Guitar Gear Forum

marshallnoise wrote: I am is a classical liberal.

No, you are a Jesus humping Neo-con.

rear naked wrote:The colonies = USA

He didn't say Japan is a colony.


Still curious if you are for gay marriage if the state keeps marriage on the books. I have no idea what your answer will be

Oh sure, what the fuck ever. I don't care about it, just provided a solution that was deemed unreasonable by you. Truth is, you don't like people who don't think like you, but heaven forbid they voice it. Your inner bigot comes out and the hatred attack begins. Nothing quite like the display of intolerance for the cause of tolerance.

ComOp wrote:

marshallnoise wrote: I am is a classical liberal.

No, you are a Jesus humping Neo-con.

Really? Do you even know what a Neo-con is? I would be surprised if you did know.

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

marshallnoise wrote:

rear naked wrote:The colonies = USA

He didn't say Japan is a colony.


Still curious if you are for gay marriage if the state keeps marriage on the books. I have no idea what your answer will be

Oh sure, what the fuck ever. I don't care about it, just provided a solution that was deemed unreasonable by you. Truth is, you don't like people who don't think like you, but heaven forbid they voice it. Your inner bigot comes out and the hatred attack begins. Nothing quite like the display of intolerance for the cause of tolerance.

My intolerance = contempt for your stupid and irrational arguments. My intolerance stops at ridicule.

Religious fundie intolerance = use legal system (ie. force) to institute the oppressive kind of intolerance.


Espousing this moronic equivalences over and over is quite ridiculous and pathetic for a guy who likes to paint himself as intelligent. Truth is, your stated position that the state should get out of marriage is one that I have argued for MYSELF. The difference is that I'm not stupid enough to do so because Christians own the word, or that we need to compromise between two groups who hold equally valid opinions about whether or not the state should restrict rights based on sexual orientation.

So again, you are ridiculously wrong...not because of your position, but because your arguments are shit.

Your arguments and comments are so typical of a religious fundie....but hey, if you say your PRO gay marriage, I guess I'll believe you. It just makes your comments and attitude that much more strange.

Hardtail wrote:agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

"Separate but equal" lives on

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

We're getting into beliefs here, so here's mine. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it in a church, mosque, town hall, Vegas drive in chapel, lawyers office, whatever - I could give a shit what religion you are. As I said, I have nothing against gay people (ok, maybe the militant ones), I fully support them getting all the legal benefits associated with it ... but for anything other than between a man & a woman, it's not a marriage its a union. The definition of which is the point of contention ...

Hardtail wrote:

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

We're getting into beliefs here, so here's mine. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it in a church, mosque, town hall, Vegas drive in chapel, lawyers office, whatever - I could give a shit what religion you are. As I said, I have nothing against gay people, I fully support them getting all the legal benefits associated with it ... but for anything other than between a man & a woman, it's not a marriage its a union.

Your view really just states an axiom or definition. Is there anything to your opinion besides semantics?

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

We're getting into beliefs here, so here's mine. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it in a church, mosque, town hall, Vegas drive in chapel, lawyers office, whatever - I could give a shit what religion you are. As I said, I have nothing against gay people, I fully support them getting all the legal benefits associated with it ... but for anything other than between a man & a woman, it's not a marriage its a union.

Your view really just states an axiom or definition. Is there anything to your opinion besides semantics?

As I said, unlike many fundies, I'm not for restricting anyone's rights at all, I just firmly disagree with it being called a marriage. It all boils down to your belief system, and thats ok. If gays want to hang their hat on calling it a marriage, alot of people will always have a problem with that ...

... how about this - if same sex partners want to get married, lets put forth legislation that one of them has to be legally declared the husband, and one of them be declared the wife. That way by definition there would be a husband and wife. "Hi, I'm Rick, this is my wife Frank". Obviously, this is silly, but calling a gay couple married is just as silly to me ...

Hardtail wrote:

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

We're getting into beliefs here, so here's mine. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it in a church, mosque, town hall, Vegas drive in chapel, lawyers office, whatever - I could give a shit what religion you are. As I said, I have nothing against gay people, I fully support them getting all the legal benefits associated with it ... but for anything other than between a man & a woman, it's not a marriage its a union.

Your view really just states an axiom or definition. Is there anything to your opinion besides semantics?

As I said, unlike many fundies, I'm not for restricting anyone's rights at all, I just firmly disagree with it being called a marriage. It all boils down to your belief system, and thats ok. If gays want to hang their hat on calling it a marriage, alot of people will always have a problem with that ...

