Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Omnicracy]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

Are you sure you want to make marriage purely religious, with no legal recognition ? That would after all mean that every religion can define marriage as they see fit. The childbrides, harems, men marrying trees and people urinating in tin foil hats would nullify any meaning the word "marriage" has far quicker.

At least legal recognition gives it some universal meaning. Might not be the one your religion likes - but probably still better than the alternative.

First, it wouldn't be purely religious, it would become cultural. Second, religiouns would still have to form in wich you could get a marriage like that. Third, there is still the leagal civil union between two concenting adults.

[Kobrania]

I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the legal recognition of marriage. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

As has been pointed out repeatedly marriage is not (just) a religious term, it is also a secular one and all evidence points to it being a secular term before it was a religious one.

Aye.
There was also a priest around the 5th century that had monks form couples, can't remember where I read it though.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

[Mandolore the Enraged]

Neigh

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

Neigh

So you want to marry a horse?

[Farnhamia]

Neigh

So you want to marry a horse?

Maybe he thinks people will want to marry their horses and he doesn't want to.

[Goath]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LOL...if only there were the case.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LolWut?

[Grave_n_idle]

No I think the point is that it seems to be only thoese with certian religious convictions that are anti gay, and so because of these certian relgious convictions these people will vote for the goverment that seeks to outlaw such things as gay marriage.

Which all people will do vote for the party/representative that is most in line with their views.

Which is okay - we don't live in a nation that pretends to have separation of politics and state.

[Grave_n_idle]

Lol. I don't think we can base our legal system around that. Anyway, people can call it whatever the hell they want, and would very likely in almost all causes be called marriage still! I acknowledge this! I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

^this.

But the religious connotation is irrelevant.

Religion doesn't own marriage, and shouldn't be allowed to take it, just because they believe there is a connotation.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

Neigh

So you want to marry a horse?

Maybe he thinks people will want to marry their horses and he doesn't want to.

Now my horse is damn good lookin, but I think marrying the thing is an affront to my God's will. And my neighbor's ass is such a tramp, but I am not supposed to covet her....

[Grave_n_idle]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

You keep on saying this, as if it has some truth to it, but it really doesn't you know.

There aren't any at all to anyone?

It's irrelevant.

If taking a dump has religious connotations for some, it doesn't mean they should get to decide the 'taking a dump' laws, or that they somehow get to claim the terminology, and everyone else has to start calling it something else.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LolWut?

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

[Andrew Utterback]

God no, there should be no gay marriages. It's okay for females though.

[Grave_n_idle]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the legal recognition of marriage. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

As has been pointed out repeatedly marriage is not (just) a religious term, it is also a secular one and all evidence points to it being a secular term before it was a religious one.

It's really not a religious term. It's a legal term that religious people use - that doesn't make it a 'religious' term.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LolWut?

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

Morgan Freeman said that?

[Farnhamia]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LolWut?

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

But, there is no "Creator and Master of the Universe," so that argument fails. If you choose to worship the deity of a Bronze Age tribe of desert nomads, that's fine for you but please don't try to enshrine their 3,000 year-old morality on me in the 21st century. I am an adult citizen of the United States of America. Why should I - who happens to be gay - have fewer rights than any heterosexual citizen?

[Omnicracy]

Lol. I don't think we can base our legal system around that. Anyway, people can call it whatever the hell they want, and would very likely in almost all causes be called marriage still! I acknowledge this! I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

^this.

But the religious connotation is irrelevant.

Religion doesn't own marriage, and shouldn't be allowed to take it, just because they believe there is a connotation.

Okay, so would you refuse to change it all to civil unions on the grounds that you think thats stupid? It sounds like that is holding back equal rights more than anything else. Marriage would NEVER become a purely religious term no matter what. A purely cultural term? Yes, I think that is both possible and likely.

[Omnicracy]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

[Farnhamia]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

As long as no one married in a religious ceremony calls their union a marriage, yes. I only get bent out of shape when people say, "Well, you can just call it a civil union, you know, because 'marriage' is a sacred word that belongs to religion." Sorry, no. Since the only meaningful part, the registration of your union with the state, is not religious, I get to say "marriage," too. Anything else is second-class citizenship.

[Omnicracy]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

As long as no one married in a religious ceremony calls their union a marriage, yes. I only get bent out of shape when people say, "Well, you can just call it a civil union, you know, because 'marriage' is a sacred word that belongs to religion." Sorry, no. Since the only meaningful part, the registration of your union with the state, is not religious, I get to say "marriage," too. Anything else is second-class citizenship.

I think I understand what you say. As long as you still get to call it all marriage, even if the legal term has change, its okay. That is what you mean, right? If so, I do not believ that is what grave means.

[Grave_n_idle]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

It's the less immediate argument - but I'm not a short-term-victory guy.

'Marrying' is bringing things together in union. 'Marriage' IS a civil union. It already is. There's no point in letting an entire second system be set up when one already exists - and the fact that we've BEEN tolerating it, has created a second class society. Separate but equal is a lie - if it's separate, it's not equal.

[Milks Empire]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LolWut?

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

Morgan Freeman said that?

No Charleton Heston did, in the Ten Commandments.