to think that experiencing prejudice makes one more tolerant. Certainly, it can and does, but sadly, often the opposite is true. Often a person who experiences prejudice becomes so angry and blinded they become much like their opressor. Sometimes this anger is (rightfully) vented against the opressor, but too often its target is a third party.

[black elk speaks]

Sure... Husband has a bad day at work, comes home and treats wife poorly, she in turn is upset and mean to the kids, and they in turn take it out on the dog.

This is a social studies example, I think... but it shows how shit rolls down hill.

[Frigidus]

for fucks sakes... TLDR

You still have the right to wed because you are recognized as having the ability of having a natural family. You and your GF can knock boots and produce a kid. as such, you are then bound socially to both contribute to the well being of said kid. There is also the possibility that you can freak out, and actually come to Jesus. This would actually cause you to end up 150% Christian, which would be a 300% difference in what you are now, which is, impossible.

Truth be known, You are still "savable" and Christians would love to save you and your family too... should you actually procreate and produce one. Now, to be honest, I am guessing that no church worth their salt would "Marry" you and your bride unless you converted to their teachings or they just wanted to make the money and had a "don't ask, don't tell" rule. In that case, you would be free to go down to the local magistrate's office and "marry" there, but that is really just a legal contract known as a civil union. This is something that gays were, by and large, offered, but that wasn't good enough. Apparently, Gays are not willing to take small steps to accomplish their goals. they seem to have mistakenly thought that the liberal pendulum that ushered BO into office was also going to bring sweeping changes to the way that homo love was thought of in this country.

Prop 70 - Infertile males and females shall no longer have the right to wed.

Yeah, sure... Christians would say that science can always be overturned by miraculous intervention of God. in truth, it may well be the case that some have actually had a "miraculous" change in their fertility. This is not, possible in the case of making two of the same sex, as in, they are not going to bump 2 sperm together and have a baby. That would be a miracle indeed.

Let me just re-iterate my stance on the issue.

Marriage is currently dictated by the state. The concept of marriage is one that stems from religious beliefs. Having the state dictate who can or cannot marry is a violation of the separation of church and state. It should, then, for the purpose of legality sake only, be the state's responsibility to recognize civil unions between 2 (or, in my opinion, more) consenting adults.

Marriage is then controlled by the church, where it rightfully belongs.

I think that there are at least 2 benefits from doing things this way:

1. Churches can mandate whatever they want to constitute a marriage, even so far as to outlaw divorce if they want. You can only ever get married once, unless you are a polygamist, and if you decide to get a divorce, then you are only afforded the benefits granted by the state, which would be in accordance with your will.

2. Churches can afford what ever additional social privileged that they want to for their congregations. I have no idea what that might be, perhaps additional support for granting adoptive rights to people, etc.

3. Everyone is now equal in that legal benefits are only constructed at the individual state levels.

In short, I think that it is something that needs to be accomplished in steps. Going outright for marriage is a violation of the Constitution, IMHO, as in reality, this is a faith issue that the state has no real authority on anyway.

I think the problem is that marriage is a state-issue. At least, it is now. I don't think any pro-gay marriage people have any problem with your solution, but one of the main problems is the fact that the ones who are against gay-marriage are very frequently against your solution too. Some people just want to define marriage by law as "between a man and a woman", which is one of the problems with a state where religious belief is so often intertwined with politics.

It's happening even here though, christians who want to make marijuana illegal because they think it's immoral, even though looking at it from a rational viewpoint makes it obvious legalisation is a far better solution.

Yeah- I agree entirely. BES, marriage may be an issue that should be left up to the church that sanctions it- but when it becomes such a legally binding ordeal as it has in the United States it seriously needs to be controlled by the state. Perhaps not marriage ceremonies within the specific religions but at least a form of civil unions that will hand every citizen wed in such a way equal rights.

I know this is a cliche argument, but there have been a great number of cases when who member of a same-sex marriage is terminally ill and in the hospital in a wing such as intensive care etc... where the law dictates only "family members and legally bound individuals are allowed to visit". In many cases, the homosexual partner has been turned away simply because of the rights they were refused. That's a human right- not a religious one.

