Oregon judge orders recognition of Gay marriages...

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Why are same sex marriages wrong?

In my opinion, you have been ducking that question because we all know full well the only argument you can offer is religious, which cannot withstand the test of logic or historical basis.

Here is an answer for you. What purpose does marriage serve throughout history? To raise a family. Only recently has there ever been an issue that would ever make gay marriage wanted or needed. It is money. Cash. It is not about love or anything else. Every single reason anyone has listed as to why there needs to be gay marriage all comes down to 1) insurance 2) estates of deceased partners 3) taxes

Stop feeding bullshit about this being about anything other than the almighty dollar. There is absolutely zero reason for marriage between 2 people that simply cannot conceive a child together. If you want to lump the infertile people in the world together because you need an argument, then go ahead. Bling

[Lynks]

Definition of the word "family": Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

So you're saying just because the couple can't have kids they can't get married? What about the hundreds of thousands of people who are infertile and can't have kids, should they not be allowed to get married?

[Xzion]

Why are same sex marriages wrong?

In my opinion, you have been ducking that question because we all know full well the only argument you can offer is religious, which cannot withstand the test of logic or historical basis.

Here is an answer for you. What purpose does marriage serve throughout history? To raise a family. Only recently has there ever been an issue that would ever make gay marriage wanted or needed. It is money. Cash. It is not about love or anything else. Every single reason anyone has listed as to why there needs to be gay marriage all comes down to 1) insurance 2) estates of deceased partners 3) taxes

Stop feeding bullshit about this being about anything other than the almighty dollar. There is absolutely zero reason for marriage between 2 people that simply cannot conceive a child together. If you want to lump the infertile people in the world together because you need an argument, then go ahead. Bling

by your logic...
-infertal people have no business getting married
-people who do not want children yet want to be togeather have no business getting married
-people only get married for money

You have tried to differentiate between infertal and gay people, but you did so unsuccessfully, and you tryed to single out gay people again, nice try you insecure predjutice asshole.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Thanks for using the infertile argument...and grats to you for being able to read an entire 2 paragraphs without being able to comprehend something stated within that small piece of writing.

[Xzion]

Thanks for using the infertile argument...and grats to you for being able to read an entire 2 paragraphs without being able to comprehend something stated within that small piece of writing.

That is one of the weakest counter arguments i have ever heard, you were proven wrong and have no valid counter to what i said, your just making yourself look like more of a dumbass for holding an invalid argument, or one that you cannot defend.

[Vetiria]

Didn't you know that homosexuals are incapable of love? It's a proven fact that all they care about is money.

[Lynks]

Didn't you know that homosexuals are incapable of love? It's a proven fact that all they care about is money.

So they're like greedy gay robots? Oh my god! They need to be stopped or else we'll have some sort of gaytrix!

[Markulas]

Gay marriages shouldn't have the same "money rights" as the traditional marriage? There are plenty of good gay marriages that bring out children. You might say that a child needs a mom and dad in this world. Well HELLO, how many single parents do we have out here? I being one of them. 50% of the traditional marriages fall apart besides. Speaking of traditions.... it wasn't that long ago you could just say dating the same race was considered a tradition.
I believe it was our beloved president that something to the effect that marriages is our country's sacred union is marriage.
Which is exactly why homosexuals should be able to get marriaged.

[Aaeamdar]

preempting a powerful counter arguement to your drivel by saying "go ahead and use the infertile argument" is not really effective. All you are saying is that you have no answer to it.

Additionally, your premise displays the scope of your ignorance. Marriage is most certainly in part about cash, but it is about much more as well. Legally, I am speaking, not emotionally. The government does not need to be in the business of affirming romance.

The single most significant reason to marry is power, not money.

When the significant other of an unmarried couple is in the hospital and incapacited, the sick person's parents, sibling, or even 3rd cousins can have some say about the wishes of the infirmed, the unmarried significant other can't.

When an unmarried couple with a child has the child in a hospital, again - unless adopted by the other parent (something most states do not allow, though that trend is changing. Here is an excellent short article discussing these issues, if interested - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040419.html ) -only one of the two parents has anything to say about that child's disposition and again, the parents, siblings and 3rd cousins would have authority in the case that the legal parent was unavilable.

