A solution for gay marriage

[The Alma Mater]

Not all states. And it will still be a valid marriage. The word marriage will be tainted.

And of course, there would STILL be gay marriages in this situation. Just find a willing church and presto - one gay marriage, just as holy as your own.
I recommend the Unitarians.

Your line of reasoning is strange to me, could you explain your stance on this issue instead of playing pretend?

My stance is that religious people who believe that "getting the state out of marriage" would protect their precious unions against the "evils" of gay marriage are shortsighted idiots, simply due to the fact that other religions might not agree with THEIR defintion of the word.

In other words: you would not get legal recognition of gay marriage - but you would not get legal recognition of straight marriage either AND the word marriage becomes utterly meaningless since every religious group can define it as they see fit.

[Dyakovo]

What people are these? Homophobes?

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

Legalizing same-sex marriages doesn't force anything on anyone.

[North Defese]

Your line of reasoning is strange to me, could you explain your stance on this issue instead of playing pretend?

My stance is that religious people who believe that "getting the state out of marriage" would protect their precious unions against the "evils" of gay marriage are shortsighted idiots, simply due to the fact that other religions might not agree with THEIR defintion of the word.

In other words: you would not get legal recognition of gay marriage - but you would not get legal recognition of straight marriage either AND the word marriage becomes utterly meaningless since every religious group can define it as they see fit.

So it's better to force them all to adopt a single definition of marriage? Not just us, but the state forcing them to sanction and recognize something that is against their religious values and beliefs.

[Dyakovo]

You would... Which is just further evidence of how bad an idea it is.

Ok, then what about me?

You're just not thinking it through.

[The Halbetan Union]

I would prefer butt buddies, honestly.

[Dyakovo]

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.

Marriage was a secular institution before it was a religious one.

[The Alma Mater]

My stance is that religious people who believe that "getting the state out of marriage" would protect their precious unions against the "evils" of gay marriage are shortsighted idiots, simply due to the fact that other religions might not agree with THEIR defintion of the word.

In other words: you would not get legal recognition of gay marriage - but you would not get legal recognition of straight marriage either AND the word marriage becomes utterly meaningless since every religious group can define it as they see fit.

So it's better to force them all to adopt a single definition of marriage? Not just us, but the state forcing them to sanction and recognize something that is against their religious values and beliefs.

Well, instead of asking the STATE to change the word marriage to civil union, they themselves could change the name of their ceremony to someting else.
Matrimony for instance.

True, still has the same problem, but hey

[New Lusitaniagrad]

Or perhaps the government could leave personal matters like this to the people in question.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Marriage was a secular institution before it was a religious one.

And long before it was a Christian religious one, which is pretty much what we're talking about in the US.

[Laerod]

That's an evil and anti-American position to hold. The idea that the majority is the end all legitimizer goes against the very core beliefs behind the founding of America.

Not following isolationsim also goes against some of those core beliefs...

Not really. If that were the case then the constitution wouldn't provide for treaties being supreme law of the land.

[The Alma Mater]

Or perhaps the government could leave personal matters like this to the people in question.

As long as you do not want the 1000+ legal and tax benefits the state offers to married couples, it is usually happy to do so.

[Laerod]

Or perhaps the government could leave personal matters like this to the people in question.

That's about as reasonable as leaving segregation up to Mississippi.

[Wiztopia]

Nope. Gay Marriage should be allowed. Your compromise isn't good because the homophobes would win.

[Coffee Cakes]

Or perhaps the government could leave personal matters like this to the people in question.

That's about as reasonable as leaving segregation up to Mississippi.

If that were the 1960's you'd be right, but not nowadays.

[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.

Marriage was a secular institution before it was a religious one.

Is it seen that way now? No?
Gee, then it really isn't all that strange for us to be treating it with the definition it is used for now instead of before.

Or do you support just shouting that you're married from the town marketplace?

I'm not proposing that we ban anything, I'm saying we need to revoke the STATES banning on same sex marriage, and that they sanction and recognize them as legitimate. I've said before that it should be left up to the choice of the church(es) or religious institutions in question if they want to recognize them or not.

If they don't, then good on them. It should be their right. But with the state recognizing the marriage the couple gets all the benefits and problems that a heterosexual couple would have.

[Unchecked Expansion]

So it's better to force them all to adopt a single definition of marriage? Not just us, but the state forcing them to sanction and recognize something that is against their religious values and beliefs.

The state recognises pork as a valid food source, despite Muslims and Jews disagreeing. It doesn't force them to eat it though

[The Alma Mater]

Nope. Gay Marriage should be allowed. Your compromise isn't good because the homophobes would win.

Actually, they would lose. Remove the state from marriage, and every church that desires to do so can perform gay marriage ceremonies that are in every way just as valid as the homophobes straight ceremonies. Nothing they will be able to do about it.

Aaah, lovely irony

[North Defese]

So it's better to force them all to adopt a single definition of marriage? Not just us, but the state forcing them to sanction and recognize something that is against their religious values and beliefs.

The state recognises pork as a valid food source, despite Muslims and Jews disagreeing. It doesn't force them to eat it though

You realize that we're agreeing with each other, right?

[The Alma Mater]

Is it seen that way now?

Yes ? Plenty of atheists marry.

[Rhodmhire]

I say we dismantle our power grids and just have a giant spoked wheel in the center of the United States, forcing all of the gays to turn it so that we can get our power that way. That'd offer a solution to two things: our energy problems and gay marriage, since they wouldn't have to get married to spin the wheel.

Or we could just let them get married like everyone else, that's an option too.

But then where would we get our power from?

[Wiztopia]

Nope. Gay Marriage should be allowed. Your compromise isn't good because the homophobes would win.

Actually, they would lose. Remove the state from marriage, and every church that desires to do so can perform gay marriage ceremonies that are in every way just as valid as the homophobes straight ceremonies. Nothing they will be able to do about it.

Aaah, lovely irony

I don't even see why people think marriage is a religious thing.

[Laerod]

That's about as reasonable as leaving segregation up to Mississippi.

If that were the 1960's you'd be right, but not nowadays.

Actually, Brown v. Board of Education still stands, so it's still as unreasonable as it was back then, with the added bonus that it'd be illegal as well.

[The Alma Mater]

Actually, they would lose. Remove the state from marriage, and every church that desires to do so can perform gay marriage ceremonies that are in every way just as valid as the homophobes straight ceremonies. Nothing they will be able to do about it.

Aaah, lovely irony

I don't even see why people think marriage is a religious thing.

Church brainwashing.

Well, and admittedly the church being the main place that kept the records for centuries.

[-St George]

I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

This.

Times 1 fucking billion.

[Flameswroth]

Nope. Gay Marriage should be allowed. Your compromise isn't good because the homophobes would win.

Actually, they would lose. Remove the state from marriage, and every church that desires to do so can perform gay marriage ceremonies that are in every way just as valid as the homophobes straight ceremonies. Nothing they will be able to do about it.

Aaah, lovely irony

Exactly.

No one would be forced, of course, but as time progresses there will be plenty enough churches who see the writing on the walls and choose to accept homosexuality, up to and including conducting marriages for them. And at that point, the churches that don't like it can't do a dang thing against it. If what I theorize is correct, and it's a mentality of 'mine is only special because they can't have it', this will bug people like me (but more religious) up the wall.