Gay marriage

[Carlawarla 1]

I vote 'no' because I think it will corrupt our youth and turn them into rapists, child molesters or (gasp!) other gay people!

Not only that but men might spurn their wives in favour of "attractive livestock", and our cities will turn into Soddom and Gomorrah - which God will wrinkle his nose at, and promptly turn to dust.

I voted yes, and I'm a very firm believer in this.

I really hope this was said in jest, re: above. I work as a therapist with sexual offenders, and have done so for 25 years. With MY experience and knowledge, I can assure you, that over 98% of rapists and child molesters are HETEROSEXUAL males. When are people going to stop believing this myth about gay people molesting children???

[cartaverde 12]

I don't see more problems when people of the same sex love each other than when people of opposite sexes do. It's all about the people themselves, and about love.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Yeah, I always wanted a civil union. What the he!l is this ####### about having marriage as a legal term? A little too much Church in my State. Let's make all unions civil unions and marriage is something you do in church.

You're making a mistake here, the word "marriage" does not have religious connotations necessarily. The Christian Conservatives who are against gay marraige want you to think marriage is a religious ceremony only, as a way to justify not allowing gays to marry. If you look in the dictionary for the word marriage you'll find that marriage is the union of two people* , recognised by law. Marriage is a legal term for a civil union, the church has nothing to do with it. Hence why non-religious people such as justices can perform marriages.

*depending on what dictionary it will say opposite sex, but my Mac's built in Dictionary recognizes gay marriage!

Edited December 23, 2006 by dr_lha

[Alex+R 0]

Yeah, I always wanted a civil union. What the he!l is this ####### about having marriage as a legal term? A little too much Church in my State. Let's make all unions civil unions and marriage is something you do in church.

You're making a mistake here, the word "marriage" does not have religious connotations necessarily. The Christian Conservatives who are against gay marraige want you to think marriage is a religious ceremony only, as a way to justify not allowing gays to marry. If you look in the dictionary for the word marriage you'll find that marriage is the union of two people* , recognised by law. Marriage is a legal term for a civil union, the church has nothing to do with it. Hence why non-religious people such as justices can perform marriages.

*depending on what dictionary it will say opposite sex, but my Mac's built in Dictionary recognizes gay marriage!

I was making the distinction myself! If the Christian Conservatives want to get their undies in a bundle about the word "marriage," I'd prefer to let them have it for churches and religious settings only. Let's have "unions" be the only possible legal option, and no difference between a union and a marriage in the eyes of the law.

PS If only the Mac dictionary had some say in U.S. domestic policy.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I was making the distinction myself!

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.

Edited December 23, 2006 by dr_lha

[sparkofcreation 0]

I was making the distinction myself!

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.

But while everyone and their brother must recognize a LEGAL marriage (what some people here want to call a "civil union") (and I wonder how long it is until the DOMA is challenged as a violation of Article IV of the US Constitution), only the church in which a religious marriage is performed is obligated to recognize a RELIGIOUS marriage. Catholic churches do not recognize the religious validity of Jewish marriages, for example (if a Jewish couple converted to Catholicism, they would have to be re-married). So while a gay couple could get a religious marriage from many churches, other churches would not have to recognize that they were truly married in the religious sense.

There are many, many countries in which one must go to a civil registry office to get a legal marriage, and then can get married in a church later if they so wish. The state does not recognize the church wedding and the church does not recognize the civil wedding. Frankly, I think it's a great idea: get the church out of the state and the state out of the church. I'm not crazy about the idea of ceding the word "marriage" to religionists (I would much rather that either both be called marriage, or neither be), but it seems to be the simplest way to resolve the debate.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I was making the distinction myself!

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.

But while everyone and their brother must recognize a LEGAL marriage (what some people here want to call a "civil union") (and I wonder how long it is until the DOMA is challenged as a violation of Article IV of the US Constitution), only the church in which a religious marriage is performed is obligated to recognize a RELIGIOUS marriage. Catholic churches do not recognize the religious validity of Jewish marriages, for example (if a Jewish couple converted to Catholicism, they would have to be re-married). So while a gay couple could get a religious marriage from many churches, other churches would not have to recognize that they were truly married in the religious sense.

