The subject of gay marriage is obviously an issue that raises strong feelings on both sides of the issue. On the right, you have a group that states marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman, and anything else is pure evil. On the left, you have a group that says government has no right to impose limitations on marriage, and that same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights as any other couple wishing to get married.
It seems to me that the entire crux of the matter is the word marriage. When the right hears that gay people want to marry they immediately rise up; they feel that gay marriage enroaches on an institution that has historically been controlled by the church. Last time I checked, gay couples weren't demanding that the Catholic church (or any funtamentally Christian chuch) be forced to marry them and recognize the marriage as valid in the eyes of the church. They simply want the same rights as other married couples have. The right to file joint taxes, get a marriage license from the courthouse, or enter a hospital room where their partner is laid-up.
With the exception of a few gay-hating, funeral-protesting crazy people, churches don't care if gay couples are recognized by the state as united. They simply don't recognize the union in their church. And that's absolutely fine. I doubt many gay couples are losing sleep and fighting the issue because they want to change a religious policy.
It seems crazy to have such heated debate from both sides over verbage. Gay marriage? ZOMG it's the end of the world! Civil Union? Well that's ok then.
So here's the solution; the common middle ground in which neither side gets exactly what they want, but both sides get get something they can live with. The word marriage shall remain soley for male/female couples who wish to be recognized by the state as united. Gay couples shall be able to unite, having all the same governmentally recognized rights as strait couples, under the verbage Civil Union.
I'm sure both sides would shoot this notion down before it ever got off the ground, because the only thing more important than getting what you want is making sure the other side doesn't.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Solving the gay marriage issue
Solving the gay marriage issueFollow
You didn't even read Joph's summary of topics thread, did you?
Nexa
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Quote:
You didn't even read Joph's summary of topics thread, did you?
People here get criticized for writing more than a paragraph and you expect him to read through that tome?
Wow, Gay weddings, just think of the amazing center-pieces you could take home and how good the food would be. I hate going to most weddings nowadays because, I cannot stand being served boneless-skinless chicken breast and some mealy grilled vegetables with Hollandaise sauce, and you all know what I'm talking about.
Civil union is the segregated school of today!
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Redjed wrote:
Wow, Gay weddings, just think of the amazing center-pieces you could take home and how good the food would be. I hate going to most weddings nowadays because, I cannot stand being served boneless-skinless chicken breast and some mealy grilled vegetables with Hollandaise sauce, and you all know what I'm talking about.
The most fun I've ever had at a wedding was at a Jewish wedding. I've never been so tired in my life! I think about the only thing that could top that would be a gay Jewish wedding...now to get some gay Jewish friends.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Quote:
I cannot stand being served boneless-skinless chicken breast and some mealy grilled vegetables with Hollandaise sauce, and you all know what I'm talking about.
What about Marsala sauce?
All they want to keep a persons religious beliefs from making decisions about their lives. I know not all people against gay marriage have an opposition to it because of religion, but with most people that is the case. Most religious people dont want Gay people to be married because they think it is a sin, and nothing more. Hell I know some gay people who don't want gay marriage to be legal. XD
People dont have to be married in a church, or if they dont beleive in god, they can change the vows and skip all the scripture part. The next big thing once this amendment probably isn't passed, will be gay adoption. Then there will a big issue over that. It seems like people think the world will catch the Gay, if they are allowed to be treated equally.
People dont have to be married in a church, or if they dont beleive in god, they can change the vows and skip all the scripture part. The next big thing once this amendment probably isn't passed, will be gay adoption. Then there will a big issue over that. It seems like people think the world will catch the Gay, if they are allowed to be treated equally.
There are states that allow gay adoption but I haven't looked into it in some time. Is it still relatively few or what? I'm too lazy to look it up.
Nexa
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Hah, why should people who have religious reasons for opposing gay marriage or civil unions be forced to subsidize it? Why should single people be forced to subsidize gay marriage, civil unions, or heterosexual marriage? That right there shows not only pure intolerance but bigoted shove it down your throat action. If gay people want to end State subsidation and recognition of marriage as it stands today, fine. If they want to impose even more intolerance on the citizenry than already exists, then no thanks.
