Real Discussion...?

#76
#76
TennTradition said:
I suppose it is possible that one could argue a 14th amendment extension of the 1st amendment to the state level, making it more than just an issue for state's to resolve.

I would vote for my state to completely get out of the marriage business. I understand the need for state-recognized unions for the purposes of tax, right to property, etc. I would be fine with my state issuing union licenses to those who have been married by a state-recognized church or to those who come to the state/city for a union. To me, marriage is rooted in religious foundations - so I don't think that state should have the right to issue a marriage license. If you want to get married, go to a church. If you want to be recognized by the state/federal government as being in a union, take that marriage certificate to the state/local authorities and have it recognized.

States could still vote, I suppose, to not allow gay union (or any other kind of union, I guess), but I just think it is a business the states shouldn't be in as long as we define marriage as a sacrament (which I think most of America does, though perhaps that's another vote). Though even as I say that I worry about saying "that's another vote"....everything can't be put to a vote...we've already been down that road with regard to evolution, IIRC.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my sentiments right there. I am only going to add that I will always vote "no" until I am completely guaranteed that churches have every right and authority to refuse to perform a ceremony for a gay couple and not get drug to court. After that... it's your bed not mine so make it however you like.
 
#77
#77
OrangeYankee said:
That is exactly my sentiments right there. I am only going to add that I will always vote "no" until I am completely guaranteed that churches have every right and authority to refuse to perform a ceremony for a gay couple and not get drug to court. After that... it's your bed not mine so make it however you like.
Click to expand...

That right shouldn't be that hard to protect. I seriously doubt that anyone could effectively sue the Catholic church to marry them even if they aren't baptized. Surely there are protections likewise for churches that refuse to marry those that have divorced. It shouldn't be that hard to protect churches from being forced to marry homosexuals....yet, why do I think that someone would bring the lawsuit up because they love a particular church and really want to get married there...
 
#78
#78
TennTradition said:
That right shouldn't be that hard to protect. I seriously doubt that anyone could effectively sue the Catholic church to marry them even if they aren't baptized. Surely there are protections likewise for churches that refuse to marry those that have divorced. It shouldn't be that hard to protect churches from being forced to marry homosexuals....yet, why do I think that someone would bring the lawsuit up because they love a particular church and really want to get married there...
Click to expand...

Let us not forget about those who have an agenda beyond gay marriage. I have no doubt what so ever that some of these groups out there would flood churches they deem hostile to their agenda with legal proceedings if there was anyway possible they could. It would not matter that they were thrown out of court, the churches, mosques and temples would have to retain legal counsel costing them them time, money and resources.
 
#79
#79
I think part of the problem is that people are too hung up on the word marriage. IMO things would be simpler if there was a separation between marriage as a religious ceremony and marriage as a civil status. States already requires a "marriage certificate" to have a legal marriage. I believe that if the name was changed to "civil certificate of union" or some thing along those lines, and require it for both marriage and civil unions, that less people would have a problem. The certificate is the legal binding that would make the marriage/union valid allowing the normal rights associated to the people involved. Marriage it's self would loose all legal basis and revert back to a strictly ceremonial event. If any religion so chose to preform the ceremony they could, but it would be purely religious/personnel not state sanctioned.

By removing marriage from the legal documents you kill 2 birds with one stone. Those people that have a problem purely based on calling it a marriage being an affront to their beliefs would loose that argument. As well, the argument of separate but equal would be moot, due to both hetero and homo sexual couples being required to get the same certificate.
 
#80
#80
OrangeEmpire said:

The first part I could care less about but the second I drastically changed my mind about a year ago.

My wife and I have two lesbian friends and they adopted two boys who came from a horrible situation where there parents did nothing for them.

The youngest was never held for 6 months and his head was lopsided from laying in his crib.

You can't tell me that going back to the abusive behavior of the parents is better for them than being raised by lesbians.

:shaking2:
Click to expand...

absolutely, two wrongs don't make a right.
 
