[Goober5000]

I would be satisfied with getting the law out of marriage altogether; it has no business being there in the first place.  If two people want to get married in a mainline Christian church, then that's their business.  If a man and a man want to get married in the Church of Adam & Steve, then that's their business as well.  And neither church should have the authority to force a pastor of the other church to officiate for them.

But once the government gets involved in deciding who is can get a marriage license and who can't, it no longer remains a personal covenant between two people and becomes a covenant between two people and everyone else.  And you may not like what everyone else has to say about it, regardless of which position you hold.

Marriage licenses were originally established (in the USA at least) to prevent interracial marriages.  That should have raised a red flag right at the beginning.

[Liberator]

I would be OK with this.

The removal of the legal portion from marriage and the establishment of a civic union of some kind that carries the current legal weight of marriage would be fine.  Then you've got all the major arguments from both sides nixxed.

See?  I can be reasonable.

[General Battuta]

Yes, that's agreeable, as long as it's open to everybody.

[Bobboau]

I would be satisfied with getting the law out of marriage altogether; it has no business being there in the first place.  If two people want to get married in a mainline Christian church, then that's their business.  If a man and a man want to get married in the Church of Adam & Steve, then that's their business as well.  And neither church should have the authority to force a pastor of the other church to officiate for them.

But once the government gets involved in deciding who is can get a marriage license and who can't, it no longer remains a personal covenant between two people and becomes a covenant between two people and everyone else.  And you may not like what everyone else has to say about it, regardless of which position you hold.

Marriage licenses were originally established (in the USA at least) to prevent interracial marriages.  That should have raised a red flag right at the beginning.

I would be OK with this.

The removal of the legal portion from marriage and the establishment of a civic union of some kind that carries the current legal weight of marriage would be fine.  Then you've got all the major arguments from both sides nixxed.

See?  I can be reasonable.

holy ****, did that just happen?

[Liberator]

Umm, yeah it did, I never said I was against civil unions.  Just not Reverend/Pastor/Priest performed marriages.

[Blue Lion]

Umm, yeah it did, I never said I was against civil unions.  Just not Reverend/Pastor/Priest performed marriages.

Are religious institutions forced to marry people?

[Knight Templar]

Umm, yeah it did, I never said I was against civil unions.  Just not Reverend/Pastor/Priest performed marriages.

Are religious institutions forced to marry people?

On the flip side, playing Devil's Advocate for minute - Imagine a world where society has progressed far enough to demand complete equality in regards to respect and human rights for citizens of all colors, races, genders, etc.

You have two absurdly attractive lesbians who under this shining new society, get married. They love each other. They live happily ever after up until they have an argument in a bar after work, over whether their beer should have better taste, or less calories. It quickly becomes heated, because they are ****ing hot lesbians, and one of them slaps the other, while in reaction, lesbian #2 pulls the others' hair, while the first one rips off #2's clothes in response.

Yet, keeping in mind our progressive society, what would be a gloriously arousing catfight, is now legally domestic violence. The cops are called, break up the fight, and haul both the chicks off to jail. 

You see, either way, Satan is the only winner here, and we're all losers.

[Janos]

Hey Liberator you still haven't proved your assertions about male figures and crime rate

or about how the personal responsibility vanished

or about how the promiscuity is bad

and the single mothers being the source of all evil

And the degenerated culture! That was a direct question I asked you at page 3 and I've still yet to see a good answer!

Just answer these questions already - your continuous shifting of goalposts and evading the argument is irritating as ****. I will ask these questions for all eternity until I get an answer in this thread because now people are for some reason letting this crap go through. Your argument lies squarely on unfounded assertions and what's even funnier, when asked to specify them you don't do that.  It's almost as if you completely ignore any and all arguments to contrary. If you are right then proving it shouldn't be difficult.


I mean, you have already posted at least twice in this thread after my original questionpost so you probably should have time to justify your original starting positions!

Thank you in advance! Eagerly waiting your repy

[NGTM-1R]

Yet, keeping in mind our progressive society, what would be a gloriously arousing catfight, is now legally domestic violence. The cops are called, break up the fight, and haul both the chicks off to jail. 

Having seen something very much like this happen, it's not as sexy as it sounds. 

[Knight Templar]

Just answer these questions already - your continuous shifting of goalposts and evading the argument is irritating as ****. I will ask these questions for all eternity until I get an answer in this thread because now people are for some reason letting this crap go through. Your argument lies squarely on unfounded assertions and what's even funnier, when asked to specify them you don't do that.  It's almost as if you completely ignore any and all arguments to contrary. If you are right then proving it shouldn't be difficult.