Honestly, as stated before by I'm not 100% sure who, everyone on this side is entirely for the church/other religious organization (as, I'm sure we all know: Christians are not the only religious establishment in the country, and will soon not be the largest religious organization if the trend continues (Islam is only behind by barely half a million world-wide and is improving at a lot quicker rate than Christianity is in numbers) and therefore each religion would have to dictate it's own ceremony and it's own 'rights' and 'wrongs'. Doing so will, if left in legislation, in some way screw over a minority regardless of which religion is left to decide.

I blame 'Christianity' for the vote (not blacks, not hispanics) because it's not being black or hispanic that leads someone to vote against another human beings rights- it's being religious (not even just 'Christian'). Especially from an African American perspective I'm sure they are damn sure more willing to vote for the rights of a minority group oppressed in a similar way to themselves in the past. If not, I'm flabergasted.

The thing is, the law should not be able to say anything about the nature of marriage. If a church is willing to marry two or more people capable of consenting then the state can not refuse to recognize it. This would be a violation of religious freedom. I don't really like this argument, as I feel it doesn't recognize things like marriage as a basic human right. However, many of the arguments against gay marriage I've heard have been made off of outrageous technicalities, so that's what I go with as well.

[lgoasklucyl]

The thing is, the law should not be able to say anything about the nature of marriage. If a church is willing to marry two or more people capable of consenting then the state can not refuse to recognize it. This would be a violation of religious freedom. I don't really like this argument, as I feel it doesn't recognize things like marriage as a basic human right. However, many of the arguments against gay marriage I've heard have been made off of outrageous technicalities, so that's what I go with as well.

How is marriage not a human right? We're a democratic country, not a 'Christian', 'Islam', 'Judaic', etc... country. There are plenty of non-religious countries out there that exhibit the right to marry- ie: it's a human right. It's not a matter of JUST Christianity or JUST Judaism having such ceremonies exist. ESPECIALLY is a country such as the United Stated where it has SUCH deep and oppressing legal ramifications to not be able to do so. Why can the state not recognize a separate form of union that bestowes the same rights on these individuals? Not doing so in a church in NO way, shape, or form infringes on anyone religious freedoms. You keep your ceremonies in your pretty building, we'll keep our ceremonies elsewhere.

Voila, we're not infringing. We don't want to infringe on your religious rights- why must you infringe on the religion, humane, and legal rights of others?

[Frigidus]

The thing is, the law should not be able to say anything about the nature of marriage. If a church is willing to marry two or more people capable of consenting then the state can not refuse to recognize it. This would be a violation of religious freedom. I don't really like this argument, as I feel it doesn't recognize things like marriage as a basic human right. However, many of the arguments against gay marriage I've heard have been made off of outrageous technicalities, so that's what I go with as well.

How is marriage not a human right? We're a democratic country, not a 'Christian', 'Islam', 'Judaic', etc... country. There are plenty of non-religious countries out there that exhibit the right to marry- ie: it's a human right. It's not a matter of JUST Christianity or JUST Judaism having such ceremonies exist. ESPECIALLY is a country such as the United Stated where it has SUCH deep and oppressing legal ramifications to not be able to do so. Why can the state not recognize a separate form of union that bestowes the same rights on these individuals? Not doing so in a church in NO way, shape, or form infringes on anyone religious freedoms. You keep your ceremonies in your pretty building, we'll keep our ceremonies elsewhere.

Voila, we're not infringing. We don't want to infringe on your religious rights- why must you infringe on the religion, humane, and legal rights of others?

You misunderstand. I have no religion. My argument is that specifying what is and is not marriage is a violation of religious freedom. In general, I haven't heard an argument against this. While the very religious (generally) don't really give a damn about ideals such as human rights (abortion aside), they do care about freedom of religion. So I use arguments that strike at what they care about.

