APP - damo, dixie and i agree

Jarod said:
But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?
Click to expand...

because religious extremists do not want unions between anything other than one man and one woman called marriage

this would allow other forms (including homosexual unions and plural unions) to be legal and allow benefits now only available to traditional unions
 
DonQuixote said:
because religious extremists do not want unions between anything other than one man and one woman called marriage

this would allow other forms (including homosexual unions and plural unions) to be legal and allow benefits now only available to traditional unions
Click to expand...
And there are currently churches that perform ceremonies for gays, this would allow their religious beliefs to have the same foundation in freedom as those of the majority religious doctrine.
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. It's just queer sex: normal natural healthy and moral, just like you say. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I honestly couldn't care any less if it was or wasn't healthy. If it is between two consenting adults it is none of my business.

We have laws that would protect their children, just as they would if they didn't marry and had kids as they do very often nowadays.
 
Damocles said:
However traditionally licensing for marriages were regulated solely by the churches. It wasn't until the mid-1800s, in order to make laws against inter-racial marriage, that licensing by the government even appeared at all in the US. Previous to that you can find licenses issued by the churches, but no government entity.

Common law "marriage" was recognized for those who wished to simply say they were "married"...

Nowadays only 10 states recognize common law marriage, "marriage" is seen as a money maker as they collect fees for the licenses...

Again this would make it so that no benefit was tied to the religious ceremony of "marriage" if you wanted to get married you would go to a church, if you wanted the benefits of a union you would have to file the contractual agreement.
Click to expand...

That is already the deal. As you noted it was changed in the mid 1800's. Now the license has nuthing to do with religen and I can get a purely civil ceramony and most people will consider me married.

I have a civil union, based on your description, but semanticly its called a marriage by the government. Again, you merely want to change the semantics.
 
DonQuixote said:
because religious extremists do not want unions between anything other than one man and one woman called marriage

this would allow other forms (including homosexual unions and plural unions) to be legal and allow benefits now only available to traditional unions
Click to expand...

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Also a turd by any other name is still a turd.
 
Jarod said:
That is already the deal. As you noted it was changed in the mid 1800's. Now the license has nuthing to do with religen and I can get a purely civil ceramony and most people will consider me married.

I have a civil union, based on your description, but semanticly its called a marriage by the government. Again, you merely want to change the semantics.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, licenses are used by the government in most of the states to support the religious doctrine of the majority religion. IMO it is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment...

That the government misused the terminology to make you feel better doesn't change that this licensing is what I have pointed out it is. They use the licenses to limit marriages based on either their dogma, or the dogma of the majority religion. Neither should be forced on people and neither would be the case if it was solely a contractual agreement.

And again, the current "government" solution (approved religious doctrine disguised as secular licensing) would never recognize a "union" contract between two sisters as I previously posted about. They would if all it was is a contractual agreement, which is as far as the government should have the power to reach.

It isn't the government's place to limit your consensual adult relationships according to the will of any others, and it is specifically forbidden that they do it according to the dogmatic beliefs of the majority religion.
 
Damocles said:
You are wrong, licenses are used by the government in most of the states to support the religious doctrine of the majority religion. IMO it is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

How so, here in florida anyway and I belvie in most states the license has nuthing to do with religen, it may have its roots in religen, but no longer based on religen.

What is the religous componant?
 
Damo, am I married? No religous institution had anything to do with my marrage.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
good point....we've never had a thread on gay marriage before....we should take the time to explore everyone's thoughts on the issue.....
Click to expand...

So instead of saying anything intelligent or discussing the option proposed, you think just adding insults is the answer?
 
Damocles said:
I honestly couldn't care any less if it was or wasn't healthy. If it is between two consenting adults it is none of my business.

We have laws that would protect their children, just as they would if they didn't marry and had kids as they do very often nowadays.
Click to expand...

One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.
 
Jarod said:
How so, here in florida anyway and I belvie in most states the license has nuthing to do with religen, it may have its roots in religen, but no longer based on religen.

What is the religous componant?
Click to expand...
Yet it does. Why would they not allow two brothers who simply wanted easy inheritance paths to get that license rather than spending thousands on lawyers to set up the same benefits? Why would they not allow gay people to?

Any consenting adult could enter a contractual agreement, with your marriage it is limited to what matches the religious beliefs of the majority because the government got into the business of marriage.

These licenses are tools of the government used to support the dogmatic beliefs of the majority religion.
 
WinterBorn said:
So instead of saying anything intelligent or discussing the option proposed, you think just adding insults is the answer?
Click to expand...

lol...pampers just had a hissy yesterday accusing me of this....

btw, i agree with the OP as well

it works for everyone, those that want to keep the tradition keep the tradition and those who believe the reality that marriage is solely a contract under US law get to have the equal rights....

i would add though, that the government should not confine "marriage" solely to religious institutions, if elvis still wants to marry folks in vegas, go for it, however, said ceromony, just like a religious wedding would have no legal affect until the parties "contract" under civil union laws
 
Southern Man said:
One of those laws should be to prohibit adoption by persons engaging in unhealthy sexual practices and abnormal behavior, like homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Should people who smoke be allowed to adopt? What about those who eat big mac's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top