Gay Marriage: Yes or No
- Thread starter daydreamer
- Start date
Interesting that I managed to miss this thread until now...
"Gay Marriage: Yes or No?"
No.
No to straight marriage, too.
The only role the governmental/judicial/law enforcement bodies should have in contractual agreements is that of enforcing the involved stipulations; NOT defining who can be involved.
Marriage should be completely deinstitutionalized.
That way, the churches can argue over what marriage really is 'till the cows come home, and any two (or more) people who want to enter into a marriage-like agreement get to do so simply with the signing of a legal document.
"Gay Marriage: Yes or No?"
No.
No to straight marriage, too.
The only role the governmental/judicial/law enforcement bodies should have in contractual agreements is that of enforcing the involved stipulations; NOT defining who can be involved.
Marriage should be completely deinstitutionalized.
That way, the churches can argue over what marriage really is 'till the cows come home, and any two (or more) people who want to enter into a marriage-like agreement get to do so simply with the signing of a legal document.
Last edited:
whoah! you have just sparked off this debate for another 10 pages.............at least!
T
The Jester
It may be a problem, but it's not my problem. It's a problem between those gay partners and their church which is bigoted against them. The church is free to be bigoted, we have freedom of religion in this country. And they are free to find another church which is more accepting. I don't see what role this plays in the debate.
T
The Jester
Good, glad to have that clear haha. Love is an emotion. But as opposed to Slant, she doesnt think Love exists (which you do). I never discussed how long love can last. But I dare say that it is not an illusion because there are those who can keep the water forever...
You should reread mine and Slant's discussion again since you obviously took it out of context.
Its not my problem either and they could find another church but the point was that they wont because they feel that they are mistreated and segregated. Thus why the LAW becomes involved.
If you want to join an argument and have nothing useful to say, rant about the way I'm participating instead...
I guess that you're very experienced, since you have had zero input on this discussion so far.
I'm not taking anything out of context. The law simply has no role in such a dispute. If a church wants to exclude something, it's allowed to do so. Banning them from doing so is clearly against the 1st amendment.
Which I agree with- which is why I am suggesting marriage be stripped of it's legal rights and be recognized as a religious ceremony and the rights that were once from marriage be transferred to civil union to better distinguish the lines between the religious' rights and the rights of the government.
We werent even discussing the law in that context? You obviously don't know what you are diggin your nose into. We were talking about what 'marriage' is. Thus, why law, love and religion were brought into the same context.
Once again, I read both of your comments. I was explaining the position that law has nothing to do with marriage in THAT context.
We don't know that. We don't know whether or not "marriage" had to do with some kind of tribal religion in the primitive human societies, or if there was any bonding at all.
It's like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? We don't know if religion created marriage or if marriage predates religion. The problem that comes into play is that marriage (and I'm speaking strictly from the standpoint of the United States) is mixed up between religion and the state.
If we are going to give man-woman couples married under a religious pretext certain rights from the government, all couples, be it man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman should be granted the option to be married free from a religious pretext and have it called just that, 'marriage'. No more of this civil-union bullshit. And the government shouldn't prevent any man or woman, be they homo or heterosexual from getting a religious free marriage and obtaining the same rights as those married in a religious setting. The religious communities would be free to be bigots in any way they choose, but the government cannot be allowed to be bigoted to anyone.
To each there own, marriage for anyone who wants it.
And a note, love is much more than just an emotion, it's also a conscious decision.
If we are going to give man-woman couples married under a religious pretext certain rights from the government, all couples, be it man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman should be granted the option to be married free from a religious pretext and have it called just that, 'marriage'. No more of this civil-union bullshit. And the government shouldn't prevent any man or woman, be they homo or heterosexual from getting a religious free marriage and obtaining the same rights as those married in a religious setting. The religious communities would be free to be bigots in any way they choose, but the government cannot be allowed to be bigoted to anyone.
To each there own, marriage for anyone who wants it.
And a note, love is much more than just an emotion, it's also a conscious decision.