And you are certainly welcome to keep your marriage religious and sacred, but what does that have to do with someone else's marriage? BTW, marriage is also a legal contract. It's not just a religious "thing". Give it another 4 years. It will be 60/40 in favor of same sex marriage. This is certainly a truth, but you are woefully uneducated on the subject if you feel that's all it's about.
There is no point in dividing and forcing gays into marriage when there is a legal way to give the same rights. Your arguments make it clear that it isn't about civil rights, but rather the redefining of a word that is close to peoples hearts and religion. If this is TRULY about civil rights, you can leave marriage alone and give civil unions the EXACT same rights. Everyone happy, but it is aparent you are either just being a troll, or wish to force your opinions onto those who morally disagree with you. Never said that was all its about but this sentence by you makes it very hard to think otherwise: "And you are certainly welcome to keep your marriage religious and sacred, but what does that have to do with someone else's marriage?" This right here allows me to assume all you care about is the marriage aspect rather than the civil rights. So is it about civil rights or marriage MLU?
This statement doesn't make any sense. You want to give straight people "marriage" and gay people "civil unions". I think we should just stop with the bullshit and call it what it is for everyone: marriage. Seems like you're the one who is doing the dividing. As for forcing gays into marriage, I'm not sure where anyone has stated that people, straight or gay will be forced into marriage. I'm not interested in the religious beliefs of you or anyone else. I'm only interested in people being treated unfairly. Unfortunately Civil Unions do not have the same rights that a marriage does. Marriage has nothing to do with religion unless an individual chooses for religion to become involved. That is a personal decision that along with many other rights a citizen of this country is free to enjoy. Marriage exists outside of religious doctrine in this and many other countries. If it were a religious institution then I wouldn't be able to go down to the courthouse and get married. I'd have to do it in a church and only a church. It has everything to do with legal protections, contracts and rights. That's your fault for assuming. I can't be held responsible for your mistakes. Yes.
It makes perfect sense if you understand the definition of marriage. Do you? That's why civil unions can be fixed to cover the exact same things and leave marriage alone. Your opinion of marriage not being religious is your own moral code. Hebrews 13:4-7 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, Genesis 2:18-24 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 1st: I am not religious. 2nd: Marriage existed well before the formation of governments. 3rd: Marriage has nothing to do with fairness. Marriage has been defined. If gays want the same legal rights, civil unions is the path. Why do you insist on changing what is all ready defined? Unfortunately yes, civil unions need work. That is the correct comprise to be had.
Yes. I understand the definition of marriage. What I don't understand is how it applies to that section of text that I quoted. I anxiously await your response, but I have a feeling that you're only interested in avoiding doing that. If a civil union covers the exact same thing as marriage, what is the point of separating them? Said the person who used Bible verses in an attempt to support his statement. Seriously, how can you even attempt that argument? It's from a Christian book, meaning it only applies to the religious few who believe in the Christian doctrine. What do the rest of us do? FYI: This is a Democracy, not a Theocracy. Verses from the Bible have the same legal authority as quotes from a Dr Suess book. It also existed before religion, but we're not talking about the origins of marriage. We're talking about how it relates to citizens of the United States in 2012. I'm sure your ex-wife agrees. Specifically what do you refer to when you say that "marriage has been defined". By whom? How? For the same reason that it's no longer legal to own another human for slavery, it's legal to sell and purchase alcoholic beverages and women can now vote. Because it's the right thing to do.