There are a whole host of Tort rules that exclude unmarried couples from acting on their partner's behalf, where married couples can. (See, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040409.html for a brief overview of some of teh consequences.)

There (most significant'y effecting me, right now) is the ability to be allowed to live in the same country as your partner. Over the more than 11 years I have been together with my partner, we have had to spend large portions of that apart. Why? He is Japanese. To be in this country (until he gets his permanent residency), he has to be either in school or at a job that is sponsoring his F1 visa. It now looks like we are about to be seperated yet again because I am about to take a job in Los Angeles and he will be stuck in New York until he can get a job in L.A. that will sponsor him (at elast a year most likely) or until he gets his permanent residence (apx. 5 more years there). If we could be married, this issue would have dissapeared years ago.

There are a ton of other issues ranging from serious issues to minor inconveniences, but that have nothing to do with cash, that unmarried couples face that married ones do not.

Since you are a breader, you don't have to deal with these issues on a day to day basis, so you are free to make comments as stupid as the one you made. In the future (on this subject or others), I'd reccomend a modicum of research before blathering some ignorant opinion, such as the one above.

[Arborealus]

Errrm I hope I haven't given the impression that I was excusing gay marriage as necessary for any reason. To me it comes down to:

1) They 2 are consenting adults.

2) They want to get get married.

3) To deprive anyone of the right to pursue happiness as they see fit requires at least one constitutionally legitimate, rational reason.

No one has yet to present me with one constitutionally legitimate, rational reason. Just because or I believe is not legitimate nor is it rational.

And you know ultimately what the majority of people think doesn't mean shit except to the politicians using this issue to manipulate the ignorant. Minorities, no matter how insignificant their numbers have a right to pursue happiness and the courts have an obligation to protect those rights regardless of what the majority thinks. We are not a country of majority rule. We are a country under the rule of law. The constitution and all prior supreme court rulings on this issue are abundantly clear.

[Adex_Xeda]

I hesitate to share freely on this issue because I get the feeling some of you will use it to trash me.

I have a hard time with this issue.

I'm going to say this anyway, and if some of the bile-spitters here want to use it as a tool to tear me down so be it.

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

On the other hand I currently have read no evidence to suggest that people who openly engage in a homosexual lifestyle cause harm to society.

If our moral code expressed in laws is based upon liberty and protection from societal harm, I don't see any reason not to accept gay marriage.

This places me into an area where I have to make a choice between what God says, and what my personal reasoning says.

In this situation, I trust God over my own reasoning. This is an act of faith. Every time I chose God's preference over my own reasoning it's worked out much better than what my own reasoning could produce later on.

I know this hard to understand if viewed from a secular perspective. That's why I say we really can't come to full persuasion one way or the other on this issue.

The best I can do without violating my relationship with God is to not interfere with people who seek to have civil unions. If I were to go further I'd be violating my own beliefs.

I just can't compromise further.


Dregor,

Life is full of hypocracy. I disagree with my muslim, and hindu co-workers, yet I consider them my friends. I'm comfortable leaving those issues unresolved. I've had gay suitemates before when I was living with 8 people. I considered them my friends, despite their lifestyle choice.

Well there it is as honest as I can state it.

Feel free to tell me how horrible and bigoted and hypocritical I am. Because of my unresolved dilemma it wouldn't be too far from the truth.

[Metanis]

I have seen the light. First of all, as a heterosexual, I have to realize that although homosexual sex is repugnant to me, this issue isn't about sex.

Many laws and regulations regarding marraige have resulted from the Christian influence of the last millenia in much of the world.

I think it's time to rethink government's role in regulating social contracts. Historically there have been many types and styles of social units... ranging from King Soloman and his 600 wives to multiple men sharing a single woman in 19th century North American western areas.

By what old-fashioned thinking does a government rule what's right and viable?

Think about it. Why should it matter to the IRS if you are filing as married jointly, married but separate, single, etc.? Government should be there to defend the individual and make sure children don't get mistreated but why should it presume to reward or even penalize certain types of social contracts?