Well I got that, and its might kind of you

Im asking, is there any merrit to your view besides stating an axiom of sorts?

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

We're getting into beliefs here, so here's mine. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it in a church, mosque, town hall, Vegas drive in chapel, lawyers office, whatever - I could give a shit what religion you are. As I said, I have nothing against gay people, I fully support them getting all the legal benefits associated with it ... but for anything other than between a man & a woman, it's not a marriage its a union.

Your view really just states an axiom or definition. Is there anything to your opinion besides semantics?

As I said, unlike many fundies, I'm not for restricting anyone's rights at all, I just firmly disagree with it being called a marriage. It all boils down to your belief system, and thats ok. If gays want to hang their hat on calling it a marriage, alot of people will always have a problem with that ...

Well I got that, and its might kind of you

Im asking, is there any merrit to your view besides stating an axiom of sorts?

I in no way infer my beliefs to be an axiom, they are simply beliefs.

David Lee Broth wrote:

neilrocks25 wrote:Well this went exactly how I expected when I saw the left wing liberal Marshallnoise enter the thread.

wat.

Sarcasm you missed it

neilrocks25 wrote:

David Lee Broth wrote:

neilrocks25 wrote:Well this went exactly how I expected when I saw the left wing liberal Marshallnoise enter the thread.

wat.

Sarcasm you missed it

Perhaps the delivery was to blame.

rear naked wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:

rear naked wrote:The colonies = USA

He didn't say Japan is a colony.


Still curious if you are for gay marriage if the state keeps marriage on the books. I have no idea what your answer will be

Oh sure, what the fuck ever. I don't care about it, just provided a solution that was deemed unreasonable by you. Truth is, you don't like people who don't think like you, but heaven forbid they voice it. Your inner bigot comes out and the hatred attack begins. Nothing quite like the display of intolerance for the cause of tolerance.

My intolerance = contempt for your stupid and irrational arguments. My intolerance stops at ridicule.

Religious fundie intolerance = use legal system (ie. force) to institute the oppressive kind of intolerance.


Espousing this moronic equivalences over and over is quite ridiculous and pathetic for a guy who likes to paint himself as intelligent. Truth is, your stated position that the state should get out of marriage is one that I have argued for MYSELF. The difference is that I'm not stupid enough to do so because Christians own the word, or that we need to compromise between two groups who hold equally valid opinions about whether or not the state should restrict rights based on sexual orientation.

So again, you are ridiculously wrong...not because of your position, but because your arguments are shit.

Your arguments and comments are so typical of a religious fundie....but hey, if you say your PRO gay marriage, I guess I'll believe you. It just makes your comments and attitude that much more strange.

I am not pro gay marriage. I am not anti gay marriage. I don't give a shit. But I would support civil unions to cover all types of legal contracts based on cohabitation just to appease both sides so we can move on to more important things like fixing our broken government. You can call me a religious fundie all you want but respecting both sides is what I bring to the table while you offer alienation of THE majority for the benefit of the few when a clear solution exists.

If the semantics of the whole argument wasn't such a big fucking deal, why are you fighting so hard to take over the language that one side DOES feel is a big deal? Obviously the purpose is to denigrate one long standing tradition for pure sport and coerce that side into accepting what they morally object. Once again, my solution covers all: it values the rights of gays to have all the rights a currently married couple enjoy in the eyes of the state, but it also doesn't piss off the majority of folks who for a variety of reasons don't think marriage is anything other than between a man and a woman.

I think it is high time that people realize there is a third way through this debate and guess what rear naked, you don't stand for the third way a real solution, you are waging the war in just the same way as you despise the religious fundamentalists. You are every bit as petty because of it.

I rarely call for compromise on economic issues or issues of principle, but this issue is a non-issue and designed to raise campaign contributions of the democrat party. That is it. There are no civil rights at stake here. None. Zip. Zero. And it should stop being talked about as if it were. What blacks went through during slavery and up through the civil rights movement was atrocious and certainly not anything a conservative (classical liberal) would support. But what gays go through today is just self delusion victim-hood. People aren't lining up outside their doors burning crosses and dragging them behind trucks. Not even close.

I just call shenanigans on the whole damn thing. So make it go away without pissing off Adam & Steve or Adam & Eve.