There are many, many countries in which one must go to a civil registry office to get a legal marriage, and then can get married in a church later if they so wish. The state does not recognize the church wedding and the church does not recognize the civil wedding. Frankly, I think it's a great idea: get the church out of the state and the state out of the church. I'm not crazy about the idea of ceding the word "marriage" to religionists (I would much rather that either both be called marriage, or neither be), but it seems to be the simplest way to resolve the debate.

In the US the church is already out of the marriage business though, as much as they would like to think they are central to it. The fact is marriage is a legal term covered by US laws. A church is just a place to get married, and it doesn't matter if an Archbishop or an elvis impersonator marries you in this country. That is the true separation of church and state.

The only reason religion is being mentioned in the gay marriage issue is that the neocons want to bring religion into everything, as it gives them a reason to do things that rallies their christian right voters to vote for them.

[Alex+R 0]

I was making the distinction myself!

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.

But while everyone and their brother must recognize a LEGAL marriage (what some people here want to call a "civil union") (and I wonder how long it is until the DOMA is challenged as a violation of Article IV of the US Constitution), only the church in which a religious marriage is [performed is obligated to recognize a RELIGIOUS marriage. Catholic churches do not recognize the religious validity of Jewish marriages, for example (if a Jewish couple converted to Catholicism, they would have to be re-married). So while a gay couple could get a religious marriage from many churches, other churches would not have to recognize that they were truly married in the religious sense.

There are many, many countries in which one must go to a civil registry office to get a legal marriage, and then can get married in a church later if they so wish. The state does not recognize the church wedding and the church does not recognize the civil wedding. Frankly, I think it's a great idea: get the church out of the state and the state out of the church. I'm not crazy about the idea of ceding the word "marriage" to religionists (I would much rather that either both be called marriage, or neither be), but it seems to be the simplest way to resolve the debate.

In the US the church is already out of the marriage business though, as much as they would like to think they are central to it. The fact is marriage is a legal term covered by US laws. A church is just a place to get married, and it doesn't matter if an Archbishop or an elvis impersonator marries you in this country. That is the true separation of church and state.

The only reason religion is being mentioned in the gay marriage issue is that the neocons want to bring religion into everything, as it gives them a reason to do things that rallies their christian right voters to vote for them.

Yes, so, why don't we stop having "marriage" be a legal term? That's my whole point. Why don't we leave marriage up to the couple. What does marriage have to do with the law anyway? Let's just allow people to announce they've become a union and give them all the rights married people enjoy today. Then Christians can go on and say "they're not married" and they won't have to worry about the institution of marriage being destroyed anymore.

So many Christians and conservatives are pro-gay rights, but against changing what the meaning of marriage is to them. Let's just take "marriage" out of the equation.

You can say marriage is a legal term all you want. That won't change the minds of about half the country.

[fitnessgirl 0]

i dont care iether they should marry or not............

[sparkofcreation 0]

I was making the distinction myself!

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.

But while everyone and their brother must recognize a LEGAL marriage (what some people here want to call a "civil union") (and I wonder how long it is until the DOMA is challenged as a violation of Article IV of the US Constitution), only the church in which a religious marriage is performed is obligated to recognize a RELIGIOUS marriage. Catholic churches do not recognize the religious validity of Jewish marriages, for example (if a Jewish couple converted to Catholicism, they would have to be re-married). So while a gay couple could get a religious marriage from many churches, other churches would not have to recognize that they were truly married in the religious sense.

There are many, many countries in which one must go to a civil registry office to get a legal marriage, and then can get married in a church later if they so wish. The state does not recognize the church wedding and the church does not recognize the civil wedding. Frankly, I think it's a great idea: get the church out of the state and the state out of the church. I'm not crazy about the idea of ceding the word "marriage" to religionists (I would much rather that either both be called marriage, or neither be), but it seems to be the simplest way to resolve the debate.