Let's get government out of the marraige business entirely. Let's retire the word "marraige". It's all about People. And people are counted and measured one individual at a time, not in archaic social contracts.

As a Christian, if I want to observe a "union blessed by God" with a lady of mutual choice, why should the government have anything to do with it? Why should I get special secular privileges because I enter into this Christian committed relationship?

If I want to pretend I'm King Soloman and have 600 wives what business is it of the government? (Assuming the women are all legally consenting adults!)

The concept of Gay marraige is thinking a little outside the box... I say throw the whole damn box away.

[Adex_Xeda]

I've heard some argue that marriage in general should be removed from government and left under the determination of individual religious organizations.

Just let everyone sign up for a civil union and let the marriage stuff be determined elsewhere.

There's merit to that I suppose.

[Drasta]

Fesuni,

Do you consider a person who cheats on his wife less equal than a person who doesn't? I don't.
Do you consider a active homosexual less equal than a straight person? I don't.
Do you consider a liar who harms others with his words less equal than a person who tells the truth? I don't.
Do you consider an illegal drug user, a compulsive gambler, an alchoholic, a person who's seeking revenge, or a KKK member less equal? I don't.

Equality isn't the focus of this issue.

At least not to me.

For some reason our government and governments in the past have seen something in hetrosexual marriage that was a benefit to society. For some reason our government decided to encourage marriage by subsidizing it just like it might subsidize a college student's bills.

Today people want equal government recognition of gay unions. They say that two committed gay people are just as positive to American society as two people bound in marriage.

I don't belive this. I belive acting on homosexual impluses is harmful to one's spirit. It's not the way we were designed. But again we weren't designed to kill each other, or lie, and yet we do it.

Fesuni, if you and some fella wants to pool your resources together and form a union I could respect that. I still think it's wrong, but you should be free act on that choice.

If you want to redefine what marriage means, I'm going actively vote against such efforts. Just like I'd vote against efforts to make lieing under oath, or theft recognized as a good thing.

I don't hate you. You're a friend. It's just that in this case my sense of what is right and wrong differs from you. I'll do my best to respect your beliefs right up until the point where I'd be compromising mine.

Hate just doesn't apply to this equation.

i smell contradiction ... you want people to have rights and be equal but you will vote to deny someone those rights .... you vote for bush?

[Adex_Xeda]

That's an early statement Drasta. Read the rest of my posts in this thread and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Aaeamdar]

On the issue of rights for gays, Kerry is only marginally superior to Bush. You should not kid yourself that Democrats give a shit about gays. Gays, like blacks and any other minority, are just votes the Democrats always count on and never pander to, because they know they don't have to.

[Jice Virago]

At least the Dems don't generally attack existing minority rights.

[Karae]

I hesitate to share freely on this issue because I get the feeling some of you will use it to trash me.

I have a hard time with this issue.

I'm going to say this anyway, and if some of the bile-spitters here want to use it as a tool to tear me down so be it.

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

On the other hand I currently have read no evidence to suggest that people who openly engage in a homosexual lifestyle cause harm to society.

If our moral code expressed in laws is based upon liberty and protection from societal harm, I don't see any reason not to accept gay marriage.

This places me into an area where I have to make a choice between what God says, and what my personal reasoning says.

In this situation, I trust God over my own reasoning. This is an act of faith. Every time I chose God's preference over my own reasoning it's worked out much better than what my own reasoning could produce later on.

I know this hard to understand if viewed from a secular perspective. That's why I say we really can't come to full persuasion one way or the other on this issue.

The best I can do without violating my relationship with God is to not interfere with people who seek to have civil unions. If I were to go further I'd be violating my own beliefs.

I just can't compromise further.


Dregor,

Life is full of hypocracy. I disagree with my muslim, and hindu co-workers, yet I consider them my friends. I'm comfortable leaving those issues unresolved. I've had gay suitemates before when I was living with 8 people. I considered them my friends, despite their lifestyle choice.

Well there it is as honest as I can state it.

Feel free to tell me how horrible and bigoted and hypocritical I am. Because of my unresolved dilemma it wouldn't be too far from the truth.