There is no "gay marriage'. That still implies it's different from so-called "straight" marriage. There's only one kind of marriage, and denying one group benefits enjoyed by another group violates the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.
Period.
End of story.
Anything else is just high school sophistry and ignorant bigotry.
As far as being "fair" by removing rights from all married couples, I suppose that instead of freeing the black slaves, Lincoln should have made white slavery legal.
Go brush your tooth.

neilrocks25 wrote:

David Lee Broth wrote:

neilrocks25 wrote:Well this went exactly how I expected when I saw the left wing liberal Marshallnoise enter the thread.

wat.

Sarcasm you missed it

I was hoping for "sarcasm, how does it work" but this will do just fine.

frumiousbandersnatch wrote:There is no "gay marriage'. That still implies it's different from so-called "straight" marriage. There's only one kind of marriage, and denying one group benefits enjoyed by another group violates the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.
Period.
End of story.
Anything else is just high school sophistry and ignorant bigotry.
As far as being "fair" by removing rights from all married couples, I suppose that instead of freeing the black slaves, Lincoln should have made white slavery legal.
Go brush your tooth.

False equivalency. Removing benefits based on marital status does not = slavery. Idiot. How on earth can benefits be turned into rights? Benefits are not constitutionally guaranteed. What it does is restore independence and removes dependence on government. Plus, if you deny all married people group benefits, there is no violation of equal protection under the law. What then? How else will you try to modify the definition of marriage?

Sophistry or not, we have wars over words all the time.

Don't even get me started on "assault rifle." Starting debates without settling definitions contained in the debate being set in stone is pointless. Read anything by Plato and see how those transpired.

Discrimination is discrimination. Of course it's equivalent.
If ANYONE can't do something YOU get to do, especially because of some imaginary manifest destiny birthright tradition B.S, that's discrimination, and that violates the 14th Amendment.
That's why we live in America, not some backwards third-world shit-hole where they still try to pass death penalty laws for non-super-straight-normal-people.

And while we concoct a mythical world in which you can assign benefits to disparate groups based on prejudice and bigotry, or, apparently, quixotic whim, let's also remove the tax benefits to all religious institutions. Make them equal to the non-religious.

But we will restore their independence from Big Government.

Also any tax write-offs to any corporations. Profits will go down, prices will go up. Too bad.

But we will restore their independence from Big Government.

You work for a corporation, or any business that does?
Oops, salaries decrease as well.

Sorry about those toes being stepped on.
But, We Will Restore YOUR Independence From Big Government.

Hey, let's make the gays drink from separate water fountains, too, OK?
I don't wanna get any gay on me.
Hey, you know, it's hard to tell them gays apart from normal folks, let's make 'em wear a tattoo or something so we can readily identify 'em.

Assault rifles for everyone! I'll be in my bunker.

frumiousbandersnatch wrote:Discrimination is discrimination. Of course it's equivalent.
If ANYONE can't do something YOU get to do, especially because of some imaginary manifest destiny birthright tradition B.S, that's discrimination, and that violates the 14th Amendment.
That's why we live in America, not some backwards third-world shit-hole where they still try to pass death penalty laws for non-super-straight-normal-people.

And while we concoct a mythical world in which you can assign benefits to disparate groups based on prejudice and bigotry, or, apparently, quixotic whim, let's also remove the tax benefits to all religious institutions. Make them equal to the non-religious.

But we will restore their independence from Big Government.

Also any tax write-offs to any corporations. Profits will go down, prices will go up. Too bad.

But we will restore their independence from Big Government.

You work for a corporation, or any business that does?
Oops, salaries decrease as well.

Sorry about those toes being stepped on.
But, We Will Restore YOUR Independence From Big Government.

Hey, let's make the gays drink from separate water fountains, too, OK?
I don't wanna get any gay on me.
Hey, you know, it's hard to tell them gays apart from normal folks, let's make 'em wear a tattoo or something so we can readily identify 'em.

Assault rifles for everyone! I'll be in my bunker.

Your post is frightening.

Hardtail wrote:

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

We're getting into beliefs here, so here's mine. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it in a church, mosque, town hall, Vegas drive in chapel, lawyers office, whatever - I could give a shit what religion you are. As I said, I have nothing against gay people, I fully support them getting all the legal benefits associated with it ... but for anything other than between a man & a woman, it's not a marriage its a union.

Your view really just states an axiom or definition. Is there anything to your opinion besides semantics?

As I said, unlike many fundies, I'm not for restricting anyone's rights at all, I just firmly disagree with it being called a marriage. It all boils down to your belief system, and thats ok. If gays want to hang their hat on calling it a marriage, alot of people will always have a problem with that ...