In the US the church is already out of the marriage business though, as much as they would like to think they are central to it. The fact is marriage is a legal term covered by US laws. A church is just a place to get married, and it doesn't matter if an Archbishop or an elvis impersonator marries you in this country. That is the true separation of church and state.

The only reason religion is being mentioned in the gay marriage issue is that the neocons want to bring religion into everything, as it gives them a reason to do things that rallies their christian right voters to vote for them.

No, actually, you can't be married by an Elvis impersonator, unless the Elvis impersonator is already clergy, or else certain types of government officials like a mayor, judge, justice of the peace, ship's captain, etc.

Now, there are bogus churches set up that will ordain anyone over the Internet, and so an Elvis impersonator could very well be ordained by that church. But the fact remains that he (or she, I guess) would have to be ordained (or become a mayor, judge, etc.) before performing marriages, and would be allowed to do so only because he had been ordained and not because he was an Elvis impersonator.

[sparkofcreation 0]

I was making the distinction myself!

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.

But while everyone and their brother must recognize a LEGAL marriage (what some people here want to call a "civil union") (and I wonder how long it is until the DOMA is challenged as a violation of Article IV of the US Constitution), only the church in which a religious marriage is [performed is obligated to recognize a RELIGIOUS marriage. Catholic churches do not recognize the religious validity of Jewish marriages, for example (if a Jewish couple converted to Catholicism, they would have to be re-married). So while a gay couple could get a religious marriage from many churches, other churches would not have to recognize that they were truly married in the religious sense.

There are many, many countries in which one must go to a civil registry office to get a legal marriage, and then can get married in a church later if they so wish. The state does not recognize the church wedding and the church does not recognize the civil wedding. Frankly, I think it's a great idea: get the church out of the state and the state out of the church. I'm not crazy about the idea of ceding the word "marriage" to religionists (I would much rather that either both be called marriage, or neither be), but it seems to be the simplest way to resolve the debate.

In the US the church is already out of the marriage business though, as much as they would like to think they are central to it. The fact is marriage is a legal term covered by US laws. A church is just a place to get married, and it doesn't matter if an Archbishop or an elvis impersonator marries you in this country. That is the true separation of church and state.

The only reason religion is being mentioned in the gay marriage issue is that the neocons want to bring religion into everything, as it gives them a reason to do things that rallies their christian right voters to vote for them.

Yes, so, why don't we stop having "marriage" be a legal term? That's my whole point. Why don't we leave marriage up to the couple. What does marriage have to do with the law anyway? Let's just allow people to announce they've become a union and give them all the rights married people enjoy today. Then Christians can go on and say "they're not married" and they won't have to worry about the institution of marriage being destroyed anymore.

So many Christians and conservatives are pro-gay rights, but against changing what the meaning of marriage is to them. Let's just take "marriage" out of the equation.

You can say marriage is a legal term all you want. That won't change the minds of about half the country.

*headdesk* And why don't we allow people to pick up a baby off the street and say "This is my child now" and treat the child as if it had been born to the couple?

Right. That's why we don't just "allow people to announce they're a union and give them all the rights married people enjoy today."

What we are talking about here, regardless of the name, is a legal and enforceable contract that makes another person, unrelated to you by blood, your nearest relative in all senses of the word, displacing your parents, siblings, and children. They automatically will inherit your property, can raise your children, make major medical decisions for you, will dictate how your funeral will be, and so on. (And, not least, can legally MOVE TO THE COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN OR TAKE YOU TO THEIRS.) It would be irresponsible of the state to not require some sort of legal ceremony, just as they require a legal ceremony for adoptions.

I don't really give a damn what it's called, but designating a complete stranger as your nearest relative is a serious legal business.

Edited January 2, 2007 by sparkofcreation

[Alex+R 0]

I was making the distinction myself!

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.