You're either going to hell or a bigot, stop trying to play both sides of the fence. Unless you want to do both...

[Metanis]

You're either going to hell or a bigot, stop trying to play both sides of the fence. Unless you want to do both...

And you're annoying. At least read what the man posted...

[Siji]

In this situation, I trust God over my own reasoning. This is an act of faith.

You're free to have faith and make personal decisions based upon that faith. Only a jackass would rip on you for that. It's called freedom of religion. However, there's also seperation of church and state. Making personal decisions based on your faith is one thing.. making laws forcing other people to make decisions based on your faith is another. Doing that removes freedom of religion to anyone that doesn't believe as you believe. Freedom of religion includes the freedom of not being religious at all. Thus the whole reason for seperation of church and state.

There is no legal reason to prevent gays from being able to be equal to heterosexual couples in their rights as spouses. There are plenty of religious reasons you could point out against it, but then again, there are many old and now outdated religious beliefs that fell by the wayside. Eating meat on a certain day for example.. what, God changed his mind? Who got that memo of approval? I'm sure someone with more time and interest in doing so than me could bring up dozens of examples of what I'm talking about.

The point is, you may not agree with it, it may repulse you, you may hate it, but you should be willing to defend the freedom of those you don't agree with.

[Markulas]

Ha and try to get rid of the equal rights amendement.

I hear all these talks of "let the ppl vote" on this issue and I find it funny. I believe they know that in 30 years more people will agree with the end of traditional marriage.

Oh by the way: We aren't suppose to have interest in our bank system too.

[Karae]

You're either going to hell or a bigot, stop trying to play both sides of the fence. Unless you want to do both...

And you're annoying. At least read what the man posted...

I read what he posted you stupid motherfucker.

Let me paraphrase.

Gays are bad cos God says so, but they're not really bad, but they're bad cos God said they were, but they're not really bad, but they're bad because that's what God says. Repeat ad nauseum. Adex is a dumbfuck torn between his religious teachings and the moderate common sense he seems to posses. He needs to make a decision. Either he sides with the religious right (bigots) or those of us who see a human being as a human being, regardless of race, sexual preference, or religion.

In short, I don't give a flying fuck if I annoy you, I'm gonna continue to call people on their bigotry.

And, yes, you're a bigot too. You don't see the light, dumbass. Seeing the "light" is seeing that gays and lesbians are no different than you. You still think they are, you're just willing to accept it.

But at least you're taking a step in the right direction.

[Winnow]

This places me into an area where I have to make a choice between what God says, and what my personal reasoning says.

In this situation, I trust God over my own reasoning. This is an act of faith. Every time I chose God's preference over my own reasoning it's worked out much better than what my own reasoning could produce later on.

That's one of the most disturbing things I've read. Those that blindly follow anything scare the hell out of me. I don't EVER want to be in a position where you're making any kind of decision over me. I'll keep a safe distance from anyone who chooses faith over reason as they aren't open to logic.

[kyoukan]

I hesitate to share freely on this issue because I get the feeling some of you will use it to trash me.

I have a hard time with this issue.

I'm going to say this anyway, and if some of the bile-spitters here want to use it as a tool to tear me down so be it.

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

On the other hand I currently have read no evidence to suggest that people who openly engage in a homosexual lifestyle cause harm to society.

If our moral code expressed in laws is based upon liberty and protection from societal harm, I don't see any reason not to accept gay marriage.

This places me into an area where I have to make a choice between what God says, and what my personal reasoning says.

In this situation, I trust God over my own reasoning. This is an act of faith. Every time I chose God's preference over my own reasoning it's worked out much better than what my own reasoning could produce later on.

I know this hard to understand if viewed from a secular perspective. That's why I say we really can't come to full persuasion one way or the other on this issue.

The best I can do without violating my relationship with God is to not interfere with people who seek to have civil unions. If I were to go further I'd be violating my own beliefs.

I just can't compromise further.

You just explained exactly why the visionaries that founded your country wanted so badly to keep the corruption of religion away from their government. What is it like to use your personal hatreds to piss all over the constitution anyway?

[kyoukan]

I've heard some argue that marriage in general should be removed from government and left under the determination of individual religious organizations.

