![]() |
"Gay marriage is a step back in the march towards freedom."
LINKY
Quote:
|
Without even reading the article, I can state definitively that you are an imbecile. Wait, is that how you spell it?
Just kidding, you strapping buck, you. In all seriousness, I think the idea that you put forth (i.e., that all marriages be remade into civil unions with regard to legal status and making marriage a simply religious thing) is the key. Unrealistic, perhaps, but certainly better than the three recent gay marriages in NYC that weren't even legal. The whole thing is engineered by the sinister Bush crew to pick a fight for the election. |
Quote:
|
I don't know about the "strapping buck" thing, :) but I certainly agree.
Give 'em all civil unions and let's be done with this friviolous crap and move on to the more important things like giving Congressional raises and issuing inconsequential congressional resolutions. edit: Agree with the article, not the strapping buck thing....aww crap! |
I think its funny that a man with the last name Cockburn wrote an article about gays and gay marriage.
|
IMHO the whole thing should be done in a storefront legal shop in Guadalajara
|
Wow, I find it hard to believe that no one here is concerned with the idea that their marriage would be "degraded" to a "civil union" if this guy were to have his way.
|
Quote:
I don't get how marriage is tied up in the church. Anyone can go to a courthouse and get married. I'm a $20 reverend in the Universal Life Church and I have performed six weddings in Ohio, Washington, California, and Utah. So, I fail to understand the original point. Marriage on a federal and state level is *not* a religious institution, it's simply something that entitles you to certain governmental rights. |
im not gay, but im not againt it in anyway, but i feel this whole banning gay marriage is wrong. if two people are happy, its their free right to be married. right?
|
Quote:
If only for the sake of unifying the nation rather than polarizing it, I'd rather that marriage was not a civil institution. That is, the Christian majority is going to continue believing marriage is a religious institution, regardless. So we might as well take it out of the state's pervue. |
All I can say is that since the Government can't distinguish between the term "marriage" as being a government term or a religious term...maybe all references to marriage should be abolished from government because of the ties with church and religion. Maybe "civil union" is the proper term.
I'm all for the joining of two people in a union. Once I signed that marriage certificate that meant I was agreeing to be classified as married with the government, now as for as the ceremony...I signed another certificate saying I was married in the catholic church. Unfortunately, many narrow-minded people out there can't understand or even see the difference in the two. The first I spoke of allows me and my wife to share health insurance, make decisions for each other (in the event of being unable to do so), file taxes as a joint couple, and be responsible for each other financially. The latter just means that in the eyes of the church, we are married. I just wish people out there could understand that our constitution specifically calls for a separation of church and state so that we wouldn't have any official "government" sponsored religion. No matter how many of us are Christians, we need to understand that we cannot use the gov't to force others into the morals and values our beliefs preach. |
I agree this is all silly. If marrage is a religious thing, then how is it that 2 atheists can go get married at the courthouse? I assume it started as a religious event, that the government gave special benefits to as to make it more popular and promote families, or something like that. But I think that was a mistake, in my opinion it makes it look like the govt' endorses one religion (ie one that opposes gay marriage) and not another (ie one that does not oppose gay marriage). I wouldn't mind one bit calling my marriage a civil union, won't make the love I feel for my wife mean anything else, or lessen it a single degree.
|
Quote:
Too bad the constitution has lost the wieght it once had. |
When my wife and I were "married" we did so without a church and without a state.
We stood up in front of about 100 of our firends and family and each said why we were there and committed ourselves to each other. I don't believe in God so it would have been hypocitical to take a vow before a god I don't believe in. I also felt that the state had no business licensing me to be married. That said, we still felt a ceremony was important as it is a momentous occasion when two people decide to committ themselves to each other. To grow old together and have children... Legally we are common law. To each other, we are married. |
the point of the article is not that marrage is religious or state... it is too close to define, what he wants is a clear definition between a civil union(called a marriage) and a religious union(called a marriage)... i think he has a very good point... im not at all for or against gay marriage... its not my battle, however i do think that non married couples should be able to have the same benifits as married ones wether the couple is hetero, homo or some other crazy sexual thing i havnt even heard of... but once you do that, when is a couple intitled to such a union, and how would one disolve such a thing?
|
Quote:
I've always said that the real problem is that the government is trying to regulate what is essentially a religious institution. The religous aspect and the civil aspects of marriage need to be separated. And I think it's all fine and good to talk about "capitulation" and assimilation in terms of gays wanting to be part of what is essentially a hetero-defined culture, but people want what they want. It's a bit fascistic to demand that just because someone is a homosexual they must conform to some radical counter-cultural expectation of how they should behave. All successful "alternative" movements are eventually assimilated by the dominant culture, and in the process they shift and redefine the dominant culture while shedding some of their own more radical elements. Something new shows up to take its place, and the process begins again. It's the old "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" process. You can't expect a small population to singlehandedly redefine cultural norms simply by existing. Cultural change is incremental and demands compromises on both sides. If the path to acceptance of homosexuality is paved with bourgeois nesting instincts, so be it. |
Quote:
Quote:
The religious aspect of marriage is something the government should stay out of, I agree. Possibly they should give the power to legally marry people out to particular people, but what exact religious significance marriage has is something government should make no law about. However, changing piles and piles of legal mumbo-jumbo, replacing "marriage" with "civil union" in laws, making sure that "civil union" has the same common-law status, and all that, just because some numbnut idiots don't understand they don't have the right to own a word? Quote:
|
How dare the F.B.I. use my name in vain.......I am innocent I tell you, INNOCENT!
|
id rather have this "civil union" stuff than marriage
but thats not going to happen right now, so i see gay marriage as a step towards that it gets everyone equal, on the same level plus it pisses off the church so theyll want to take marriage away from the state |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project