[black elk speaks]

I think that the problem is that historically, civil union and marriage have been considered the same thing. For all intents and purposes, they are. But I imaging that the religious institutions do not want the possibility of having lawsuits drawn against them for refusing to marry homos. I don't know if that would be the case, but certainly, if there were cases where refusal to marry homos were to happen, there would be cases where there could be discrimination charges drawn. There needs to be a split in the governance of the term marriage, such that all marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the state, but that not all civil unions are marriages in the eyes of your prescribed church. You would even have to allow for cases where a marriage may not recognized from one church to the next, but not so with regards of civil unions from state to state.

I think that would be a win win.

[brooksieb]

Well whether people like this or not being homosexual is not natural, i think people should be tolerated and respected for the way they are and sometimes homsexual thoughts are hardwired into a person, i'm pretty sure everyone has had a homosexual thought in their' life but some people are afraid to tell it, but some people have more homosexual thoughts than others, however being in this world for 47 years i remember when being homosexual used to be a arrestible offence (in the UK) so gay rights have come along way and there is no problem with that, however gay marriage should be legal in countries however religious institutions should have the right to decide if gay couples cannot marry in their' churches mosques ect, because they are gay, though like i said public non religious institutions are perfectly ok, religious institutions should be able to decide for themselves whether it is appropriate.

[Napoleon Ier]

Ah okay, yeah- let me take away one of your biggest civil liberties

What made marriage a civil liberty? It isn't a human right based on the definition that anyone has the right to do (note the transitive) anything that doesn't interfere with another person's liberty in a direct way, since it involves being granted a certain title by society. It's not the State banning something, but rather refusing to do something for someone, and in many cases, (imagine you wanted to say, marry a close relative) does so for good reason. The basic principle is that marriage functions as a unit for family, and that homosexuals cannot form such a unit as an a priori.

[lgoasklucyl]

Ah okay, yeah- let me take away one of your biggest civil liberties

What made marriage a civil liberty? It isn't a human right based on the definition that anyone has the right to do (note the transitive) anything that doesn't interfere with another person's liberty in a direct way, since it involves being granted a certain title by society. It's not the State banning something, but rather refusing to do something for someone, and in many cases, (imagine you wanted to say, marry a close relative) does so for good reason. The basic principle is that marriage functions as a unit for family, and that homosexuals cannot form such a unit as an a priori.

The homosexuals may not be able to physically deliver a child but they can still just as effectively raise a family.

No, marriage in itself isn't a human right. Being able to visit a dying loved one in a hospital is. Having every other benefit that comes with marriage (since every other human in the country is allowed them) is a right in this country. Removing this based on a sexual preference is oppressive discrimination. Yeah, incest marriages are not allowed due to potentially hazardous biological ramifications. That's entirely different than 'not being able to get someone pregnant'.

Heaven forbid someone lives their lives differently than you would feel comfortable with.

[Napoleon Ier]

The homosexuals may not be able to physically deliver a child but they can still just as effectively raise a family.

No, marriage in itself isn't a human right. Being able to visit a dying loved one in a hospital is. Having every other benefit that comes with marriage (since every other human in the country is allowed them) is a right in this country. Removing this based on a sexual preference is oppressive discrimination. Yeah, incest marriages are not allowed due to potentially hazardous biological ramifications. That's entirely different than 'not being able to get someone pregnant'.

Heaven forbid someone lives their lives differently than you would feel comfortable with.

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

[pimpdave]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

He means, primarily, the tax benefits, and insurance benefits being extended to one's spouse. Not to mention those scenarios in which hospitals will admit only "family" to visiting rooms at particular times.

If this is to be a free society, it is the opinion of many, including yours truly, that those benefits should be extended to all, not just a select few.

Hope that clears it up, unless I am misrepresenting the original intent, in which case, please correct me.

[Napoleon Ier]

What benefits of marriage? Be precise here, these discussions are very prone to semantic confusion...

He means, primarily, the tax benefits, and insurance benefits being extended to one's spouse. Not to mention those scenarios in which hospitals will admit only "family" to visiting rooms at particular times.

Ah, well fine, but then we talk of a civil union/partner, not a "family", or "marriage", because these terms are reserved for normal sexual partners.