Guitar Gear Forum

Hardtail wrote:

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.

Cflat wrote:

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.

Cflat wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

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.

That's fine. But that has no bearing on whether or not something should be legal.

neilrocks25 wrote:I don't understand why anyone wouldn't support gay marraige unless they hate gays?

Every one should be given the right to pain and suffering.. And begging for sex

ComOp wrote:marshallnoise, you'll feel better once you stop lying to yourself.

Just admit you hate gay people.

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

marshallnoise wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

Cflat wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

marshallnoise wrote:

Cflat wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

Are you incapable of reading? In practically every single post, I either eliminated all special privileges or established equal privileges for everyone. Where the fuck, ever, in this thread did I say that only heteros should get ANY benefits and gays shouldn't?

Keep on kicking the shit out of that windmill, Quixote.

Hardtail wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Interesting - I always thought the primary objection from the gay point of view was that they were not able to receive the same legal rights as straight couples. IF I were gay, the whole being "equal" to straight married couples by calling it a marriage would be so much farther down the food chain - legal rights would be my primary concern. But I understand your point & to some gays, I'm sure it is all about being equal by using the same term. Almost seems that to those holding that position, they're doing it out of spite to some degree, and not looking at the big picture from a legal rights point of view ... which brings me back to my compromise theory ...

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Interesting - I always thought the primary objection from the gay point of view was that they were not able to receive the same legal rights as straight couples. IF I were gay, the whole being "equal" to straight married couples by calling it a marriage would be so much farther down the food chain - legal rights would be my primary concern. But I understand your point & to some gays, I'm sure it is all about being equal by using the same term. Almost seems that to those holding that position, they're doing it out of spite to some degree, and not looking at the big picture from a legal rights point of view ... which brings me back to my compromise theory ...

Why do you think equality of civil rights is something to compromise on?

This isn't a matter of simple opinion.


Pretend that the country was still divided in half on the issue of interracial marriage. Do you think the right thing to do is to compromise and give interracial couples the right to civil union each other?



Some of you need to understand that just because some people hold a certain opinion doesn't mean that it is with merit. The simple act of holding an opinion does not make your position worthy of compromising with. Your position must have merit.

marshallnoise wrote:

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Interesting - I always thought the primary objection from the gay point of view was that they were not able to receive the same legal rights as straight couples. IF I were gay, the whole being "equal" to straight married couples by calling it a marriage would be so much farther down the food chain - legal rights would be my primary concern. But I understand your point & to some gays, I'm sure it is all about being equal by using the same term. Almost seems that to those holding that position, they're doing it out of spite to some degree, and not looking at the big picture from a legal rights point of view ... which brings me back to my compromise theory ...

Why do you think equality of civil rights is something to compromise on?

This isn't a matter of simple opinion.


Pretend that the country was still divided in half on the issue of interracial marriage. Do you think the right thing to do is to compromise and give interracial couples the right to civil union each other?



Some of you need to understand that just because some people hold a certain opinion doesn't mean that it is with merit. The simple act of holding an opinion does not make your position worthy of compromising with. Your position must have merit.

And WHO determines what has merit and what doesn't? As if merit is anything other than what someone, personally, assigns to it.

Cflat wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:

Cflat wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Because you are a petty person?

Chris, I am only saying that in terms of the state, no one should have a "marriage." Marriage is a religious choice between said religious people and their church/god. Take the term off the table, call all unions between two concenting adults, "civil unions" and move on.

What is so unreasonable about that?

What is so hard for you to grasp here? You can't claim a word for your religion and then demand special privileges for who you allow to use it, just because your religion adopted marriage as a holy sacrament. Marriages have been taking place since the dawn of humanity. That would be equivalent to me saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster considers baseball to be a holy sacrament so anyone who wants to play baseball differently than how we define it must call it something else. That is literally how asinine you sound.

If you want to attach extra religious baggage to marriage, then YOU call it something else.

Are you incapable of reading? In practically every single post, I either eliminated all special privileges or established equal privileges for everyone. Where the fuck, ever, in this thread did I say that only heteros should get ANY benefits and gays shouldn't?

Keep on kicking the shit out of that windmill, Quixote.

Did you even read my post? And you're telling me that I am incapable of reading?
Maybe you should read my post again. Very slowly this time. You don't own the word marriage. So you don't get to dictate who is able to use it. You are the one who wants to add the religious baggage to marriage, so YOU call it something else. Marriage was not invented by the fucking church. What don't you understand about this?

rear naked wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:

rear naked wrote:

Hardtail wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Hardtail wrote:... just seems to me the whole issue would go away & both sides should be able to handle gay couples getting legally joined & having all the legal benefits of such a union, by just calling it a "legal union" instead of a marriage fercrapsakes. Both sides are being stubborn and consequently nothing is getting done ... a little compromise goes a long way

If it has all the legal benefits of "such a union," but is legally forbidden to be called "marriage," then it is inherently unequal and amounts to institutionalized bigotry, period. If you're going to make it the same, you gotta call it the same.

Yes, the names & terms *do* matter.

I know, as a straight person, that if my state or country told me that, though nothing would legally or financially change, my marriage to Mrs. Draelyc could no longer be called a "marriage" but had to be a "legal union" ~ yet other people were allowed to be "married" ~ there's no way I'd let that fly!

Interesting - I always thought the primary objection from the gay point of view was that they were not able to receive the same legal rights as straight couples. IF I were gay, the whole being "equal" to straight married couples by calling it a marriage would be so much farther down the food chain - legal rights would be my primary concern. But I understand your point & to some gays, I'm sure it is all about being equal by using the same term. Almost seems that to those holding that position, they're doing it out of spite to some degree, and not looking at the big picture from a legal rights point of view ... which brings me back to my compromise theory ...

Why do you think equality of civil rights is something to compromise on?

This isn't a matter of simple opinion.


Pretend that the country was still divided in half on the issue of interracial marriage. Do you think the right thing to do is to compromise and give interracial couples the right to civil union each other?



Some of you need to understand that just because some people hold a certain opinion doesn't mean that it is with merit. The simple act of holding an opinion does not make your position worthy of compromising with. Your position must have merit.

And WHO determines what has merit and what doesn't? As if merit is anything other than what someone, personally, assigns to it.

Likely the supreme court. There is a reason why we don't simply take a vote.

marshallnoise wrote:And WHO determines what has merit and what doesn't?

ComOp wrote:

marshallnoise wrote:And WHO determines what has merit and what doesn't?

Clearly, in your case, it is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage or some other Jesus humping Neoconservative radio personality.