Just let everyone sign up for a civil union and let the marriage stuff be determined elsewhere.

There's merit to that I suppose.

What the hell? That's the most patently ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why should it have anything to do with religion at all when the only requirement is to be acknowledged by the state. You are arguing a position that is an exact juxtaposition to what would be logical, and that is to eliminate religion out of marriage entirely.

Now you don't only not want gay people to marry but now you want athiests and agnostics to not be allowed to marry? Who fucking argued that ludicrous standpoint? One of those collection plate licking charlatans running your church?

[Zaelath]

Sorry, but I lose all interest in any argument that isn't actually believed by it's proponent, but instead amounts to what they've been told someone else heard their imaginary friend said.

I mean.. if you're going to be a religious looney that does whatever God tells him, regardless of it being overridden 2000 years ago by a lot of the same people (Christ).. at least be insane enough to hear it directly from Himself =)

BTW, when you say "God says" you are talking about the Old Testament and not the New, yes? I thought you were Christian....

[Forthe]

I hesitate to share freely on this issue because I get the feeling some of you will use it to trash me.

I have a hard time with this issue.

I'm going to say this anyway, and if some of the bile-spitters here want to use it as a tool to tear me down so be it.

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

On the other hand I currently have read no evidence to suggest that people who openly engage in a homosexual lifestyle cause harm to society.

If our moral code expressed in laws is based upon liberty and protection from societal harm, I don't see any reason not to accept gay marriage.

This places me into an area where I have to make a choice between what God says, and what my personal reasoning says.

In this situation, I trust God over my own reasoning. This is an act of faith. Every time I chose God's preference over my own reasoning it's worked out much better than what my own reasoning could produce later on.

I know this hard to understand if viewed from a secular perspective. That's why I say we really can't come to full persuasion one way or the other on this issue.

The best I can do without violating my relationship with God is to not interfere with people who seek to have civil unions. If I were to go further I'd be violating my own beliefs.

I just can't compromise further.


Dregor,

Life is full of hypocracy. I disagree with my muslim, and hindu co-workers, yet I consider them my friends. I'm comfortable leaving those issues unresolved. I've had gay suitemates before when I was living with 8 people. I considered them my friends, despite their lifestyle choice.

Well there it is as honest as I can state it.

Feel free to tell me how horrible and bigoted and hypocritical I am. Because of my unresolved dilemma it wouldn't be too far from the truth.

I'm not going to attack you Adex but take notice the bold above. Your logic here is just wrong as there is no *choice*. As long as you do not act on your homosexual urges then you are in the clear, God still loves you. If John Doe does act on his homosexual urges you are in the clear, God still loves you. So why would you try to interfere with John Doe in any way? It doesn't effect you, God still loves you.

Adultury is one of the big bads, even made it on a list way back in the day so I feel confident in stating that adultery is worse than homosexuality. Do you feel the need to try to stop John Doe from committing adultery? Maybe a constitutional ammendment to block adulterers from marrying again would do so.

That would be silly tho wouldn't it because it doesn't effect you, God still loves you.

Feel free to have your faith, I don't understand it but it is your right. However when you try to impose your faith on others then you need to back off.

[Chidoro]

Here is an answer for you. What purpose does marriage serve throughout history? To raise a family. Only recently has there ever been an issue that would ever make gay marriage wanted or needed. It is money. Cash. It is not about love or anything else. Every single reason anyone has listed as to why there needs to be gay marriage all comes down to 1) insurance 2) estates of deceased partners 3) taxes

4) a declaration of love between two people. You know, I didn't marry my wife for fucking taxes, I can assure you that. And I'm guessing that infertile couples have no reason to marry either do they?

In my bedroom, we have, both, a Papal's Blessing and a Ketuba hanging next to each other. It ALL comes from increased understanding of inviduals. Interestingly enough, my wife's church was a shitload more understanding of it than my temple and there were people on both sides of our families that thought it was "morally wrong". It's good to know that archaic position is slowly dying out, I just wish it would go a little faster. For the good of society, don't procreate.

