NationStates

North Defese wrote:

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.

I can quite easily go to a registry office with my partner and get married without bringing any religion into the thing. The definition of marriage is already secular. People saying that marriage isn't the governments business and is a purely religious thing are the ones trying to redefine it

Buffett and Colbert wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:That's not a compromise... That's giving the homophobes what they want...

I'd take that compromise. *shrug*

Buffy, will you civil union me?..

Nah, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. How about redefining the word "marriage" to become more synonymous with the term "civil union" and vice versa?

North Defese wrote: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. :unsure:

Marriage wasn't orignially a religious institution. You could just as well argue that the church has no business in messing with an originally secular declaration of union between two persons.

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

Except marriage ISN'T a religious matter

If it were, the followers of the Church of the Grand Flaming Potato would be allowed to marry their sunflowers.

Which of course leads us the the tiny flaw with the OPs brilliant scheme: there is more than one religion - and many of them do not define marriage the way the Christian right wants.

So have fun with your religious unions of man and 9 year old girl, man and 300 women, man and horse - and yes - EVEN man and man. All completely and utterly equal to your own marriage.

Libertarian Mesa wrote:

Malgrave wrote:I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.

Actually, trying to think who it was... I'm pretty sure Dyakovo... at least that sounds right... or maybe Geniasis... quoted a study in the last month or two that showed that over half of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't sound like people not wanting it to me.

Unidox wrote:

Buffett and Colbert wrote:I'd take that compromise. *shrug*

Buffy, will you civil union me?..

Nah, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. How about redefining the word "marriage" to become more synonymous with the term "civil union" and vice versa?

To some, marriage is something defined religiously, which is mainly why changing the definition upsets people. Apparently it can never be understood as separate, the definitions the government uses and religions use.

Seperate Vermont wrote:

North Defese wrote:

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.

Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

Coffee Cakes wrote:

Libertarian Mesa wrote:People do not want it.

Actually, trying to think who it was... I'm pretty sure Dyakovo... at least that sounds right... or maybe Geniasis... quoted a study in the last month or two that showed that over half of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't sound like people not wanting it to me.

Oh, but traditionalists are always acting on the mandate of the people in opposition to the snobby idealistic elitists that seek to destroy popular rights in favor of their own progressive agenda.

North Defese wrote:

Farnhamia wrote: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.

And no one who is serious about gay marriage is proposing that churches be forced to do anything except deal with the fact that we can get married and call it that. So good, what's next?

Laerod wrote:

Libertarian Mesa wrote: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.

If people want it, I'm fine with it.

Laerod wrote:

North Defese wrote: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.

Marriage wasn't orignially a religious institution. You could just as well argue that the church has no business in messing with an originally secular declaration of union between two persons.

I am going to argue that the church has no place in messing with a civil union between two couples, because it's a legal matter and not up to the church or religious institution in question.

North Defese wrote:

Seperate Vermont wrote:
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.

Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

What is marriage?

Coffee Cakes wrote:

Libertarian Mesa wrote:People do not want it.

Actually, trying to think who it was... I'm pretty sure Dyakovo... at least that sounds right... or maybe Geniasis... quoted a study in the last month or two that showed that over half of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't sound like people not wanting it to me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

There you go.

Get the government out of marriage. Then, folks can create whatever the hell churches they want to cater to whoever the hell they want. For goodness sake, you can get married at a joint in Vegas and it still counts. So why the hell not?

Sovereign Spirits wrote:Get the government out of marriage.

You realize that government recognition of marriages denotes tax rebates and the like, right?

North Defese wrote:
Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

You can be married by the pope and unless you fill in the forms, you aren't married. A religious ceremony isn't a modern marriage, signing on the dotted line in front of a government official is what makes a marriage.

Sovereign Spirits wrote:Get the government out of marriage.

That protects far too many liberties and ensures people live free of pre-defined moral agendas.

Karshkovia wrote:First off, this isn't a rant for or against gay marriage but a possible solution that could be acceptable to all sides of the issue.

Queue stupid compromise that tries to keep marriage a religious concept, which it isn't.

My thought is that Instead of issuing marriage licenses, the Government would be limited to issuing 'civil union licenses' instead for any couple, gay or straight with the same rights currently associated with marriage licenses. If a couple wishes to be married, they could find a church which then would perform a marriage ceremony over the couple and sanctify it by whatever religious belief that couple chose. This way, churches that refuse to marry gay couples wouldn't need to, and those churches that welcomed gay couples would be allowed to marry them.

Called it.

In the Government's eyes, all people...all couples...would be equal via civil unions. The large religious sects wouldn't be able to force their views/beliefs on the entire populous. "Marriage" would probably still be used by the general public to talk about these unions regardless if a marriage ceremony was performed by a church or not....and being married in a church wouldn't do anything more than provide a ceremony for the couple...as it is now.

Missing the Point^TM. Marriage is not, and never has been, the property of the Church. I say this as a Christian. And de jure equality is not, and never has been, de facto equality. Your suggestion makes marriage a two tier hierarchy between Married couples, and civil union couples.

Again, a win-win for all sides.

No, it's not. At all.

Greater Cabinda wrote:

Sovereign Spirits wrote:Get the government out of marriage.

You realize that government recognition of marriages denotes tax rebates and the like, right?

Oh, so now you want gay people to take part in the sacred institution of tax rebates too? You liberals sicken me.

North Defese wrote:

Laerod wrote:Marriage wasn't orignially a religious institution. You could just as well argue that the church has no business in messing with an originally secular declaration of union between two persons.

I am going to argue that the church has no place in messing with a civil union between two couples, because it's a legal matter and not up to the church or religious institution in question.

And you fully support the idea that a religious marriage performed by Religion X between a man, a cow and a thousand 9 year old girls is just as holy as your own ?

Seperate Vermont wrote:

North Defese wrote:
Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

What is marriage?

Personal definition?
A recognition of a union between two people are recognized by the church, another religious institution, or a legal body.

But because we have the issue of the government becoming involved in religious matters, I've always tried to keep two definitions of marriage. One religious, and one legal definition.

Because just as same sex couples have the right to have their union recognized by the government, we shouldn't force religious institutions to recognize them if (and when) it goes against their traditional definition of marriage. It's not the place of the government to determine what an organization of faith does.

(Obviously I don't condone exteremist views or violence against homosexuals, which would be rather masochist of me)

Unchecked Expansion wrote:

North Defese wrote:
Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

You can be married by the pope and unless you fill in the forms, you aren't married. A religious ceremony isn't a modern marriage, signing on the dotted line in front of a government official is what makes a marriage.

And in that respect, a marriage is the union of two persons that is recognized by the government, and one way to do that is to go through religion or a religious service.

Seperate Vermont wrote:

Unchecked Expansion wrote:You can be married by the pope and unless you fill in the forms, you aren't married. A religious ceremony isn't a modern marriage, signing on the dotted line in front of a government official is what makes a marriage.

And in that respect, a marriage is the union of two persons that is recognized by the government, and one way to do that is to go through religion or a religious service.

Why only two ? Solomon had more wives

Seperate Vermont wrote:And in that respect, a marriage is the union of two persons that is recognized by the government, and one way to do that is to go through religion or a religious service.

But the thing is, the religious service, the vows and everything, are not required. You can be married wherever and however you like - the important part is the legal recognition

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

Same thing if we got rid of straight people.

As long as there are people disagreeing, nothing will ever become a moot point, marriage included.