#81
#81
OrangeEmpire said:

The first part I could care less about but the second I drastically changed my mind about a year ago.

My wife and I have two lesbian friends and they adopted two boys who came from a horrible situation where there parents did nothing for them.

The youngest was never held for 6 months and his head was lopsided from laying in his crib.

You can't tell me that going back to the abusive behavior of the parents is better for them than being raised by lesbians.

:shaking2:
Click to expand...

This I agree with. I believe that all things being equal, being raised in a traditional home of a mother and father is the best case scenario. That being said things are never idea nor usually equal, and any loving home, be it with 2 mothers or 2 fathers is better than no home at all. I think a child would have a more rounded childhood from having both a male and female influence, but the difference would be small. The more important part would have to do with the love of the parents and not their sex.
 
#82
#82
chatsworth_vol said:
I think part of the problem is that people are too hung up on the word marriage. IMO things would be simpler if there was a separation between marriage as a religious ceremony and marriage as a civil status. States already requires a "marriage certificate" to have a legal marriage. I believe that if the name was changed to "civil certificate of union" or some thing along those lines, and require it for both marriage and civil unions, that less people would have a problem. The certificate is the legal binding that would make the marriage/union valid allowing the normal rights associated to the people involved. Marriage it's self would loose all legal basis and revert back to a strictly ceremonial event. If any religion so chose to preform the ceremony they could, but it would be purely religious/personnel not state sanctioned.

By removing marriage from the legal documents you kill 2 birds with one stone. Those people that have a problem purely based on calling it a marriage being an affront to their beliefs would loose that argument. As well, the argument of separate but equal would be moot, due to both hetero and homo sexual couples being required to get the same certificate.
Click to expand...

I think this is a possible solution.

Like it or not, the word itself has deep meaning and symbolism - for centuries, that symbolism is based in heterosexuality.

Government and laws cannot change that symbolism nor should they try to. I would bet that many of the "save marriage" proponents are not against marital rights being granted to same-sex couples. Instead, they value the symbolism that has become tied to the word. Likewise, I bet many same-sex couples really want that symbolism to apply to them (in addition to the "rights").

If the government grants that word and it's meaning to same-sex couples, it is taking it away from hetero-couples who value that symbolism.

I don't have a dog in the fight other than I can see why both sides desire the symbolic meaning and in the end it is people, culture, rituals and time that grant symbolic meaning - not governments.

When the same-sex marriage ban vote came to my state, I abstained. It is a non-issue to me and either way I voted I'd be forcing my view on one group or the other. When the scales tip (and I'm guessing they will) on the symbolic meaning of the word towards to couples of any orientation, that will be fine with me.
 
#89
#89
turambar85 said:
And to kick it off - I find not extending marriage rights to be hypocritical, overly-emotional, petty, and un-just.
Click to expand...
I'm game. WTF are marriage RIGHTS? I find misplaced views of benefits programs as rights to be simply elementary and whiny. As to the issue, I don't give a rat's ass.
 
#94
#94
vader said:
That is a much larger subset of humanity.
Click to expand...

That's why American society is in a downward spiral. Too many children are not being raised as real people. They are viewed and treated as objects, things, or belongings.
 
#95
#95
UT IE 95 said:
That's why American society is in a downward spiral. Too many children are not being raised as real people. They are viewed and treated as objects, things, or belongings.
Click to expand...
I like some broad sweeping generalizations.
 
#97
#97
UT IE 95 said:
You disagree?

I think there are more "unfit" parents now than at any point in American history.
Click to expand...

every older generation in history thought the younger generation was unfit to parent. if you read roman/greek/middle age texts you consistantly see references to the younger generation having no morals and screwing things up.
 
#99
#99
droski said:
every older generation in history thought the younger generation was unfit to parent. if you read roman/greek/middle age texts you consistantly see referces to the younger generation having no morals and screwing things up.
Click to expand...


Did any of those civilizations survive? Nope. Which means that, eventually, the complaints about the next generation turn out to be correct.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top