[vn_Tanc]

I get the impression that if there was some distinction between religious marriage and non-religious marriage, and religious marriage was prohibitable on the forms of whatever prejudices are instrinsic to said religion, everyone would be happier?

I almost posted "why not just not call it marriage when it isn't religious" but, ya know, lifelong commitment, love, same legal status, why bother with two words for essentially the same thing?

[Adex_Xeda]

I think the main difference between a civil union and marriage (if you throw out the definition that limits marriage to man and woman) is a civil union allows for two people to be treated as one unit when it comes to government issues. However marriage is an endorsement and celebration of that union. It's a statement that says "Hey, this is a good thing."

We can't agree on what is good. So why place marriage on the government level? A civil union only at the government level would solve all of our legal issues. We could relegate the endorsement and celebration (marriage) of such unions to non-government organizations.

I think this is a reasonable compromise.

The way it stands now our government is saying Hetrosexual unions are prefered. This is an affront to same-sex couples. Yet if you were to include same-sex couples into a government endorsement of marriage then it would be an affront to people on the other side of the issue.

Why have the government endorse any of it?

Let's just get our tax breaks, and medical benefits from a civil union for all sides and let the marriage stuff be defined by your local community or culture.

Such an action would provide equal access and protection to government services, and it wouldn't be forcing people to endorse something they oppose.

[Dregor Thule]

Marriage has been around longer than Christianity. Why the fuck should it conform to a religion?

[Xyphir]

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

How does God speak with you? Are you referring to the bible? You do know that God didn't write the bible, right? Humans 'interpreting the word of God' are not infallible.

[Arborealus]

I think the main difference between a civil union and marriage (if you throw out the definition that limits marriage to man and woman) is a civil union allows for two people to be treated as one unit when it comes to government issues. However marriage is an endorsement and celebration of that union. It's a statement that says "Hey, this is a good thing."

We can't agree on what is good. So why place marriage on the government level? A civil union only at the government level would solve all of our legal issues. We could relegate the endorsement and celebration (marriage) of such unions to non-government organizations.

I think this is a reasonable compromise.

The way it stands now our government is saying Hetrosexual unions are prefered. This is an affront to same-sex couples. Yet if you were to include same-sex couples into a government endorsement of marriage then it would be an affront to people on the other side of the issue.

Why have the government endorse any of it?

Let's just get our tax breaks, and medical benefits from a civil union for all sides and let the marriage stuff be defined by your local community or culture.

Such an action would provide equal access and protection to government services, and it wouldn't be forcing people to endorse something they oppose.

Recognition of marriage was placed on the government level through years of common law...Basically in an attempt to keep royalty from sleeping with whomever they wanted...

The problem is really semantics...The term for the civil union is marriage...the term for the religious ceremony is marriage..but they are two very different things...My point is that the government must offer equal recognition to both to the extent that the government recognizes either...

The government really has no business endorsing either....I have said before...this is a right that should have devolved to individuals not to any government...There is ample precedent in common law to handle marriage without any need for statuatory law at all...

[Dregor Thule]

I suggest we call church-ordained marriages by another name, it seems the fair thing to do. So, Christian-Sanctioned Union sound CATCHY?!

[Adex_Xeda]

While I understand you position on this issue, as it currently stands there is little chance that it would voted into law.

My suggestion on civil union if carefully crafted would satisfy relgious folk and remove them as a voting obstacle to acheiving your goal.

Once you get the law on the books you can call it whatever you want.

This method allows equal protection and access under the laws and at the same time doesn't force relgious people to endorse or celebrate something that violates their beliefs.

This seems to be an actionable plan.

[Voronwë]

the fact that religious people think their morals have anything to do with this issue is problem #1.

capitulating to them yet again would be a mistake. At some point, a line in the sand needs to be drawn.

[Arborealus]

While I understand you position on this issue, as it currently stands there is little chance that it would voted into law.

My suggestion on civil union if carefully crafted would satisfy relgious folk and remove them as a voting obstacle to acheiving your goal.

Once you get the law on the books you can call it whatever you want.

This method allows equal protection and access under the laws and at the same time doesn't force relgious people to endorse or celebrate something that violates their beliefs.

This seems to be an actionable plan.

