A solution for gay marriage

[Living Freedom Land]

What people are these? Homophobes?

People, who have the right to control what the government forces on them.

You do realize that, no matter your position on gay marriage, letting gays marry forces nothing on heterosexuals. It merely allows homosexuals to do something they couldn't do before.

[Wilgrove]

Ehhh actually, according to Gallup.



Link

But what about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

America can do much better than hiding behind that excuse.

What do you mean? If America is not a bastion of democracy and freedom?

How does one law (that has been struck down as Unconstitutional BTW) prove your point?

There are laws and safeguard in this country to prevent the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority, which is why Prop 8 was struck down.

[The Parkus Empire]

But what about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

Maybe you should examine the chart a little more closely and compare years.

[Laerod]

What people are these? Homophobes?

People, who have the right to control what the government forces on them.

The government isn't going to force anyone to marry a same sex partner. Also, people do not have the right to control what the government forces on them.

[Flameswroth]

image

So it seems like we who dislike the gay are becoming the minority.

Give it a few years, maybe we'll get into colleges and receive scholarships just like all the other minorities!

[Farnhamia]

Ehhh actually, according to Gallup.



Link

But what about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

America can do much better than hiding behind that excuse.

What do you mean? If America is not a bastion of democracy and freedom?

I would hope so. Right now, I have fewer rights because I am gay than you, a heterosexual person, does. How does that promote democracy and freedom? Would you like having your rights subject to a vote, subject to the spending of people who think you are perverted, that your love for your partner is somehow not real? Would you? Answer that question, yes or no, please.

[Lackadaisical2]

What Palming your face for?

Separate but equal protects no one's rights.

Except theres no 'separate' part to his proposal, just equal.

[Wilgrove]

image

So it seems like we who dislike the gay are becoming the minority.

Give it a few years, maybe we'll get into colleges and receive scholarships just like all the other minorities!

....it doesn't work like that.

[Seperate Vermont]

What people are these? Homophobes?

The majority of Americans, otherwise it would be a law.

You know who wants it, liberal elitists who trump the rights of homosexuals while dismissing religious traditionalists as 'backwards' and 'not worthy of having an opinion.' Liberals are meant to be for equality right, an equal say for each person. So why are they forcing the rest of society to adopt their view towards homosexuals?

Tell me, how is wanting to define government separate from one party, in any way, 'forcing the rest of society to adopt views'?

Opposing a view does not mean that the party doing it is trying to end discourse on it. I do not see many liberals 'forcing' people to marry a person of the opposite sex. Challenging the credibility of an argument =/= That view infiltrating into policy.

Not everyone here wants their personal opinions of morality and credibility to become law.

[North Defese]

Instead of arguing over what "liberals" and "conservatives" want, how about we debate the issue that the OP put forth?

[Panmen]

:palm: Ever heard of seperate but equal? You know, that thing called segregation from the 1900's? Yea. That's basically what your suggesting. "Oh, you can't get MARRIED, but you can get a civil union, wich is basically the same." "You can't get married here, but you CAN here." Yea. THAT'LL WORK. It's ALWAYS worked in the past.

:mad:

[Seperate Vermont]

What do you mean? If America is not a bastion of democracy and freedom?

Democracy does not mean that people have absolute authority in determining the interpretation of rights. An important part of democracy is that no party wields that power, but that those powers are divided.

[Tergnitz]

People do not want it.

Religious extremists no longer count as people.

Even God calls them sheep.

^Exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Liberal elitist mentality were people not as 'enlightened' as you are obviously wrong and sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. And thus do not deserve a say in these matters.

[Libertarian Mesa]

But what about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29


What do you mean? If America is not a bastion of democracy and freedom?

I would hope so. Right now, I have fewer rights because I am gay than you, a heterosexual person, does. How does that promote democracy and freedom? Would you like having your rights subject to a vote, subject to the spending of people who think you are perverted, that your love for your partner is somehow not real? Would you? Answer that question, yes or no, please.

This is not a rights issue (look at the OP), but the redefinition of marriage.

But what about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

Maybe you should examine the chart a little more closely and compare years.

However, some areas are more conservative than others.

[Free Soviets]

The government isn't going to force anyone to marry a same sex partner.

yet.

[Karshkovia]

Your solution is not a unique one, at least not to this forum. Typically the response to such a system follows a format akin to the following:

"There has never been any intention to force churches to marry people, anyways. As such, all your solution does is kowtow to the religious sect wanting 'marriage' to be something special for them, which is not something we should have to do. If the gays want their union to be called a 'marriage', there should be nothing stopping them."

You did avoid the pitfall of having the government recognize them as equal with different names, though, which is a good thing, as otherwise people would suggest that having two different names opens up avenues to pass laws respecting one by name without the other.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, although I'm not sure it will sate the desire of most who want 'marriage' to remain hetero in name, as there would be nothing preventing homos from getting their own 'marriage' from a sympathetic church. It's not just about having the name for the hetero union, it's about having a name that's unique and separate from the homo's. And that's a tough order to fill without enforcement, and enforcement isn't really possible without showing favor to one over the other.

