Shii Posted:

Except that’s exactly what they are trying to do. While it hasn’t gained acceptance, they’re trying to force churches to be unable to reject gay couples for marriage.

This is a bald-faced lie, it has been repeatedly called out as a bald-faced lie, and I demand support for it before you continue.

If they allow gay marriage, then the gays will protest against the church for not letting them marry in a place like most others do. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s just how protests work.

And “the church” – you know there’s more than one church, right? Just checking – can say “No.” And no one can force them.

I’m aware that the government should give people equality and equal rights. That’s why I’m pushing for civil unions with equal tax rights.

Your points about “marriage” predating Christianity are moot, by nature of the fact that the rituals accompanying such unions were not Christian in nature, and shared very little beyond the outcome of man + woman together. I’m talking about Christian marriage, and that alone.

No, you’re talking about marriage in the United States of America, a nation founded by Christians, but no longer ruled by them. You’re talking about redefining an existing social institution of that country to satisfy your religious beliefs – which is a no-no in the United States of America.

I know other religions aren’t as strict about homosexuality all the time, compared to Christianity, and if they want to have bonding/marriage ceremonies, go for it.

Another Shii who apparently disagrees Posted:

... let Christians still call their civil unions marriages and undergo the religious/ritualistic aspects as they please.

Reconcile these, please. If any religious ceremony can now be a “marriage” again, even of gay couples, aren’t we right back where we started before your brilliant plan?

Just don’t tell the churches how to handle their own rituals, and who to allow to be married.

No one is doing this, it’s a common scare tactic anti-gay-marriage protesters use without justification, and you’re really getting on my nerves by claiming so. Changing the law of the land can’t change religious practice, by the same token that your religious practice should not control the law of the land. You make this specious claim about trying to straight-arm churches repeatedly. Provide evidence, or STFU.

Samildanech Posted:

Redefining an existing social institution of that country to satisfy your religious beliefs – which is a no-no in the United States of America.

This is a great point. We’re not going to change what “marriage” means to satisfy religious groups.[

Shii Posted:

for forcing religions to change their marriage rituals.

I’d like to say that nobody is asking for that, but I know it’s not true. However, very few people are asking for that. Most folks would rather find a church that will accept them than force themselves in where they are unwelcome. There are already churches in Dallas, Texas that will perform a gay marriage ceremony.

I compare it to certain denominations refusing to wed couples in their church if both members of the couple accept the fundamental doctrines of that faith. If a fundamental doctrine of your faith is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, it would seem unlikely that your church would be forced to marry a gay couple any sooner than it would be forced to perform services for atheists. Certainly, I’m not asking for that.

At the same time, the word marriage is used throughout legislation, and codifying one sort of union as “marriage” and another as “civil” treats them as unequal in the eyes of the law.

Honestly, in my mind the best solution would be for the (big and abstract) Government to replace the term marriage with civil union for all couples. Big hurdles for that, though.

markchd Posted:

I’d like to say that nobody is asking for that, but I know it’s not true.

And I’d like to say that no one is viciously beating, crucifying and murdering gays just for being gay. But I know that’s not true. The difference is that while most gay marriage advocates recognize those are lunatic fringe elements not worth the dignity of a mention in the debate, opponents of gay marriage seem to think that bringing up the “rabid fringe” of the pro-gay-rights movement is fair game. I’m increasingly tempted to respond in kind by bumociating their arguments with violent murderous homophobia, because trying to be the honest debater is tiring, and their fringe is a ****ing lot worse than mine.

markchd Posted:

Honestly, in my mind the best solution would be for the (big and abstract) Government to replace the term marriage with civil union for all couples. Big hurdles for that, though.

The largest being lack of cultural weight and equality, as mentioned in one of my posts above. The second being that it’s an ungainly wording. “Cindy, I love you more than life itself, will you… uh… civilly unionize me?”

Likewise, as mentioned, the same protesters will protest the change in legal language anyway, and gays will still have a second clbum marriage. No one wins, everyone is unhappy, but the folks who can only get “civil unions” still manage to come out worse.

markchd Posted:

It’s a pipe-dream of mine. In my fantasy (okay, impossible) system, nobody could get “married” by a state. Marriage as a legal concept and as a religious ceremony would be distinct and separate. A male-female or same-sex couple could get unionized without going through a religious ceremony, or vice-versa.

My intention wasn’t to literally do so, however. My suggestion of an impossible situation was intended to suggest that it’d be nice if we could separate the legal aspects of marriage from the religious ones in everyone’s mind. In reality, I’d still rather everyone were be able to be married.

Fair enough, though I was also talking about a world where no one could be “married” by the state – just one where the tradition of marriage still existed. I still think it would be better to imagine an ideal world where everybody got to have the tradition, rather than no one, but I understand your thinking. Log in to see images!

Generic Racist Posted:

Personally I don’t care either way, as long as it’s put to a vote.

Majority rule, minority rights. Can’t ignore the latter in support of the former.

DarkDespair5 Posted:

Majority rule, minority rights. Can’t ignore the latter in support of the former.

That’s why I think state’s rights are so importiant. What may be the majority in Alaska may be the minority in Iowa. So why not let them both have what they want instead of the Federal Government just picking one and making everyone abide by the same rules when they don’t want to and shouldn’t have to.

plk Posted:

Something as fundamental to a person’s rights as marriage needs to be the same at the Federal level. We don’t allow women to vote only in some states because hey, that’s okay if things work out differently there. Why would it ever be okay for civil rights issues to be determined by states when those states who want to keep the status quo are the biggest problems?

Perfectly answered. Rights transcend a state’s will.

Generic Racist Posted:

Personally I don’t care either way, as long as it’s put to a vote.

Segregation was ended by a Supreme Court decision, not a vote. Are you saying we’d have been better off waiting for voters to accept equal rights for blacks?

Wait, don’t answer that, I just realized you’re Generic Racist. Log in to see images!

That being said, the thing that ****es me off about a lot of gay-rights opponents is the male reproductive organiness. They keep going on about “We are the majority in the United States, this is about government forcing rhetoric on us, let us vote!”, while public opinion is drastically shifting in the opposite direction. They’re just digging themselves into a hole.

Also, this thread needs more BAAAAAAWWWWWWs:

Also

markchd Posted:

Really? I kinda figured the fact that the article is about more evangelical Christians under 25 than New Deal democrats over 65 being in favor of legalizing gay marriage pretty clearly implied that the article espouses a democratic solution in addition to finding it inevitable.

”It doesn’t matter, because it’s coming.”

Telling someone that their opinion/vote/voice won’t matter is ignorant. The only thing inevitable in life is death. Gay marriage is FAR from inevitable. California proved that at ballot. And who is to say that those under 25 will support gay marriage in the future? Furthermore, who is to say their children will support gay marriage? This generation obviously differs in opinion from their parents.