Same-sex marriage races ahead

[Triumphant_Loser]

This is a bit laughable...because gay parenthood doesn't exist in nature.

Roy and Silo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Estro Felino]

What I have said, repeatedly, is that the rights with regards to adoption ARE DIFFERENT FOR MARRIED COUPLES THAN THEY ARE FOR COUPLES IN A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP.

That's exactly the reason why I am for civil unions but not for gay marriages. I don't think that two men are apt to be "parents" as an infertile straight couple is.
I am absolutely sure that two gay men can give a child all the love that they need. But it's a matter of prudence. For example...if a gay man adopts and raises a child, he doesn't have to tell them that he's gay and that he is in a relationship with the man he lives with.

Do you believe it is "necessary" to allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry?

all right, You win. from a logical point of view, I used the wrong points

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Marriage infers rights above and beyond CU. But honestly, that's not the point. The point is to treat gay couples in the same manner straight couples are. No more. No less.

Yeah but what gets a lot of straights backs up (especially many christians) is the fact that gays want to hijack the word 'marriage'.
So surely the best solution all round would simply be to keep the term 'Civil Union' but re-write its rules to give it exactly the same rights as marriage?..

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah but what gets a lot of straights backs up (especially many christians) is the fact that gays want to hijack the word 'marriage'.
So surely the best solution all round would simply be to keep the term 'Civil Union' but re-write its rules to give it exactly the same rights as marriage?..

Christians don't own marriage so they don't get to dictate to everyone else what they think marriage should be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah but what gets a lot of straights backs up (especially many christians) is the fact that gays want to hijack the word 'marriage'.
So surely the best solution all round would simply be to keep the term 'Civil Union' but re-write its rules to give it exactly the same rights as marriage?..

A better solution: grant everyone - including LGBT people - normal human rights even if it makes bigots upset.

People who "get their backs up" at a loving, committed couple will find something to be upset at regardless. Trying to placate them is a fool's errand.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

"The greatest warrior is the one who avoids having to fight a battle"- Sun Tzu 600 BC

But sadly militant gays are a little too loud for their own good and are their own worst enemy, so the sooner they take the stealth approach and blend into the background, the less hassle they'll get..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah but what gets a lot of straights backs up (especially many christians) is the fact that gays want to hijack the word 'marriage'.
So surely the best solution all round would simply be to keep the term 'Civil Union' but re-write its rules to give it exactly the same rights as marriage?..

You realise this post is the very definition of 'ironic', right?
'Hijacking the word marriage'...

:foot:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"The greatest warrior is the one who avoids having to fight a battle"- Sun Tzu 600 BC

But sadly militant gays are a little too loud for their own good and are their own worst enemy, so the sooner they take the stealth approach and blend into the background, the less hassle they'll get..

What the hell are "militant gays"? Is the Sacred Band of Thebes making a comeback that I'm aware of? Wanting the right to get married is hardly "militant".

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

You realise this post is the very definition of 'ironic', right?
'Hijacking the word marriage'...

:foot:

Kind of like how Christians hijacked marriage from those "filthy, heathenish, pagans."

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

What the hell are "militant gays"? Is the Sacred Band of Thebes making a comeback that I'm aware of? Wanting the right to get married is hardly "militant".

I would imagine "militant gays" look something like this...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would imagine "militant gays" look something like this...

Eww, no.

More like this:

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Eww, no.

More like this:

Touche. Agreed.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah but what gets a lot of straights backs up (especially many christians) is the fact that gays want to hijack the word 'marriage'.
So surely the best solution all round would simply be to keep the term 'Civil Union' but re-write its rules to give it exactly the same rights as marriage?..

I always thought they should remove marriage as having any legal status or lawfully recognized rights.

It kind of old, religiousy idealism. Of course any church could still preform marriage ceremonies. They just would have any legal standing. Only your fellow religious folks when need to have any consideration for your marriage.

Any legal status would require a civil union. That way marriage would not be regulated by law.