But while everyone and their brother must recognize a LEGAL marriage (what some people here want to call a "civil union") (and I wonder how long it is until the DOMA is challenged as a violation of Article IV of the US Constitution), only the church in which a religious marriage is [performed is obligated to recognize a RELIGIOUS marriage. Catholic churches do not recognize the religious validity of Jewish marriages, for example (if a Jewish couple converted to Catholicism, they would have to be re-married). So while a gay couple could get a religious marriage from many churches, other churches would not have to recognize that they were truly married in the religious sense.

There are many, many countries in which one must go to a civil registry office to get a legal marriage, and then can get married in a church later if they so wish. The state does not recognize the church wedding and the church does not recognize the civil wedding. Frankly, I think it's a great idea: get the church out of the state and the state out of the church. I'm not crazy about the idea of ceding the word "marriage" to religionists (I would much rather that either both be called marriage, or neither be), but it seems to be the simplest way to resolve the debate.

In the US the church is already out of the marriage business though, as much as they would like to think they are central to it. The fact is marriage is a legal term covered by US laws. A church is just a place to get married, and it doesn't matter if an Archbishop or an elvis impersonator marries you in this country. That is the true separation of church and state.

The only reason religion is being mentioned in the gay marriage issue is that the neocons want to bring religion into everything, as it gives them a reason to do things that rallies their christian right voters to vote for them.

Yes, so, why don't we stop having "marriage" be a legal term? That's my whole point. Why don't we leave marriage up to the couple. What does marriage have to do with the law anyway? Let's just allow people to announce they've become a union and give them all the rights married people enjoy today. Then Christians can go on and say "they're not married" and they won't have to worry about the institution of marriage being destroyed anymore.

So many Christians and conservatives are pro-gay rights, but against changing what the meaning of marriage is to them. Let's just take "marriage" out of the equation.

You can say marriage is a legal term all you want. That won't change the minds of about half the country.

*headdesk* And why don't we allow people to pick up a baby off the street and say "This is my child now" and treat the child as if it had been born to the couple?

Right. That's why we don't just "allow people to announce they're a union and give them all the rights married people enjoy today."

What we are talking about here, regardless of the name, is a legal and enforceable contract that makes another person, unrelated to you by blood, your nearest relative in all senses of the word, displacing your parents, siblings, and children. They automatically will inherit your property, can raise your children, make major medical decisions for you, will dictate how your funeral will be, and so on. (And, not least, can legally MOVE TO THE COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN OR TAKE YOU TO THEIRS.) It would be irresponsible of the state to not require some sort of legal ceremony, just as they require a legal ceremony for adoptions.

I don't really give a damn what it's called, but designating a complete stranger as your nearest relative is a serious legal business.

Uh, you can't honestly think that's what I meant....can you?

ETA: In case for some wacky reason you actually thought I meant the ridiculous scenario you have just described, I meant that people should be able to sign the paper (the papers being a union, not a marriage) to have all those things together with whomever they choose. Who said anything about not requiring some kind of paper signing? And FYI, people can already marry a stranger.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Alex+R

[mawilson 2,133]

Marriage was originally created as an institution for the purpose of acquiring wealth,

power and property. Marriage was primarily an economic and political transaction;

it was a way through which families could consolidate wealth, merge resources and

forge political alliances by strategically marrying off their sons and daughters.

Picking a partner based on something as irrational as love was considered absurd.

Only in the 19th century did marriage move to the centre of a relationship based

on mutual love.

[Rob and Melinda 0]

First of all The Lord created marriage, it is not a human institution. As such, he decided that it is between a man and a woman. We don't get to change the rules of marriage just to fit our personal ethics.

Rob

[vareska 3]

Are we talking about it in terms of civil law or religion? I see many people call on God in their posts...

I definitely think they should be able to marry.

As far as what God determined marriage to be, I will let the gays straighten that out with God on Judgement Day, it is not mine to meddle in.

But as legal right citizens, I most definitely think they should have that right.

I just love this whole debate about God and gays and marriage and morals, yet how many of you answered in the other poll that I just took here that you had more than one sexual partner. C'mon, hypocrites kill me, I swear.

Close your legs, keep it in your zipper and let the gays live!