Yay! Conservatives get pimpslappedFollow

I'm not discussing it for the legal stand point of the situation. They're people with hopes and wishes like the rest of us, and it is not my place to stand in the way of that.



Again, it is not the state and it's policies in which I am concerned about.

It is the trampeling of faith that I see as the problem in the discussion.



Now that's an argument I hadn't thought of yet. Thanks for a good mind jog :D



So, in a discussion outside of political agenda, nobody in the world has faith or even believes there is such a thing as "religious union"?

Delusional? I say excentric

Edited, Nov 9th 2006 at 10:37pm PST by Sorcath

Edited, Nov 9th 2006 at 10:41pm PST by Sorcath

That's everyone's point. There IS no faith issue because what the government calls marriage and what the Church calls marriage are two different things. Hence you needing to fill out government forms for your religious vows to be legal.

If you're going to dig that deep, then I wouldn't equate marriage with religion any more than I would equate farming with religion. Marriage back in early days was a political affair. Everything back in those days had the Religion sprinkled over it. The Religions attachment to marriage is a last attempt to claim something else that should be wholly secular.




By association. I would argue and say that people think more of Church. i would go further to argue that MORE people probably think more along the lines of money, moneypolitics, money.

If you choose to think of it as a Christian monothieistic fairy tale, then go right ahead, just don't tell me how think of it.
and I'm not gay.




yeah, so they still will be. and then new smaller buisnesses will pop up to get swallowed by the larger ones who are hungry and it's all a nice proper little foodchain of capitalism.

Ok, well maybe it's my extreme views of having no connection between church and state why I'm not getting this, but I find the idea utterly propostirous.

I mean, I know that you have to fill out government forms to be legaly married, but hell, it's ridiculous.







Now I wouldn't say that.

Yup. I hear Athiests are marrying too.

I bet the Pope ain't too happy about that.

While we're at it, what's with the absurd idea that marriage is the province of monotheistic religions? Any Cultural Anthropology for Boneheads course will tell you that every culture on the planet has some form of marriage as part of their social structure, regardless of whether or not their society embraces a single diety, multiple dieties, or no diety at all.

At it's most basic (in aboriginal cultures) marriage the agreement which decides who has sexual access to whom, and may include polygynous unions, polyandrous unions, unions between men, unions between women, and anything in between, depending on what each individual society permits. In more politically structured societies, marriage also becomes a civic contract by which property distribution and inheritance is established. All of this happens regardless of the number of dieties embraced by any particular culture.

There are many cultures out there that allow for same-sex unions. Many cultures have means by which a person may choose to become transgendered, thus you have male "women" and female "men," who then perform the functions designated to their chosen sex within the society, including marrying someone of the (now) "opposite" sex. Some polygynous societies allow for a wife who is getting past her childbearing years to assume the role of a man and take a new wife, sexual access to whom she may or may not share with the husband to whom she is still married.

In some matrilineal cultures, a "marriage" comprises little more than sexual access. Husband and wife may procreate, but they live separately and most of the day-to-day functions of a husband (the providing of food and shelter and protection, and the rearing of any children the woman may have) are performed by the woman's brother.

The concept of marriage is ultimately a social convention, not a religious one.

Good point.

/points at Michigan

Nice that you finally admit y'all were racist reactionaries. Unapologetic, R-A-C-I-S-T-S. And you can take that, to the Constitution.



Talk about understatement, say hello to my new, leaner than gay murriage, friendly amendment. Bye bye Bill.

Not to mention Brokeback Asylum is cumming to a post near you! It's the steamy story of the forbidden "ugly" love between right and left. /smooches

Uh maybe because it isn't a fight 'against' gay marriage, but a fight of 'gay' marriage *against* 'sans all adjective' marriage[Z]? Since when was marriage 'qualified'? And for Bonus Points, Why?