I think that allowing 'gay marriage' should be allowed but the religious right is really stepping on the separation of church and state by forcing their views of 'marriage' in a religious sense to the secular 'marriage license' issued by the government. If the 'compromise' is to allow separate but equal unions/marriages then I say cut the legs off of their argument. Make the secular marriage license a Union and which...if America really believes everyone is equal...gives every gay couple the same rights as every hetro couple.

I mean the argument of 'separate but equal' makes NO sense to me as this is just a twist on Jim Crow. Replace Gay couples with Black couples in that argument and then look at it. It is just segregation.

[Seperate Vermont]

This is not a rights issue (look at the OP), but the redefinition of marriage.

...And marriage, by interpretation, is a personal decision therefore, by extension, a right.

[Lackadaisical2]

:palm: Ever heard of seperate but equal? You know, that thing called segregation from the 1900's? Yea. That's basically what your suggesting. "Oh, you can't get MARRIED, but you can get a civil union, wich is basically the same." "You can't get married here, but you CAN here." Yea. THAT'LL WORK. It's ALWAYS worked in the past.

Again, there is no 'separate' to his proposal, all people would be entitled to the exact same service from the government as well as the same name for that service.

[North Defese]

Everyone who argues against this compromise more than likely scream for the government to maintain a seperation of church and state. Yet having the government forcing religious institutions to perform services that they would otherwise refuse to do so and find against their religious beliefs is rather hypocritical.

Since marriage is a religious matter sanctioned and handed out by religious institutions, the government shouldn't have the power to touch it.

This issue does have two sides however, as it would prevent states from banning the right of religious institutions who would otherwise have no other problem with the marriage of two same sex couples is legally forbiddon.

This issue in time will either be seen as people today see the issue of marriage between whites and blacks, or it will continue to be an issue for as long as there are people around to complain.

I see no problem in the government handing out papers or whatever that acknowledge that they are in a union, but I do have a problem with forcing churches to sanction a pratice they do not agree with, and one they should be legally allowed to refuse.

Not that I promote intolerance against homosexuals, which would be ironic.

This was lost in a surge of more arguments, and I've seen points that I've attempted to counter or bring up, so I'll restate my position on this and hope it's not ignored for the sake of more unconstructive bickering.

[Farnhamia]

Instead of arguing over what "liberals" and "conservatives" want, how about we debate the issue that the OP put forth?

Sure. It's unnecessary. The government should just issue "marriage licenses" to any couple that qualifies, without regard to their gender. Problem solved.

[Laerod]

This is not a rights issue (look at the OP), but the redefinition of marriage.

It's already been redefined. Gay marriage is legal in a few places by now. Also the redefinition of marriage has happened lots of times. For instance, it is now legal for blacks to marry whites in Virginia.

[Flameswroth]

So it seems like we who dislike the gay are becoming the minority.

Give it a few years, maybe we'll get into colleges and receive scholarships just like all the other minorities!

....it doesn't work like that.

Not yet...but it could!

I have a dream! I have a dream that one day our applicants to higher learning will not be judged by the severity of their homophobia, but by the intensity of their gnosophilia! I have a dream that young homophobes will be able to sit down among their homo-loving classmates and not be disparaged, but accepted for the human beings they are! I have a dream!

[North Defese]

Instead of arguing over what "liberals" and "conservatives" want, how about we debate the issue that the OP put forth?

Sure. It's unnecessary. The government should just issue "marriage licenses" to any couple that qualifies, without regard to their gender. Problem solved.

I agree with you, I see that as the best solution. We keep our seperation of church and state, religious organizations aren't forced to recognize the union (too bad really, but it's their right), and same sex couples get recognized by the government.

[Seperate Vermont]

Everyone who argues against this compromise more than likely scream for the government to maintain a seperation of church and state. Yet having the government forcing religious institutions to perform services that they would otherwise refuse to do so and find against their religious beliefs is rather hypocritical.

Since marriage is a religious matter sanctioned and handed out by religious institutions, the government shouldn't have the power to touch it.

This issue does have two sides however, as it would prevent states from banning the right of religious institutions who would otherwise have no other problem with the marriage of two same sex couples is legally forbiddon.

This issue in time will either be seen as people today see the issue of marriage between whites and blacks, or it will continue to be an issue for as long as there are people around to complain.

I see no problem in the government handing out papers or whatever that acknowledge that they are in a union, but I do have a problem with forcing churches to sanction a pratice they do not agree with, and one they should be legally allowed to refuse.

Not that I promote intolerance against homosexuals, which would be ironic.

This was lost in a surge of more arguments, and I've seen points that I've attempted to counter or bring up, so I'll restate my position on this and hope it's not ignored for the sake of more unconstructive bickering.

Since marriage is a religious matter

Marraige is a confusing thing to argue, esentially because it has two definitions: the one of the government and the one of the church. Often, bickering occurs when someone uses "marriage" to define something by the government when some religiously-sensitive person assumes it is their religious definition of "marriage". Then there are those that do not care if the two are mixed and quite frankly wouldn't mind seeing it so.

However, in the eyes of who should and shouldn't- Marriage, the union of two people as a right of those people, is not a religious matter. It is something that can be done through religion.

[Terrasricas]

Here's a solution: get rid of the gays, and gay marriage becomes a moot point.