Heh the whole point is no law is needed...some bads one's need to be removed...

[Adex_Xeda]

Voronwe,

Respect is a mutual act.

If you draw lines in the sand on your side, you will only encourage the other side to draw a line in the sand as well and as a majority vote in a constitutional amendment locking in marriage as it's currently defined.

In the end, by demanding respect, but not returning respect, you lose ground.

Across the board civil unions for all allows for both sides to respect each others' moral codes.

[Dregor Thule]

Why do you have to call it a civil union to justify it though? What right do you or your religion have to claim ownership to the term "marriage"? None whatsoever outside of the over-inflated sense of self-importance churches put upon themselves. That's one of the problems with Christianity, they haven't accepted that the world revolves around the sun rather than the church.

Next we'll have to call the marriage between peanut butter and chocolate that make up Reese's peanut butter cups a civil union between peanut butter and chocolate.

[Voronwë]

well adex, i admit, my post was really just kind of a pre-caffeine 'blurt', hehe.

let's not forget that not all Christian denominations have problems with gay marriage.

at any rate, it really is irrelevant in my mind what any religious group thinks about gay marriage.

i think you should call it marriage instead of civil unions for one reason, and one reason alone. It will cost the government billions of dollars to add a 3rd checkbox to all their forms, to adjust their databases to accomodate civil unions, etc. remember , this is the government, and they don't do anything the easy way

hell, i bet half of us would end up showing up as "civil union'ed" in their DB, and it would take 5 years to correct, and in the mean time i'd bump into a higher health insurance bracket or something for my wife since she'd show up as a gay man or some shit

[Tenuvil]

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

Please point out the passage in the Bible (Old or New Testament) where God himself, or Jesus Christ, specifically says this. Or was this one of the 11-15 Commandments that was on the tablet that Mel Brooks dropped and broke?

[Adex_Xeda]

What right do you or your religion have to claim ownership to the term "marriage"?

What right do you have to redefine marriage from the one that has endured for milliena?

You and I have equal rights to it.

But since you and I can't agree on the definition, it is unfair for one definition to be forced on us via a governmental law.

Let's remove it. Lets restrict the government's involvement to that of the contractual. Civil unions for everyone.

This way you have the freedom to endorse and celebrate particular civil unions as marriage under your definition. And I will have the freedom to endorse and celebrate particular civil unions as marriage under my definition.

This way we both get what we want, and both sides are provided equal access and equal rights.

[Dregor Thule]

You're tying marriage to your religion again. Marriage in its most basic form is a recognized bond between 2 people. Am I redefining a marriage here?

[Aaeamdar]

Maybe gay marriages and hetrosexual marriages where at least one partner is infertile can just be called "marriage," whereas the marriage between two fertile heterosexuals should be called a "breading union". That way we satisfy both Adex's objection to them having the same name and we highlight with much glorification Killmoll's "true purpose" of traditional marriage.

[Ashur]

Adex,

I admire that you stand up for your principles but am amazed you keep coming back to let the rabble fling lit cigarettes at you.

[Aaeamdar]

I admire it too. In much the same way I admire southerners proudly displaying the Confederate flag or a clansman steadfastly standing up for what he believes in. There is so much to be admired in these people of conviction.

[Ashur]

Did you just compare Adex to a Klansman?

Must be an interesting world you live in.

[Aaeamdar]

I just don't see a reason to admire bigotry just because it has a (dubious) religous root. Not sure why you do.

[Arborealus]

But since you and I can't agree on the definition, it is unfair for one definition to be forced on us via a governmental law.

Let's remove it. Lets restrict the government's involvement to that of the contractual. Civil unions for everyone.

Its one word with more than one definition based upon it's context. That shouldn't be particualrly confusing for anyone. That shouldn't require any legislation at all...or should we also make sure marriage of flavours and marriage of technologies are excluded to prevent confusion? We don't want religious folk thinking they are supporting those either inadvertantly...

[Skogen]

God says acting on homosexual urges is wrong. He says that it's despicable. It goes against his design.

God said it huh? Or does the Bible say that? Who wrote the Bible....people, or God him/her/whatever self?