Religion. Religious people actually recognize marriage as something. Not all, but enough do. As such, we should not step on their beliefs to please people when they can be pleased in a more comparable fashion, civil unions. I am not religious, but understanding the biblical text of their side of the argument is important in a matter of social and moral debate.... Something I am understanding you are not doing. You said Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It in fact does if you are a religious person. The same reason gay people feel about civil rights. The same reason creation vs evolution exists. It is called respect. Do you not care enough about your own opinion to understand their view point? You can do whatever you want. You see, the civil union is called a compromise. You specifically said it was about all the legal rights. You can have that with your boyfriend. But you would rather take over something that is actually a religious virtue to a great many people and piss on it for the sake of your own morals. That is not socially moral. I do not have an ex-wife. SO not sure of point. Separation from church and state. Religion has a sound argument in the sanctimony of marriage and its definition under God. God has defined it for them. People have defined it for themselves under the nature of human attraction. The same way gays have defined their own personal pursuits. Civil unions, with all the legal rights, is a perfectly good comparable for everyone. Puff, your straw man has blown away. Slavery and all that other shit has nothing to do with this. A civil union, with all the legal rights, is a complete compromise for both the gay/supporters and religious folks. Allowing a civil union and keeping marriage the same impedes no one. You have not outlined a single argument to why a civil union with all the same rights is a bad thing. What harm will it cause gays?
Non-religious as well as people of religions other than Christianity people recognize marriage as something as well. Your position here is not very well thought out. Christians do not get favorable treatment in this country's Constitution or Legislature. At least they shouldn't because they're Christians. I understand the religious side of the debate just fine. I just don't give a shit because it's irrelevant. The fact that it hs meaning even if you're not a religious person shows that it has nothing to do with marriage. I already explained the reasons why. Because people are uneducated and ignorant? I don't respect bigotry. Just because a few people make marriage religious to them, does not make it religious. It's a legal contract and for those who choose, they can have a ceremony in a religious institution before or after the document is signed. You can ever have a religious leader administer the ceremony and be the witness. However, if you do not file that legal document with the government, you're not marriaged. It really doesn't matter what you think God says. You're not married until it'd filed with the state. I'm not aware of the Bible mentioning the proper filing of legal paperwork with the proper governmental entities. Marriages between married couples fare no better than marriages between non-religious couples. I have seen numerous studies that support that statement, so "no" religion does not have a sound argument in the sanctimony of marriage. As for God's definition of marriage, you should probably not attempt that position because God's people have some pretty twisted ideas of marriage. and they are free to follow it. Well, no it's not. See in this country all men are created equal. Not comparable, but equal. It does. The list that I mentioned are all previously accepted and condoned behaviors by this country's government. They're all behaviors of a discriminatory nature that we later as a nation grew to understand was wrong, just like this discrimination is wrong. Again, all men are created equal. Not comparable or compromised. I certainly wouldn't accept a compromise for the social status I have with my wife. Why would I expect anyone else to except less? You haven't outlined what harm it will cause heterosexual people, either.
People you are shouting past each other and each using different definitions of marraige. A little history which is needed to give context to the arguement and forgive me if it takes a few minutes and bear with me. Marraige as an institution and for the purpose of this debate started as a civil/religeous institution in Rome. The state was both civil and religeous so all transactions had elements of both. When Rome fell the Cathaloic church tried to assume the burden of civil services in the chaos of the Dark AGes. Marraige and other life altering events became sacraments (birth, death etc). It wasn't until the last 200 years that the state could retake those duties. In fact at first only royal and aristocratic marraiges were secularized (contracts). As a result our tradition looks at marraige as a religeous event first. In fact it is no longer a religeous event but a civil event followed by a religeous event. Remember you apply for and sign a marraige licience at the courthouse and THAT makes a couple married. The religeous event is icing on the cake so to speak. Many advocating for equal rights have said a civil union isn't the same as marraige and as laws were written they are right. Civil union/marraige between straight/gay or whatever should be the same and be called something neutral. I think from my conversations with gays that is what they really want full legal rights. Why not? If a couple wants to be married in a church then that can be limited as per the beliefs of that church. Remember seperation of chuch & state works both ways. The church isn't part of the state and the state cannot impose religeous rules on the church. As many have said the religeous strictures against civil/secular gay marraige have no place today. Likewise forcing churches to conduct rites that violate their doctrine is wrong. I think all have a solid place if marraige were treated so.