Calm down dude, it's only the internet. There are going to be people who are wrong, or at the least, you disagree with, for the rest  of your life. You can't defeat them all.

[iamzack]

I would be satisfied with getting the law out of marriage altogether; it has no business being there in the first place.  If two people want to get married in a mainline Christian church, then that's their business.  If a man and a man want to get married in the Church of Adam & Steve, then that's their business as well. 

The legal parts of marriage are important though. Big example is this one: when a gay man is in the hospital only allowed "family" visitors, his partner of potentially decades won't be allowed in. There are thousands of legal benefits to being married as opposed to just living with somebody.

As it is, no church is forced to marry anybody they don't want to. In fact, you don't even need a religious officiate. A magistrate can marry people. No religion involved in that at all.

I think marriage, as it pertains to government, should revolve around things like property rights, next of kin status, etc, as those things will likely be important to two people who are romantically involved for a very long time.

EDIT: Actually, "romantically involved" is too specific. Best friends of decades and decades could be allowed to marry, in that sense.

Marriage wasn't invented to bind people who love each other. It was just an easy way to keep track of the legalities of selling off your daughters.

[Janos]

Just answer these questions already - your continuous shifting of goalposts and evading the argument is irritating as ****. I will ask these questions for all eternity until I get an answer in this thread because now people are for some reason letting this crap go through. Your argument lies squarely on unfounded assertions and what's even funnier, when asked to specify them you don't do that.  It's almost as if you completely ignore any and all arguments to contrary. If you are right then proving it shouldn't be difficult.

Calm down dude, it's only the internet. There are going to be people who are wrong, or at the least, you disagree with, for the rest  of your life. You can't defeat them all.

then why will he post
or why do you

edit: Seriously though, I can deal with stances I do not like and so on, but if someone's seriousposting and everyone else is replying to him and it's serious I don't just know why bad argumentation skills should slide and people should accept crap like this at face value.

It's poor discussion thats doing more than enough damage in politics, and this is a political thread. Giving your discussion opponent a chance to throw line after line of unsubstantiated arguments into the discussion does nothing at all, except maybe give him a false sense of success. People look at the discussion and go "hey, he hasn't been demolished or disproved, maybe he is on to something" when in reality the entire strategy is just "post post post post and back away as soon as challenged". This is extremely pitiful discussion tactic and should be questioned wherever encountered, especially if in guise of serious debate.

[Herra Tohtori]

Geez, just separate the religious aspect from the advantages of a legally registered relationship and you're all set. The religious organizations can deal with the things however they like, while controversial pairs can still register their relationship in the legal sense.

Legally, a civil union should be exactly the same thing as a marriage by some religious authority.

If it isn't, then the separation of church and state is a sham (not news really*, but whatever).

And if civil unions aren't available for same sex couples, then the system discriminates against certain group of people and the supposedly free society is a sham (again, not exactly a new thing).


*considering how religious organizations are tax exempt regardless of what their economical balance is...

[TrashMan]

I have nothing against gay marriage myself (legal one) ....as long as you don't call it marriage. We need to invent a new word for it (since marriage by definition is the union between a man and a woman). Let's call it kazoo or something.

note that "gay marriage" is two words. We need something shorter. Garrige?

[Knight Templar]

I have nothing against gay marriage myself (legal one) ....as long as you don't call it marriage. We need to invent a new word for it (since marriage by definition is the union between a man and a woman). Let's call it kazoo or something.

note that "gay marriage" is two words. We need something shorter. Garrige?

Wait... what? 1) I'm pretty sure you're Croatian or something. I'm also reasonably sure that English is not Croatia's first language. Why do you care? 2) That's why it's called GAY Marriage, because its homo.

How about we start calling you Gayshman, because well, by definition, you're pretty gaysh most the time. C wut i did there???

[Scotty]

Whoa, calm down there.  He was just saying we need a new word for it because, by definition, marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

[Knight Templar]

Whoa, calm down there.  He was just saying we need a new word for it because, by definition, marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

That's why it's called GAY Marriage, because its homo.

Adjectives are amaaaaaazing.

[MP-Ryan]

Whoa, calm down there.  He was just saying we need a new word for it because, by definition, marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Actually, marriage has all kinds of definitions.  The most COMMON is between one man and one woman, but that doesn't mean it's absolutely correct and not subject to change.

[Flipside]

Marriage is a union of souls, according to most priests, do souls have gender?

[TrashMan]

Adjectives are amaaaaaazing.

note that "gay marriage" is two words. We need something shorter. Garrige?

So is reading...