... how about this - if same sex partners want to get married, lets put forth legislation that one of them has to be legally declared the husband, and one of them be declared the wife. That way by definition there would be a husband and wife. "Hi, I'm Rick, this is my wife Frank". Obviously, this is silly, but calling a gay couple married is just as silly to me ...

"Asking who is the man and who is the woman in a same sex partnership is like asking which chopstick is the fork." -- Ellen DeGeneres

But seriously, here's the thing: no church in the United States performs "marriages"; what a church presides over is called whatever that particular religion terms it ~ in Christian churches, that's "holy matrimony."

"Marriage" is and always has been a term defined by the state, by the governing body of whatever society we're talking about.

And yes, that predates Christianity by quite a bit, as others have pointed out.

Point of interest: there are some priests in my church who refuse to perform weddings due to the current legal inequality between the laws for straight couples and the ones for gay couples. These priests are (in my view understandably) uncomfortable with being forced, in their roles as religious leaders, into carrying out the (in their view) bigotry of the laws of the state.

In my opinion, no church should be performing any "marriage" at all ~ that is a state/secular matter to be handled by the state. If a couple wants to enter into a sacred relationship and have that partnership blessed and sanctified via religious ritual & ceremony, then that couple may find whatever church they choose which is willing to bless that union. There ~ sorted.

^^^^^

This x1000000.

Which is why if you're going to marry someone (in terms of being an officiant) you have to register with the state.

No matter what religious doctrine you follow.

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

agree ... I think gay couples should have the legal rights as married couples, it's just not a marriage, it's a civil union.

What about atheists, buddhists, and hindus? Would that be marriage? If yes, then please explain how that's different than gay marriage. If no, then please explain why it is that you feel the word marriage is yours to claim for religious purposes when marriage predates any known religion. Thanks.

We're getting into beliefs here, so here's mine. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it in a church, mosque, town hall, Vegas drive in chapel, lawyers office, whatever - I could give a shit what religion you are. As I said, I have nothing against gay people, I fully support them getting all the legal benefits associated with it ... but for anything other than between a man & a woman, it's not a marriage its a union.

Your view really just states an axiom or definition. Is there anything to your opinion besides semantics?

As I said, unlike many fundies, I'm not for restricting anyone's rights at all, I just firmly disagree with it being called a marriage. It all boils down to your belief system, and thats ok. If gays want to hang their hat on calling it a marriage, alot of people will always have a problem with that ...

... how about this - if same sex partners want to get married, lets put forth legislation that one of them has to be legally declared the husband, and one of them be declared the wife. That way by definition there would be a husband and wife. "Hi, I'm Rick, this is my wife Frank". Obviously, this is silly, but calling a gay couple married is just as silly to me ...

"Asking who is the man and who is the woman in a same sex partnership is like asking which chopstick is the fork." -- Ellen DeGeneres

But seriously, here's the thing: no church in the United States performs "marriages"; what a church presides over is called whatever that particular religion terms it ~ in Christian churches, that's "holy matrimony."

"Marriage" is and always has been a term defined by the state, by the governing body of whatever society we're talking about.

And yes, that predates Christianity by quite a bit, as others have pointed out.

Point of interest: there are some priests in my church who refuse to perform weddings due to the current legal inequality between the laws for straight couples and the ones for gay couples. These priests are (in my view understandably) uncomfortable with being forced, in their roles as religious leaders, into carrying out the (in their view) bigotry of the laws of the state.

In my opinion, no church should be performing any "marriage" at all ~ that is a state/secular matter to be handled by the state. If a couple wants to enter into a sacred relationship and have that partnership blessed and sanctified via religious ritual & ceremony, then that couple may find whatever church they choose which is willing to bless that union. There ~ sorted.

Exactly. There is no rational excuse for not accepting this concept. Religion doesn't own the word marriage. I don't necessarily even have a problem with any particular church denying anyone(including homosexuals) getting "married" at their church for whatever reason. It's not the religious ceremony that makes it a "marriage" in the eyes of the law. That's what people need to understand and get over.

If you want to restrict marriages to only include who you want it to based on your personal beliefs, you are in fact restricting the rights of citizens. It's of no consequence what you personally believe. If you don't believe that men should marry other men, then don't marry another man.
But that has nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal.

That is a point that is lost on people for some fucking reason.

Being in favor of the legality of some activity does not require you to morally accept said activity.

Cflat wrote:[. Religion doesn't own the word marriage. .

True, but understand, Marriage is a sacrament for some Christians - thats pretty important stuff to them, and why they feel so strongly about the issue.