Gays and marriage

[frpeter]

This is a venomous topic... Especially in light of Prop 8 being passed in California and similar laws in other areas. I have made my position on this quite clear: I don't believe Gays should have the right to marry. Now before you go jumping to the comment box to send a flaming response to this, read on. You will be surprised at what I have to say, and ultimately, may even agree irregardless of your sexual orientation.

Read More...

[t34b4g5]

Why not just post it up in this thread?

I really hate having to click a link to a users site just to read something, then having to click the back button just so i can make a post.

Why are people so determined to get there site some traffic via AO..??

[frpeter]

Why not just post it up in this thread?

I really hate having to click a link to a users site just to read something, then having to click the back button just so i can make a post.

Why are people so determined to get there site some traffic via AO..??

With the content being as heated as it is, I'd rather have heated message not hit AO. I did post the content on another forum site and learn very quickly that was a bad idea. Just trying to be considerate of AO and its users...

[SirDice]

So, if one is only able to get married by the Church, how the hell am I, being an atheist and straight, supposed to get married?

[frpeter]

So, if one is only able to get married by the Church, how the hell am I, being an atheist and straight, supposed to get married?

Take the church out of the picture to begin with and create a civil union with the DPALW as it foundational basis. The State then has no need to reconize church marriages. In essence the entire problem is nuetralized by utilitizing the legal framework that has already been provided and tested and truly seperating church and state. Divorce court would become a thing of the past as well. From the governmental level, it becomes a matter of administrating the contract.

The methodogy allows churches to maintain religious freedom without state interference and at the same time allows Gay to wed just as any other couple would. By removing "marriage" licences from the governmental level and instituting civil unions for everyone, a layer of total equality can be established without religios bias from any belief system, ie Christian, Muslim, Jewish and so forth.

Civil Union apply to everyone no matter what their belief system or sexual orientation. Church goes are still free to seek the blessing of their congragation as well if they so choose. Non-church goers will have exactly the same legal rights.

[fourdc]

An easier solution which would further separate church and state would be to have the current "marriage" license be the civil ceremony itself, that makes you legally committed to your partner (gay or straight). This would cover all of the legalities.

Then if you were of a religious nature and wanted to have the union blessed by your faith then you could, the blessing would not be a legal union.

"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars and render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's." Separation of church and state isn't a new idea.

Vermont like many other states has "common law" marriages where a couple lives as man & wife for 7 years they can be considered legally wed. Vermont also allows civil unions for gay couples.

If you don't want "gay marriages" then don't marry one!

I am married in a union that is recognized by church and state and I still have a DPA/LW.

I'm Catholic and now some priest in South Carolina says that because I voted for Obama I can't receive Communion. Abortion was the least of my issues when I was casting that ballot. If the Pope wants to increase the fold and correct the wrongs of previous years he better reign in some of the clerical fringe element... any other Christian churches have "open tables" for communion where any Christian is welcome

[rcgreen]

Lets starts by defining marriage. Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities. "Separation of Church and State" pundits have a real problem here. If the state governs marriage licenses, they are literally bringing the church, and its moral standings and practices, into the middle of government actions.

Actually, this is not true. I think most protestants would argue
strongly against this idea, because it implies that marriage
was created by the Church, mediated by the Church, and therefore
could be tied to one denomination. "Only a marriage performed
by our church is valid"

Someone marries outside my denomination, I can declare it invalid.
We have enough trouble with people looking for ways to duck out of
their marriages. I don't want preachers further undermining peoples'
relationships by telling them that by converting to this or that
denomination you can consider your marriage null and void.

Society at large has a stake in this, because of the resources they
have to spend dealing with domestic violence, runaway children
and so on. That's your tax money.

Switching to civil unions for everyone is only a change in name.
Marriage is so weak an institution already that it can't be enforced.
Those wanting to cheat can't really be forced to meet their
obligations as it is.

Gay marriage is really about money. Taxes play a part, but the biggest
issue is health insurance. In most employer-provided health policies,
you save a bundle by covering your spouse and children. It saves the
government the burden of caring for those kids, and is an incentive
to get and remain married.

If gay people, who are essentially single, can cash in on this benefit,
the insurance companies may crack under the burden and withdraw
spousal benefits altogether. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[SirDice]

I vote for a banning of all religions (no exceptions!). As they all have the same retarded world view. Stop living in the middle ages..

An easier solution which would further separate church and state would be to have the current "marriage" license be the civil ceremony itself, that makes you legally committed to your partner (gay or straight). This would cover all of the legalities.

This is how it works in Holland. A civil marriage is the only legal marriage. A church marriage is just a ceremony. The church marriage has to be done after the civil one or you could end up in jail.

[rcgreen]

This is how it works in Holland. A civil marriage is the only legal marriage.

It won't remain that way after the Muslims take over.

[frpeter]

An easier solution which would further separate church and state would be to have the current "marriage" license be the civil ceremony itself, that makes you legally committed to your partner (gay or straight). This would cover all of the legalities.

You have to take the word "marriage" out of the question to remove all religious contexts. Until that happens, some groups (Blacks, Christians, Jewish, Muslim, et al) will never except it and will always shoot it down. Prop 8 was pass by 77% of the black populas. This is far higher then any other populas involved.