Really why can't a church marry whoever they want? Why is the government involved in a religious ceremony?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I always thought they should remove marriage as having any legal status or lawfully recognized rights.

It kind of old, religiousy idealism. Of course any church could still preform marriage ceremonies. They just would have any legal standing. Only your fellow religious folks when need to have any consideration for your marriage.

Any legal status would require a civil union. That way marriage would not be regulated by law.

Really why can't a church marry whoever they want? Why is the government involved in a religious ceremony?

If we got rid of marriage, how would we deal with inheritance, medical issues, tax issues, property, benefits, etc.? The religious aspect of marriage has always been more or less a veneer for the actual purpose of marriage - a legal-social contract to regulate things like inheritance and property. The "let's get rid of civil marriage" argument doesn't make any sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I always thought they should remove marriage as having any legal status or lawfully recognized rights.

It kind of old, religiousy idealism. Of course any church could still preform marriage ceremonies. They just would have any legal standing. Only your fellow religious folks when need to have any consideration for your marriage.

Any legal status would require a civil union. That way marriage would not be regulated by law.

Really why can't a church marry whoever they want? Why is the government involved in a religious ceremony?

Marriage isn't a religious ceremony. The fact that religions have set up rituals to go along with marriage no more makes it religious than the fact that pipe organs are used in churches makes a hockey game a religious service.

 

[Nakosis]

Marriage isn't a religious ceremony. The fact that religions have set up rituals to go along with marriage no more makes it religious than the fact that pipe organs are used in churches makes a hockey game a religious service.

Any reason it is not? Other then the legal status the government chooses to give it.

I don't know why people get impressed by the word.

Two people choose to be together, makes no difference to me whether they are married or not. I treat them the same. I respect their commitment to each other.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Marriage is just a human invention anyway.
There was no clergyman around to marry Adam and Eve, and they went on to have at least 7 kids.
I never married because I never wanted to be a "family man" with noisy smelly kids around, so I can't see why some people seem fascinated with marriage anyway..

PS- regarding the definition of 'militant gays', the Sodom/Gomorrah mob were that sort, hammering on peoples doors and demanding they send men out so they could have them.
Food for thought--maybe if they'd not been so militant God wouldn't have zapped them

 

[Viker]

Marriage is just a human invention anyway.
There was no clergyman around to marry Adam and Eve, and they went on to have at least 7 kids.
I never married because I never wanted to be a "family man" with noisy smelly kids around, so I can't see why some people seem fascinated with marriage anyway..

Probably wouldn't be a big deal if married straight couples didn't have special rights and extra benefits, especially in the US, that fly in the face of constitutionality. Otherwise, I kind of agree with you. Maybe it would be best if authorities just stopped officiating our unions and leave them alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Marriage is just a human invention anyway.
There was no clergyman around to marry Adam and Eve, and they went on to have at least 7 kids.
I never married because I never wanted to be a "family man" with noisy smelly kids around, so I can't see why some people seem fascinated with marriage anyway..

PS- regarding the definition of 'militant gays', the Sodom/Gomorrah mob were that sort, hammering on peoples doors and demanding they send men out so they could have them.
Food for thought--maybe if they'd not been so militant God wouldn't have zapped them

I think it's rather telling that you think the problem with the Sodom & Gomorrah rape mob was that they wanted to rape members of the same sex and not that they wanted to rape, period.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I think it's rather telling that you think the problem with the Sodom & Gomorrah rape mob was that they wanted to rape members of the same sex and not that they wanted to rape, period.

Nah, rape is rape regardless of sex, the Bible is very pro-womens rights..-
"Control yourselves honourably, not in lust like the heathens" (1 Thess 4:4/5)
"Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love.."(Ecc 9:9)
"Husbands..be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect.." (1 Peter 3:1-7)
Paul said "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)
Jesus said to the priests- "Prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you!" (Matt 21:31)

Some of the disciples ran off in fear of the Romans, but women stuck with JC to the end-