Gay couples can pretend they're married all they want in gay churches, and other churches, individuals, businesses, and couples can freely choose to acknowledge that as legitimate marriage or not. Hell, where's the ACLU arguing against State interference in the business of marriage? I thought they believed in separation of Church and State? Since when has marriage not been a religious matter? Ok, if you're gonna answer that, then also don't forget to answer since when has sexual behavior not been a State matter? If you want to impose legitimacy or illegitimacy by State fiat of marriage then prepare to make the case for the imposition of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of specific sexual behaviors by the State.
Sorry, but using force to get other people or businesses to pay for benefits or tax advantages for gay couples, straight buddies, polygamists, or yes, even heterosexual married couples, should not be the business of the State. If gay people want to get married, then make a gay church and get married in it. Solved. If you want to force religious right extremists to pay for it, then you're going to have a cultural war. And you're risking more than just not getting recognition of marriage from the State. You're risking the reimposition of criminal law against sexual deviance.
Gay couples can pretend they're married all they want in gay churches, and other churches, individuals, businesses, and couples can freely choose to acknowledge that as legitimate marriage or not. Hell, where's the ACLU arguing against State interference in the business of marriage? I thought they believed in separation of Church and State? Since when has marriage not been a religious matter? Ok, if you're gonna answer that, then also don't forget to answer since when has sexual behavior not been a State matter? If you want to impose legitimacy or illegitimacy by State fiat of marriage then prepare to make the case for the imposition of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of specific sexual behaviors by the State.
Sorry, but using force to get other people or businesses to pay for benefits or tax advantages for gay couples, straight buddies, polygamists, or yes, even heterosexual married couples, should not be the business of the State. If gay people want to get married, then make a gay church and get married in it. Solved. If you want to force religious right extremists to pay for it, then you're going to have a cultural war. And you're risking more than just not getting recognition of marriage from the State. You're risking the reimposition of criminal law against sexual deviance.
MonxDoT wrote:
Hah, why should people who have religious reasons for opposing gay marriage or civil unions be forced to subsidize it?
Why do buddhists have to pay taxes that goto building bombs?
Why can't you understand your reasoning is faulty?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Nexa wrote:
You didn't even read Joph's summary of topics thread, did you?
I did read it, but this wasn't covered. Rather than resurrect older threads that were already derailed, I decided to make a new attempt. I know it'll only be a matter of time beore we get the 'OMG GAYZ R TEH SUXORZ!' crowd in here, but I usually enjoy the pure beginnings of potentially intellectual discourse.
Quote:
Why do buddhists have to pay taxes that goto building bombs?
Exactly. All the more reason to minimize the State. There's no reason or need for the State to recognize any marriage whatsoever. Only individuals should recognize or not recognize marriage.
Quote:
Is it still relatively few or what? I'm too lazy to look it up.
<< also lazy, lol. Not sure how many either.
Nexa wrote:
Since when has marriage not been a religious matter? Ok, if you're gonna answer that, then also don't forget to answer since when has sexual behavior not been a State matter? If you want to impose legitimacy or illegitimacy by State fiat of marriage then prepare to make the case for the imposition of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of specific sexual behaviors by the State.
Being gay is not a choice, people cant help who they are attracted to. Religous beliefs are based on FAITH not FACT and therfore should not warrant any decision people do with their lives.
So EVERY person that gets married believes in God? No. EVERY person that gets married, does it in a Chruch? No. So wtf are you talking about. Sexual behavior? Old sodomy laws, most have gone out of the window if not all. Gay males are NOT the only ones that have buttsex, like the religious fanatics like to believe. You can have your beliefs, but dont push your faith on anyone, which is exactly what they are doing.
No one else is right because they believe by FAITH, that their god is the only god, so everyone else is wrong. Do I think gay people should be married in a Church? Truthfully, no because it is against Christian beliefs, so each Church has their decision to make. Your FAITH should not decide law, period.
~edit: I'm Atheist and that goes against Christian beliefs, so I guess I'm next.
MonoxDot wrote:
Exactly. All the more reason to minimize the State. There's no reason or need for the State to recognize any marriage whatsoever. Only individuals should recognize or not recognize marriage.
How about we just make one leader of the country and he give all people the same amount of money, and control how many babies I can have. While your at it, control how many males and females are born. All our wages go to him and no one has any say in anything. Maybe get a little crazy and have no government at all, just let all the religions in America fight for power, who ever is alive in the end controls America, and then I shall be killed for my disbelief in god. Perfect.
*vomit*
Edited, Jun 9th 2006 at 9:07am EST by kalaria
Edited, Jun 9th 2006 at 9:13am EST by kalaria
kalaria wrote:
Gay males are the only ones that have buttsex
That's not true. To prove it, I'll stop by tonight and introduce your bountiful ebony *** to my oversized ivory tusk....
Well since its unlikely that government is going to get out of the marriage game I would like to hear a solid argument why they should offer benefits to hetero couples in long term relationships and not homosexual couples (without bringing up the breeding issue).
Historically its been more of a social/economic matter than religious.
Quote:
Since when has marriage not been a religious matter?
Historically its been more of a social/economic matter than religious.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
I wrote:
Gay males are NOT the only ones that have buttsex, like the religious fanatics fail to understand.
Fixed.
Quote:
That's not true. To prove it, I'll stop by tonight and introduce your bountiful ebony *** to my oversized ivory tusk....
You scare me, eep!
Edited, Jun 9th 2006 at 9:53am EST by kalaria
#18REDACTED,
Posted: Jun 09 2006 at 9:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Being gay may not be a choice, but any sexual activity certainly is a choice.
Quote:
/nod. So I've shown the true solution is to dismantle State interference in marriage, absolutely. There's no reason you can't get married by the Atheist Church or the Atheist Society Aginst Church. Whatever. Same for any Christian denomination Church with the word "Gay" put in front of that Christian denomination name. You and whomever wishes to freely recognize and legitimize that action is free to do so, and likewise all those who do not wish to freely recognize and legitimize that are also free to do so.
That's true tolerance.
That's true tolerance.
Marriage does not = religion. I dont want to be married, I would not join Athesit society against Church, cause Im not against Church, its just not my beleifs. I can respect believers in God. Just because I don't believe in any higher power doesnt mean I think all churches should be banned. People need to keep their beliefs to themselves without trying control other people lives based on those beliefs.
Quote:
Historically its been more of a social/economic matter than religious.
Nuff said.
Edited, Jun 9th 2006 at 9:30am EST by kalaria
Quote:
Historically its been more of a social/economic matter than religious.
Oh yeah? Then ceremony and recognition would have nothing to do with marriage.
MonxDoT wrote:
Quote:
Historically its been more of a social/economic matter than religious.
Oh yeah? Then ceremony and recognition would have nothing to do with marriage.
If you were catholic maybe.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
Oh yeah? Then ceremony and recognition would have nothing to do with marriage.
I wrote:
So EVERY person that gets married believes in God? No. EVERY person that gets married, does it in a Chruch? No. So wtf are you talking about.
The weddings I have been to, only the ones that believe in God had the religious tradition put in the ceremony and were married by a priest. The others I have been to, got married by a judge, then had their own ceremony WITHOUT having any Christian beliefs ties to it. Infact it was a Wiccan ceremony. So.. wtf are you talking about?
Edited, Jun 9th 2006 at 9:32am EST by kalaria
allenjj wrote:
I did read it, but this wasn't covered.
Monx wrote:
Then ceremony and recognition would have nothing to do with marriage.
I'm not sure what you mean by recognition. Social and economic contracts are recognized as well, after all.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
No one covered civil unions in any of the twenty-five or so pages worth of gay marriage thread?
Nope.
#25REDACTED,
Posted: Jun 09 2006 at 9:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Even a State Judge goes through ceremony and recognition in the marriage ritual/process. What's even that ten minutes for? Otherwsie, anyone could just say they were married to anyone and that would be, should be, the end of it. That takes care of the social/economic aspect entirely; getting married. Involving judges, involving priests, involving the Church, involving the State, is all about ceremony and recognition.
MonxDoT wrote:
Even a State Judge goes through ceremony and recognition in the marriage ritual/process. What's even that ten minutes for?
Quote:
Otherwsie, anyone could just say they were married to anyone and that would be, should be, the end of it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 349
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (349)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Solving the gay marriage issue
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC