NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.


UPDATE

The points that I was trying to make is that there is a difference between marriage's civil rights aspects and religious aspects. The government only has the right to regulate one aspect, but that limiting the civil rights of a group of people based on one religious point of view on the matter is wrong. This can also apply to other marriage types as well. Is polygamy prohibited just because of America's Judeo-Christian religious majority, or are their real social problems involved with multiple spouses living together? I do not know. However, the Republican attempt to define marriage as only between a man and a woman is solely based on their religious viewpoint, and therefore it is incorrect to apply it to everyone.

I see that point two of the plan has been more controversial, and in retrospect, I didn't feel strongly toward either state or federal regulation of civil unions, and decided to err on the side of state freedoms. I certainly do see the problems with it now, thanks to your debating, so I am now again undecided on that matter.

One thing you didn't answer: Would states that choose not to let their gay citizens get married still have to recognize married gay couples from states where it's legal?

And I don't think leaving it up to the states is a good decision. The way I see it, gay marriage is basically a civil rights issue. Did we let the individual states decide back in the 50s and 60s whether or not to end segregation, or similar things? No. So why should we allow the individual states to decide this?

One thing you didn't answer: Would states that choose not to let their gay citizens get married still have to recognize married gay couples from states where it's legal?

And I don't think leaving it up to the states is a good decision. The way I see it, gay marriage is basically a civil rights issue. Did we let the individual states decide back in the 50s and 60s whether or not to end segregation, or similar things? No. So why should we allow the individual states to decide this?
Exactly. With the negative publicity that this situation has created, leaving it up to individual states would be nearly as bad as leaving it up to the government.

Number one is ok if it applies to all people, not just homosexuals.

Number two in your plan is a bit of a problem, as quite a few of the benefits of civil marriage are centered around the federal income tax... so it would be unfair for people in one state to not get those benefits when people in the next state did.


Number three already exists. No church is required to acknowledge anyones marriage if they don't want to. But neither can any church prevent any couple from marrying. So your idea doesn't really change that.

Though you can't be "Civil unioned" with someone, people would still say they're "Married".

Though I agree with the church/state thing. If marriage weren't a state-sanctioned and tax-affecting action, then there wouldn't be much of a problem other than those whose religions cast them out because they're gay, in which case, their religion needs to go fuck themselves.

*shrugs* Good idea overall, though. The only trouble is, of course, the government not being religious.

Marriage is indeed a religious ceremony so lets get the state completely out of it – you can ‘marry’ anyone or anything you want – but it has absolutely no legal implications. A congregation can decide to allow it or not, whatever their religious beliefs its up to them. If your church allows you to marry your toaster, so be it – it has absolutely no meaning outside of your church.

Now with civil unions you cannot allow local municipalities to determine who can and cannot – that would result in discriminatory practices. Think about it this way, what would be the reaction if somewhere decided that a black man couldn’t get unionized with a white woman?

Personally I would like to see it function much like a business partnership – it has a legal joining of assets and legal decision-making over each other’s affairs. Thus there would be no consideration for who gets joined - also be no reason why multiple people couldn’t join in a union. Totally non-discriminatory. Also, what about two siblings who are going to live together for their entire lives? Why can’t they have the same insurance benefits as two unrelated people pledging to live together? There are many issues that transitioning from marriage to legal partnerships would deal with, not only the current debate (gay marriage) but of future issues as well – it puts the choice of what to do with your life and property entirely in the hands of the individuals in question.

Number three already exists. No church is required to acknowledge anyones marriage if they don't want to. But neither can any church prevent any couple from marrying. So your idea doesn't really change that.

Not really - there's huge church influence in marriage, considering it's a religious ceremony. The only real problem is that the government sees married people and goes "You're married! Here's a tax break, and qualifications for joint banking, and maybe a better credit rating, and some priveledges concerning insurance and hospitals."

Marriage is not a religious institution.

What debate? It's been legal for years.

Marriage is not a religious institution.

Is too.

What debate? It's been legal for years.

Only in certain states. The government still hasn't had an across-the-board kind of rule made up for it like we want, though.

Is too.

is not. So nyah.:p

Is too.
No, religion just claimed it was theirs and purged those who disagreed.

Is too.

Nope. You are not married until you sign a marriage contract, no matter how much your church does its little voodoo. Marriage simply is not a religious institution. It is a legal one.

What debate? It's been legal for years.

The debate in the United States.

This unfortunately won't work because a marriage legal in one state would not necessairily be legal in another, which would deny equal protection under the law or something. That's what I hear anyway.

The debate in the United States.
Whoops should have read a little better.

In California gays get almost all the benefits of being married. They get spousal support, if they get divorced, they can adopt, they can put their spouse on their insurance plan. The only thing they really can't do is call it marriage.

Marriage is a religous insitution. Period. Those of you claiming that the state needs to be involved don't know your history. Until the French Revolution marriage in Europe was completely church jurisdiction.

Is too.

Marriage is a religous insitution. Period. Those of you claiming that the state needs to be involved don't know your history. Until the French Revolution marriage in Europe was completely church jurisdiction.

Which is of course why marriages between goat, brother, sister and 4 year old girl, as dictated by the great religion of P'tang P'tang, give full legal marriage benefits ?

Marriage is a religous insitution. Period. Those of you claiming that the state needs to be involved don't know your history. Until the French Revolution marriage in Europe was completely church jurisdiction.

Wow, you really don't know that marriage existed before Christianity, do you? You really know nothing about the history of marriage at all, do you? Or its legal ramifications?

Wow, you really don't know that marriage existed before Christianity, do you? You really know nothing about the history of marriage at all, do you? Or its legal ramifications?
Damn it, you got here first.

Which is of course why marriages between goat, brother, sister and 4 year old girl, as dictated by the great religion of P'tang P'tang, give full legal marriage benefits ?


No, which is why NO marriages give ANY legal benifits.

No, which is why NO marriages give ANY legal benifits.
Sure they don't.......

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG

Seems to have relevance.

No, which is why NO marriages give ANY legal benifits.

You're really just pulling this out of your ass as you go along, aren't you?

My problem with your suggestion is precisely the same as that of other posters in this thread. I agree that marriage is a religious and/or personal issue and that the government has no business interfering in the matter. However, I disagree with allowing states to decide this issue. While I generally support states' rights, my reason for doing so is that it brings decisions closer to the individual level. Therefore, individual freedom is the overall goal that states' rights helps to achieve. Since this is a matter of fundamental individual freedom (the right to make contracts) the states have no right to decide this issue.

Wow, you really don't know that marriage existed before Christianity, do you? You really know nothing about the history of marriage at all, do you? Or its legal ramifications?


Of course marriage existed before Christianity. Nevertheless, marriage should be a personal decision with personal ramifications.

Of course marriage existed before Christianity. Nevertheless, marriage should be a personal decision with personal ramifications.

Then we should eliminate the current legal benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples can enjoy?

Then we should eliminate the current legal benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples can enjoy?

They would by default be eliminated by the state's removal from the marriage equation.

No, which is why NO marriages give ANY legal benifits.

I would consider power of attorney a pretty big one actually. Not to mention the effects on your taxforms...
However, if you consider those benefits seperate from the "actual" marriage, I think I can agree with you.

Of course marriage existed before Christianity.

So you're admitting your little claim to it being a religious institution being BS?

Nevertheless, marriage should be a personal decision with personal ramifications.

Why? It has never been that. It never will be, seeing as it is a legal construct.

They would by default be eliminated by the state's removal from the marriage equation.

Why should the state remove itself? Seems to me the only ones to be removed from it are the churches. Oh, wait, they already are, seeing as they've nothing to do with marriage.

They would by default be eliminated by the state's removal from the marriage equation.

Now you begin your quest to convince tens of millions of married couples to give up the tax benefits of marriage. Good luck, sir.

Nope. You are not married until you sign a marriage contract, no matter how much your church does its little voodoo. Marriage simply is not a religious institution. It is a legal one.

Social constructs come in a variety of forms. Some may take the form of a legal arrangement and others may be religious or tribal or simply informal. In the case of marriage (that rather bothersome social construct;) ), both religious and governmental institutions have appropriated the construct and given it similar properties but also created differences. In effect, there are now two different but not necessarily opposed arrangments with the same name belonging to the two institutions. Sadly, people tend to confuse the two; state-sponsored marriages and those sponsored by religious organizations.

This confusion tends to result in some conservative religious folks who object to the idea of gays having a marriage in the religious sense opposing it in the legal sense as well.

You are correct that marriage is a legal institution. And it is also correct that marriage is a religious institution. (And it is also correct that in some cases it is an institution that is purely between two people who choose to live together in a certain way, and is endorsed by neither government or religion.)

I'm of the opinion that we should all have access to the legal institution without regard to sexual orientation, that religious organizations should be able to decide on their own requirements for their marriage institution, and that any folks who want to should be free to make whatever informal marital arrangements they like.

Silly me.;)

Note: I also believe that marriage is a consensual arrangement regardless of other differences between the marriages performed by governments, religious institutions, and informal arrangments made outside of any institution.

I'm of the opinion that we should all have access to the legal institution without regard to sexual orientation, that religious organizations should be able to decide on their own requirements for their marriage institution, and that any folks who want to should be free to make whatever informal marital arrangements they like.

Replace the "any folks" by "any consenting folks" and I agree.

So you're admitting your little claim to it being a religious institution being BS?

Why? It has never been that. It never will be, seeing as it is a legal construct.

Uhh there were religions BEFORE Christianity. I'm sure you know but from your posts it's as if you don't. And it was religious in Paganism as well...Christianity came a long ways after Islam, Judaism, and others...

So you're admitting your little claim to it being a religious institution being BS?


No, I am admitting that there are other forms of marriage. In other words: What Moustopia said.


Why? It has never been that. It never will be, seeing as it is a legal construct.


I already pointed out that it has in fact been like that.



Now you begin your quest to convince tens of millions of married couples to give up the tax benefits of marriage. Good luck, sir.


Oh, that wouldn't be a problem. Instead everyone regardless of whether or not they were married would get those tax benefits.

Replace the "any folks" by "any consenting folks" and I agree.

Fair point. I'll edit the post for clarity's sake.

Uhh there were religions BEFORE Christianity. I'm sure you know but from your posts it's as if you don't. And it was religious in Paganism as well...Christianity came a long ways after Islam, Judaism, and others...
Then Christianity came and made it theirs and only theirs. If that religion that origianlly thought up religion came back, then that would be a different situation. But Christianity, Islam, etc are just using something from a different religion, so why should they get absolute control over the subject?

How about no government recognition of marriages or civil unions?

i agree with oyu quite a bit, i think states should be making more decisions on their own. the united states is a large country with many different social backgrounds. while some things would work in large populated areas such as LA or New York, they may not be so great in small rural south dakota or Nebraska. i would like to see the Federal government working on interstate realtions problems and not problems that can be solved by individual states

How about no government recognition of marriages or civil unions?

would never fly, once a government gives you a benefit and they say you no longer get the benefit, people are not going to stand aside and watch it go away

Then Christianity came and made it theirs and only theirs. If that religion that origianlly thought up religion came back, then that would be a different situation. But Christianity, Islam, etc are just using something from a different religion, so why should they get absolute control over the subject?


I don't know about Moustopia, but what I have been saying is that anyone can get married by anyone. Scientology wants to perform marriages, fine. Church of Satan, fine. Some dude in his backyard, fine. (After all, if the state wasn't involved, how could you decide who was married other than someone just saying they were?) Just get the state the hell away from private matters.

Christianity came a long ways after Islam, Judaism, and others...

Christianity is older than Islam.

Christianity is older than Islam.


True, but that does not invalidate his point.

There are 1049 rights given to married couples (and denied gay couples) by federal law. In the US marrage is a federal matter not a state matter.

From Scribblings.net....

"1,049 federal rights depend on marital status
What the privilege of marriage buys you.

After being in a romantic partnership for almost eight years, after living together for four years, after jointly purchasing property, sharing bills and income, after having a ceremony during which we publicly declared our commitment to one another in front of all our friends and family, Terra and I are still denied 1,049 federal rights automatically granted to heterosexual, married couples.

Some of those rights include:

Hospital Visitation Rights

Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.

Terra and I are registered as domestic partners in New York City, which means we could visit one another in a hospital within the five boroughs. However, if we took a car trip across the bridge to New Jersey and got into an accident, we're screwed.

Health insurance

Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the legal spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the same-sex partners of their employees. LGBT employees who do receive health coverage for their same-sex partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance. Same-sex couples cannot even buy a family health insurance policy on the open market.

Terra's employer does not include unmarried partners in their health coverage. As a result, since I'm self-employed, I pay about $350 a month for health insurance. A friend called this the "lesbian tax."

Spousal Privilege

Spousal privilege, granted to married couples, is the right of a person to refuse to testify against their spouse in the court of law.

That means if Terra was sued, I could be called on to testify against her. And every email, phonecall, letter, IM and conversation between us would not be protected by spousal privilege, and could be entered into evidence.

Inheritance rights

When a married person's spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a substantial share from the deceased spouse's estate regardless of whether a will exists. Without marriage, a same-sex partner has no automatic right to inherit.

This means Terra and I have to write wills to guarantee either of us inherits from the other if one of us dies. How many people do you know under thirty who have a will?

Family leave

Married workers in many workplaces are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse but workers with same-sex partners have no right to family leave.

Pensions

After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant - so surviving same-sex partners get no pension support for their surviving partners. Any pension dies with the worker.

Nursing homes

Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. An unmarried and elderly same-sex couple does not have the right to spend their final days together in a nursing home.

Home protection

Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing-home bills; seniors in same-sex relationships have no such protection. A non-married partner can be forced to sell his or her own house to repay a state lien for nursing home care. A non-married partner who lives in the home but does not own it could even be forced from the home to pay nursing home costs.

Retirement savings

While a married person can roll over a deceased spouse's 401(k) or IRA funds into an IRA without paying taxes, surviving partners in same-sex relationships must withdraw the entire amount, pay income taxes on it and also lose the tax deferral benefits of these accounts.

Taxes

Estate taxes. A spouse who dies may leave an unlimited amount of property to the surviving spouse without paying any state or federal estate taxes. Without the benefit of marriage, any amount of property over the federal or state exclusion amounts is taxed.

Income tax. Every year, Terra and I are forced to file our taxes separately, as "single" people, ineligible for the tax benefits afforded to married couples.

Social Security benefits

Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, surviving partners in same-sex relationships receive no Social Security survivor benefits resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

And this is just the start. The US Government's General Accounting Office issued a complete list of the 1,049 laws involving marital status. "


So as you can see, this cannot be left to the states to decide as they have no control over social security, fedral income tax, etc, etc.

.

So you're admitting your little claim to it being a religious institution being BS?

Being pre-christianity does not necessarily make it secular. Apart from that, though I agree.

Link here (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm), pay attention to the first paragraph.

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.

Leaving it up to the states is a bad idea - it's no different from leaving segregation up to the states. People seem to think that just because a bunch of rednecks, reactionaries, and xenophobes are screaming about it, that that's a valid excuse to compromise on basic principles of equal treatment and individual rights, or that that makes it somehow less of a civil rights issue. NO. If you have any philosophical integrity whatsoever, and you support civil rights for any minority whether it be racial or gender-based or whatever, you have no excuse to support letting homophobic hicks in the Bible Belt discriminate against homosexuals.

Not to mention the problems with wilfull violation of the full faith and credit clause that are going to crop up as different states make different decisions....

Christianity is older than Islam.

No it isn't. Lol. Islam existed before Mohammed was born - he was their profit, and expanded and more strongly codified the religion, but the religion still existed before that point. It originally developed in a similar timeframe with Judaism, which didn't spawn Christianity for centuries, if not millenia.

Now you begin your quest to convince tens of millions of married couples to give up the tax benefits of marriage. Good luck, sir.

The only real "tax benefits" associated with marriage are the fact that a married couple can file jointly. In most places, a married couple will pay more in taxes than they would unmarried. The only "benefit" is a convenience issue - those who already mesh their finances can file taxes together as well.


How about no government recognition of marriages or civil unions?

Sure, if you want all sorts of problems regarding property ownership, debts, child custody, etc.

Health insurance

Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the legal spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the same-sex partners of their employees. LGBT employees who do receive health coverage for their same-sex partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance. Same-sex couples cannot even buy a family health insurance policy on the open market.

Indeed, and, unless the constitutional amendment in GA falls, it is illegal for a company to provide partnership benefits.

Income tax. Every year, Terra and I are forced to file our taxes separately, as "single" people, ineligible for the tax benefits afforded to married couples.

So many people are convinced that there is some sort of huge tax benefit from getting married. In fact, it is part of the argument that those opposed to recognition of same-sex marriage bring up. In fact, however, most married couples (ie. middle class couples) pay *more* in taxes after marriage than before, especially in federal taxes. The only benefit is the possibility of filing together - which can be very useful, considering that married couples generally do not keep their finances completely seperate (and, indeed, cannot do so with any legal backing).

No it isn't. Lol. Islam existed before Mohammed was born - he was their profit, and expanded and more strongly codified the religion, but the religion still existed before that point. It originally developed in a similar timeframe with Judaism, which didn't spawn Christianity for centuries, if not millenia.

It traces its roots back to Abraham, and Judaism (much like Christianity does). However, Islam is completely based in the writings of the prophet Muhammed, and those who came after him.

This declaration is like saying, "Christianity is as old as Judaism, because it developed out of it. Sure, Christ was there around 30 AD, but that doesn't matter, because Christianity was actually around way before that."

It traces its roots back to Abraham, and Judaism (much like Christianity does). However, Islam is completely based in the writings of the prophet Muhammed, and those who came after him.

This declaration is like saying, "Christianity is as old as Judaism, because it developed out of it. Sure, Christ was there around 30 AD, but that doesn't matter, because Christianity was actually around way before that."

Christianity completely split off from Judaism, becoming two separate religions with one, Christianity, having an entire completely new holy book added on with all-new tenets and myths. Mohammed just took what was already there and forged it into something bigger and more ordered. Unlike the C-J split, nothing was left over after Mohammed - the old became the new. There is direct, unbroken no-split continuity through that time.

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.

In case you didn't know, marriage isn't purely religious. Judges can perform marriages legally, too.

In case you didn't know, marriage isn't purely religious. Judges can perform marriages legally, too.

I think he's saying that that isn't a marriage - it's a validation of the civil contract. The "marriage" part is socioreligious and outside the purview of government.

I think he's saying that that isn't a marriage - it's a validation of the civil contract. The "marriage" part is socioreligious and outside the purview of government.

But it is a marriage. My parents were married for a while, and they were married by a judge, not a priest.

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married

But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.
Good ( and has been proposed a milion times) Except for point 2
Basic equality should NOT be up to state governments in the same way it should not be up to a popular vote

In case you didn't know, marriage isn't purely religious. Judges can perform marriages legally, too.
He is just seperating the civil rights from the title

The same rights would be the same ... people could just choose to take on an aditional title

But it is a marriage. My parents were married for a while, and they were married by a judge, not a priest.

I think he's saying that we should take the power to grant marriages AWAY from a judge and give that back to the churches, exclusively.

This makes sense to me; governments shouldn't be dealing in "marriages"; they should be dealing in civil unions for everyone. I don't think that states should have the right to discriminate against who gets a civil union - gay couple or straight couple.

In this scenario, religious groups protect the so-called sanctity of marriage as a religious institution, and everyone is eligible for the legal and economic benefits offered by the current "government marriage."

I don't know, I think it makes a lot of sense.

there is one really big problem with your plan that must be addressed before it can ever become law

the barring of same sex couples from getting married has NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. who cares who marries who? its not like gay men dont live together now, its not like gay women dont live together. why would anyone care who gets to put who on their tax form (within reason)

its about a deep and abiding disgust at the thought of gay sex. gay people are just pootinky and they dont DESERVE the benefits of society. of any kind. that these people cant keep gay people out of their apartment buildings, schools and workplaces doesnt mean they dont WANT to keep them out, its just that society has grown past that.

if you let gay people get married that means that we all REALLY REALLY think that gay sex is ok. and that means that ANYONE MIGHT SUDDENLY GO GAY!. (think about how often antigay people talk about recruiting, as if all it takes is the merest suggestion to get a man to sign on to being gay).

our acceptance of gay people as full members of society is pretty new and pretty tender. right now most americans are not ready to take the final step to agreeing that homosexuals are normal, moral and OK to have as friends. that is very quickly fading. as more and more of us find out that people we already love are gay, we realize that gay isnt them, its US.

Is too.Marriage can be "civil". Fuck the church thank you very much.

No it isn't. Lol. Islam existed before Mohammed was born - he was their profit, and expanded and more strongly codified the religion, but the religion still existed before that point. It originally developed in a similar timeframe with Judaism, which didn't spawn Christianity for centuries, if not millenia.

Various polytheistic beliefs, some incorporating imagery from the monotheist religions, predated Muhammed and Islam. There is no "Islam" without Muhammed and the Qu'ran.

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.
While I dont' agree with #2 I like it. :D I think everyone has the right to a civil unions.

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

Totally agree. As somebody in a heterosexual relationship, I find "marriage" to be an institution with a disgusting and shameful history. I would be delighted at an opportunity to excercise the rights of a married couple without having to dirty my union with the title of "marriage."


2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

Totally disagree. States' rights should never be allowed to overrule the fundamental civil liberties of American citizens. Just as states should not be allowed to ban interracial marriage, states should not be permitted to ban gay marriage. All American citizens who are legally capable of entering into a binding contract should be permitted to enter a legal union as defined by the state. So long as the state recognizes ANY unions, it must recognize ALL unions.


3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.

Redundant, and utterly irrelevant. We already recognize the right of any religion to refuse to marry whoever they want. Oddly enough, our government currently blocks freedom of religion, in that it refuses to recognize the marriage ceremonies observed by faiths that DO accept gay marriage. I guess "religious freedom" only applies to religions that practice bigotry and discrimination.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.
A great many people don't want a separation of church and state. They want an American theocracy, and they are prepared to re-write history in their efforts to establish it. They don't care about "freedom of religion," they only care about having the freedom to inflict their personal superstitions on everybody in America.

Marriage is a religous insitution. Period.
That should come as quite a shock to my opennly-atheist parents, who celebrate their 25th wedding aniversary this summer. :)

I know a whole lot of Christians just can't stand to hear it, but marital unions predate your superstitions by several millenia. Your God wasn't even a twinkle in Constantine's eye when marriage was being practiced and celebrated throughout the world.

Wow, you really don't know that marriage existed before Christianity, do you? You really know nothing about the history of marriage at all, do you? Or its legal ramifications?

Marriage did exist before Christianity and the true intent was for a man to acquire a woman's property legally. Throughout history it has morphed to being a religious institution regulated by the state. Go figure. But you can't argue that it doesn't work the other way around because religion does have an influence on the government, through the president and other decision-making politicians. Ideally this wouldn't be the case and government would make decisions because that's what they thought would be best for the greatest number of people, but I don't see that coming anytime soon.

I don't see why government really has to regulate marriage at all. The churches can chose whether they want to marry certain members of society (ideally two humans) and if they won't or if the people don't want a religious marriage then those people can get married by the courts (the one positive intervention of government in marriage I can think of). Did consensual polygamy ever hurt anyone?

The real problem the US is dealing with is that we can't seem to separate religion from the government and the government from religion no matter how hard we try.

If we call it anything other than marriage the problem is in the details. Let me use an example. In 1963 the US government passed the Equal Pay Act guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. In reality employers have gotten around this important act by simply calling what women do something slightly different. People who don't want something to happen will simply find a loophole. The one I can see people taking with the "what to call gay marriages" issue is that "Oh you're not really married. You're only in a civil union (or insert other equivalent term here) not a marriage. We don't have to give you the same rights we give people who are in a 'marriage'."

Now enough with my rant. I said I would get into the details of my belief on this issue sometime and here it is.:cool:

A great many people don't want a separation of church and state. They want an American theocracy, and they are prepared to re-write history in their efforts to establish it. They don't care about "freedom of religion," they only care about having the freedom to inflict their personal superstitions on everybody in America.

They care about freedom of their religion in other words.

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.

I'd settle for that.

But it won't happen. You're very right. People are too stupid.

Marriage can be "civil". Fuck the church thank you very much.

DO YOU HONESTLY KNOW OF ANY MARRIAGE THAT IS "CIVIL"!?:headbang:

They care about freedom of their religion in other words.
Bah this stupid shit again
Atheism may or may not be a belief but trying to fit it into the term “religion” is stretching the word to the point of not meaning anything.

Just because you feel the need to stretch it that far, don't be surprised when the rest of us are more sensible about it

Bah this stupid shit again
Atheism may or may not be a belief but trying to fit it into the term “religion” is stretching the word to the point of not meaning anything.

Just because you feel the need to stretch it that far, don't be surprised when the rest of us are more sensible about it

Atheism is actually viewed by the Supreme Court as a religion.

(It's also quickly becoming the State Religion.)

DO YOU HONESTLY KNOW OF ANY MARRIAGE THAT IS "CIVIL"!?:headbang:
yes.

Atheism is actually viewed by the Supreme Court as a religion.

(It's also quickly becoming the State Religion.)
I find their definition incorrect as well, But I see why they did it, to classify associated rights and freedoms.

But being prudent does not always make you right

yes.

Whose?

I've never met a married couple that didn't go crazy on each other every now and then.

Married life, any married person will tell you, is one helluva ride. Up, down, and all around. Good and bad.

But at the end of the day, they still love each other. Doesn't make it any less hectic though.:p

I find their definition incorrect as well, But I see why they did it, to classify associated rights and freedoms.

But being prudent does not always make you right

No, but I am right 9x out of 10. In my own mind, anyway...:p

Whose?

I've never met a married couple that didn't go crazy on each other every now and then.

Married life, any married person will tell you, is one helluva ride. Up, down, and all around. Good and bad.

But at the end of the day, they still love each other. Doesn't make it any less hectic though.:p
Having arguments does not mean one is not civil. So long as fist don't go flying / divorce happens and there's this ugly fight for who gets what, I think you can say that many marriage stay civil.

Having arguments does not mean one is not civil. So long as fist don't go flying / divorce happens and there's this ugly fight for who gets what, I think you can say that many marriage stay civil.

I see your point, but, eh,

BOY you'd be surprised just how uncivil civility can get.

It sounds confusing, but you can take my word for it...

1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to the religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.

The points that I was trying to make is that there is a difference between marriage's civil rights aspects and religious aspects. The government only has the right to regulate one aspect, but that limiting the civil rights of a group of people based on one religious point of view on the matter is wrong. This can also apply to other marriage types as well. Is polygamy prohibited just because of America's Judeo-Christian religious majority, or are their real social problems involved with multiple spouses living together? I do not know. However, the Republican attempt to define marriage as only between a man and a woman is solely based on their religious viewpoint, and therefore it is incorrect to apply it to everyone.

I see that point two of the plan has been more controversial, and in retrospect, I didn't feel strongly toward either state or federal regulation of civil unions, and decided to err on the side of state freedoms. I certainly do see the problems with it now, thanks to your debating, so I am now again undecided on that matter.

I see your point, but, eh,

BOY you'd be surprised just how uncivil civility can get.

It sounds confusing, but you can take my word for it...
Too true, buddy, too true.;)

why should it be legal for them to be married, I don't want to have to schedule my wedding inbetween fag weddings. gay people arn't born that way its a choice they made; even if it was unconsious it was still a choice.

why should it be legal for them to be married, I don't want to have to schedule my wedding inbetween fag weddings. gay people arn't born that way its a choice they made; even if it was unconsious it was still a choice.
I am sure they dont want to have to worry about scheduling between strait weadings either

Hopefully you will just have to learn to be a bit more civilized

why should it be legal for them to be married, I don't want to have to schedule my wedding inbetween fag weddings. gay people arn't born that way its a choice they made; even if it was unconsious it was still a choice.

*wince*
:headbang:
It doesn't help our side when we can't use correct English grammar.

It just reinforces the left's perception that we're stupid and ignorant- which we AREN'T!

Marriage can be "civil". Fuck the church thank you very much.

I agree - fuck the church, but they own it.

This is why he made the idea of the Civil Union. It's the same thing, without the religious stigma attached. Those who don't want to be married "under god" will be civilly united, and those who do will be married.

Religion may or may not have -started- marriage, but the point is present-tense. Now. Current. Right now, it's mainly a religious thing. Chapel, priest, the whole bit. Some get married in Vegas, some get married in a court, but mostly it's the chapel bit.

*wince*
:headbang:
It doesn't help our side when we can't use correct English grammar.

It just reinforces the left's perception that we're stupid and ignorant- which we AREN'T!

You, uh, kind of are.

I agree - fuck the church, but they own it.

This is why he made the idea of the Civil Union. It's the same thing, without the religious stigma attached. Those who don't want to be married "under god" will be civilly united, and those who do will be married.

Religion may or may not have -started- marriage, but the point is present-tense. Now. Current. Right now, it's mainly a religious thing. Chapel, priest, the whole bit. Some get married in Vegas, some get married in a court, but mostly it's the chapel bit.

Amen. To the last part.

The first part was offensive to me, but you have your right to offend.

(if there's one right I do believe in that ISN'T in the Constitution, like so many other "rights", it's the right to offend and be offended.)

You, uh, kind of are.

So is everybody else. Everybody's stupid in their own way.

Amen. To the last part.

The first part was offensive to me, but you have your right to offend.

(if there's one right I do believe in that ISN'T in the Constitution, like so many other "rights", it's the right to offend and be offended.)
Well it is covered
Amendment X :P

Atheism is actually viewed by the Supreme Court as a religion.

Is it? Do you have a decision where this was actually stated?

My guess would be that they didn't label atheism itself as a religion, but stated that it is protected by freedom of religion, as it is a related concept.

(It's also quickly becoming the State Religion.)

I keep hearing this. And yet I see no evidence of it whatsoever. The only people I see trying to institute a "state religion" are those who come from my own religious background - Christianity. Of course, in their case, they only want to legislate *their* version of Christianity.

why should it be legal for them to be married,

Because it is legal for you to be married, and they are human beings, just like yourself.

I don't want to have to schedule my wedding inbetween fag weddings.

I don't want to have to schedule my wedding around anyone else's wedding, but that will most likely be the case. If it is just a matter of "inconvenience" to you, why do you care who is inconveniencing you?

gay people arn't born that way its a choice they made;

That's quite a proposition. Care to back it up?

even if it was unconsious it was still a choice.

Choice implies consciousness. If you are not aware of options and able to choose between them, then you have not made a choice.

I keep hearing this. And yet I see no evidence of it whatsoever. The only people I see trying to institute a "state religion" are those who come from my own religious background - Christianity. Of course, in their case, they only want to legislate *their* version of Christianity.

I don't.

I believe the Right is going about things the wrong way. While I agree on what should be, and the "ends" that we want, I disagree with their methods.

Legislation won't do much. Neither will court cases.

The only way to bring about change is to change people, change their hearts. But that is a personal thing- not the government's business.

I know a whole lot of Christians just can't stand to hear it, but marital unions predate your superstitions by several millenia. Your God wasn't even a twinkle in Constantine's eye when marriage was being practiced and celebrated throughout the world.


Why do atheists always have to be so inflammatory. I don't go out of my way to insult your beliefs. Anyway, I have already said that my argument is based on religion in general, not specifically Christianity. Marriage has always been a religous insitution. Read the mythology of any ancient religion and you will find that that people's idea of marriage is founded in religion. Let me ask you this: why is marriage the only relationship that needs to be a state institution? That doesn't make sense. Either all relationships should need to be state recognized, or none of them should need to be.

Why do atheists always have to be so inflammatory. I don't go out of my way to insult your beliefs. Anyway, I have already said that my argument is based on religion in general, not specifically Christianity. Marriage has always been a religous insitution. Read the mythology of any ancient religion and you will find that that people's idea of marriage is founded in religion. Let me ask you this: why is marriage the only relationship that needs to be a state institution? That doesn't make sense. Either all relationships should need to be state recognized, or none of them should need to be.
It makes perfect sense ... when you marry you are really signing a contract

Its the same reason there are contractual and non contractual negotiations

Why do atheists always have to be so inflammatory. I don't go out of my way to insult your beliefs. Anyway, I have already said that my argument is based on religion in general, not specifically Christianity. Marriage has always been a religous insitution. Read the mythology of any ancient religion and you will find that that people's idea of marriage is founded in religion. Let me ask you this: why is marriage the only relationship that needs to be a state institution? That doesn't make sense. Either all relationships should need to be state recognized, or none of them should need to be.

Hmmm...

That makes sense...oddly enough. Even to a "righty" like me.

Wierd...

IIRC, the first known evidence of marriage was found in Hammurabi's Code. A legal document (if you can call tablets document) and not in a religious text.

Because it is legal for you to be married, and they are human beings, just like yourself.


This is flawed thinking. The Republicans (which I am not one of) are right to bring up the slippery slope argument that next people will want to be able to marry sandwiches, or whatever. They are only right because marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Why is it that the government should be able to define relationships?

It makes no sense that the government can only recognize one kind of union. Nor does it make sense that the government only recognize three kinds. It it is absolutely ridiculous for the government to recognize all kinds, so we are left with the logical conclusion that the government should not recognize any.

Anyone who wants to can say they are married with or without performing any ceremony they want. Why should atheists have a problem with that other than that they are trying to substitute government for church?

IIRC, the first known evidence of marriage was found in Hammurabi's Code. A legal document (if you can call tablets document) and not in a religious text.

Well, for religious people (aka Christians Jew and Muslims)

Adam and Eve were the first married couple, also happened to be the first people on planet earth. And God was the one that married them.

So, technically, from our side, marriage was and always has been a religious institution.

Well, for religious people (aka Christians Jew and Muslims)

Adam and Eve were the first married couple, also happened to be the first people on planet earth. And God was the one that married them.

So, technically, from our side, marriage was and always has been a religious institution.
But you forget that not everyone is Christian, so the point is moot.

Well, for religious people (aka Christians Jew and Muslims)

Adam and Eve were the first married couple, also happened to be the first people on planet earth. And God was the one that married them.

So, technically, from our side, marriage was and always has been a religious institution.
Well in my view it was started by a man named bob in the roaring 20's

Just cause I believe it dont make it historically acurate

I know what you're saying.

I'm just showing where we're coming from.

Well, for religious people (aka Christians Jew and Muslims)

Adam and Eve were the first married couple, also happened to be the first people on planet earth. And God was the one that married them.

So, technically, from our side, marriage was and always has been a religious institution.
It's been a while since I read the bible so would you kindly point to me where someone married Adam and Eve. To me they were just a couple in common-law partnership.

It's been a while since I read the bible so would you kindly point to me where someone married Adam and Eve. To me they were just a couple in common-law partnership.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 2:21-25



17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,

Genesis 3:17



20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Genesis 3:20-21



2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 5:2



1 AND Adam knew Eve his wife;

Genesis 4;1

*snip*
Well, that showed me... :p

I really need to read up on my holy scripture soon.

Well, for religious people (aka Christians Jew and Muslims)

Adam and Eve were the first married couple, also happened to be the first people on planet earth. And God was the one that married them.

So, technically, from our side, marriage was and always has been a religious institution.

Yes, but your argument presupposes that origin of such an institution also restricts what we do now out of the state of nature and in civil society. By your logic, it should be a religious and civil law that we should be vegetarians, because Adam and Eve did not bring death on the animals of the Garden until after the fall. Yet any such law would be absurd even if it were made.

In short, you are forgetting that the natural end of the institution of marriage is not simply procreation, but maintenance of the species and securing a common bond between two people. That end could be accomplished as well by two men or two women as a man and woman, because each pairing can secure a common bond and serve to maintain the species. In Adam and Eve's day, considering there were no prior people with whom to mate, it was their end to maintain the species by propagating it; that requirement no longer exists. As such, the law requiring man-woman marriage makes as little sense in the purely religious contexts as a law mandating vegetarianism.

This is flawed thinking. The Republicans (which I am not one of) are right to bring up the slippery slope argument that next people will want to be able to marry sandwiches, or whatever. They are only right because marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Why is it that the government should be able to define relationships?

It makes no sense that the government can only recognize one kind of union. Nor does it make sense that the government only recognize three kinds. It it is absolutely ridiculous for the government to recognize all kinds, so we are left with the logical conclusion that the government should not recognize any.

Anyone who wants to can say they are married with or without performing any ceremony they want. Why should atheists have a problem with that other than that they are trying to substitute government for church?

No... no, they're really not right to bring up such arguments.

There's the subcontext of consent. You can't have a sandwich's consent to marry or have sex. You can't have an animals consent to marry or have sex. You can barely have a human's consent (we're very complicated and clouded people).

So yeah. Uh... no sandwiches.

Why do atheists always have to be so inflammatory. I don't go out of my way to insult your beliefs. Anyway, I have already said that my argument is based on religion in general, not specifically Christianity. Marriage has always been a religous insitution. Read the mythology of any ancient religion and you will find that that people's idea of marriage is founded in religion. Let me ask you this: why is marriage the only relationship that needs to be a state institution? That doesn't make sense. Either all relationships should need to be state recognized, or none of them should need to be.


You mean like the relationships between legal guardians and charge? Or like adoptions? Or what kind of relationships are you refering to?

No... no, they're really not right to bring up such arguments.

There's the subcontext of consent. You can't have a sandwich's consent to marry or have sex. You can't have an animals consent to marry or have sex. You can barely have a human's consent (we're very complicated and clouded people).

So yeah. Uh... no sandwiches.


You kind of missed the point. Which was that marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Let us look at your consent definition. Polygamy fits that. Should the state recognize a man having two wives? Three? Ten? Ten thousand? At some point it becomes ridiculous and you just have to eliminate state involvement. Besides, what is different between a marriage and any other kind of relationship? Should the state start recognizing best friends? Mortal enemies? I just don't see why marriage can't be a personal issue like every other relationship.

You mean like the relationships between legal guardians and charge? Or like adoptions? Or what kind of relationships are you refering to?


Those are different as they have to do with minors that clearly need protection and supervision. Marriage on the other hand, is practically speaking no different than a relationship between friends. That it personally means more to people, if anything, should be less reason for the government to be involved.

You kind of missed the point. Which was that marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Let us look at your consent definition. Polygamy fits that. Should the state recognize a man having two wives? Three? Ten? Ten thousand? At some point it becomes ridiculous and you just have to eliminate state involvement. Besides, what is different between a marriage and any other kind of relationship? Should the state start recognizing best friends? Mortal enemies? I just don't see why marriage can't be a personal issue like every other relationship.
Because there are social responsabilityies that come with it as well as social benifits

There are over 1000 rights associated with marrage as of now ... it is MUCH more practical to make one union rather then 1000 seperate contracts

Many of these rights can and should be given to everybody. The rest are not so hard to decide without contracts. Hospitals can just let someone in a relationship see their partner.

Many of these rights can and should be given to everybody. The rest are not so hard to decide without contracts. Hospitals can just let someone in a relationship see their partner.
How do you know they are in a relationship? You assume that the patient is in a position to admit them

There are situations such as coma that they are not able to

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.

The common sense solution is not to deny people a fundamental individual right based on their sexuality. If states get to VOTE on the fundamental rights of gays, can they vote on your rights as well? Can they deny YOU the right to freedom of speech based on some nonsensical division that has nothing to do with any interests of the state?

The common sense solution is not to deny people a fundamental individual right based on their sexuality. If states get to VOTE on the fundamental rights of gays, can they vote on your rights as well? Can they deny YOU the right to freedom of speech based on some nonsensical division that has nothing to do with any interests of the state?
Agreed

Same misgivings I have against a "popular" vote
Rights should never be a popularity contest

You kind of missed the point. Which was that marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Let us look at your consent definition. Polygamy fits that. Should the state recognize a man having two wives? Three? Ten? Ten thousand? At some point it becomes ridiculous and you just have to eliminate state involvement. Besides, what is different between a marriage and any other kind of relationship? Should the state start recognizing best friends? Mortal enemies? I just don't see why marriage can't be a personal issue like every other relationship.

You forget - Mormons have as many wives as they want. This means it's already happening, and we've already found a way to work it out.

Agreed

Same misgivings I have against a "popular" vote
Rights should never be a popularity contest

Exactly. The US Constitution was specifically protect the minority from a tyrannical majority. None of this seperate but equal bullocks that some espouse. None of this voting on rights. None of this amendment to protect a right that is already a recognized individual right and sex like race is already a protected class. If the Constitution grants the right to marriage in interracial couples as is currently recognized by the SCOTUS, and it does grant that right, then there are already no legal grounds for denying the same right to same-sex couples. The SCOTUS and others need simply recognize what is already there, no new law needed.

Seperately, I advocate using the word civil union and no longer using the word marriage. Let the churches have that word if they like, but the government should only recognize the civil contract.

I see that point two of the plan has been very controversial, and in retrospect, I didn't feel strongly toward either state or federal regulation of civil unions, and, without enough internal debate, decided to err on the side of state freedoms. I certainly do see the problems with it now, thanks to your responses, so I am now rethinking that portion of the plan.

Exactly. The US Constitution was specifically protect the minority from a tyrannical majority. None of this seperate but equal bullocks that some espouse. None of this voting on rights. None of this amendment to protect a right that is already a recognized individual right and sex like race is already a protected class. If the Constitution grants the right to marriage in interracial couples as is currently recognized by the SCOTUS, and it does grant that right, then there are already no legal grounds for denying the same right to same-sex couples. The SCOTUS and others need simply recognize what is already there, no new law needed.

Seperately, I advocate using the word civil union and no longer using the word marriage. Let the churches have that word if they like, but the government should only recognize the civil contract.
In this I would appear to agree with you totaly :)

Idealy it would not matter what we call it but the pragmatic side of me knows people have "marrige" to ingraned with religion to seperate it.

Hell most cant even understand that even religious marrige is different all over the place

Many of these rights can and should be given to everybody. The rest are not so hard to decide without contracts. Hospitals can just let someone in a relationship see their partner.

Should and will are two different things. The contracts protect us. Civil unions protect us. It allows a partner to have familial rights. This is very necessary in, as mentioned, 1000 different ways. It protects the hospital because it gives the hospitals a way to recognize the immediate family of a patient when the patient cannot identify them. It gives the law a way to recognize immediate family when necessary, in cases of death or diability. You wish to find a solution for something that is not a problem. Marriage is not a problem. It grants over 1000 different rights and responsibilities that are easily recognized now. You want to solve this solution by creating the PROBLEM of recognizing them some other way. One can only suspect that you don't actually know what rights and responsibilities they are and why there is a need to reocognize them.

How do you know they are in a relationship?

How do hospitals currently decide if someone is married? If you can answer this I will answer your question.


You forget - Mormons have as many wives as they want. This means it's already happening, and we've already found a way to work it out


You do realize that this is not legal, right? Try applying some of those over one thousand rights to a situation where a man has over a thousand wives.

You wish to find a solution for something that is not a problem.


Oh, when you put it that way... I will just go tell the entire country to stop worrying about the gay marriage issue because there is no problem. Yep, everything is fine and dandy.

How do hospitals currently decide if someone is married? If you can answer this I will answer your question.


When my uncle was in a coma they required picture identification and marrige certificate

Those are different as they have to do with minors that clearly need protection and supervision. Marriage on the other hand, is practically speaking no different than a relationship between friends. That it personally means more to people, if anything, should be less reason for the government to be involved.

Well, then, what relationships did you refer to?

You kind of missed the point. Which was that marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Let us look at your consent definition. Polygamy fits that. Should the state recognize a man having two wives? Three? Ten? Ten thousand? At some point it becomes ridiculous and you just have to eliminate state involvement. Besides, what is different between a marriage and any other kind of relationship? Should the state start recognizing best friends? Mortal enemies? I just don't see why marriage can't be a personal issue like every other relationship.

Actually, I would argue that it doesn't fit the definition of consent, because to fit the definition of consent, it must be a freely decided and rationally determined decision between equal parties. Moreover, you cannot rationally decide to abandon the state of natural equality and enter into a relationship of slavery, because you cannot rationally make a choice that destroys the possibility of rationality. In John Stuart Mill's words, we are condemned to be free. In polygamous societies however, women have an inherently unequal status, and based on cultural practices fits well any common definition of slavery. Therefore, they could not possibly consent to enter into such a relationship.

I don't.

I believe the Right is going about things the wrong way. While I agree on what should be, and the "ends" that we want, I disagree with their methods.

Legislation won't do much. Neither will court cases.

The only way to bring about change is to change people, change their hearts. But that is a personal thing- not the government's business.

Can't argue with much of this. I probably wouldn't agree with you on all of the "ends", but the methods you espouse are exactly what I think we, as Christians, should use. We don't need to legislate our views to convince others that they are correct.

Let me ask you this: why is marriage the only relationship that needs to be a state institution? That doesn't make sense. Either all relationships should need to be state recognized, or none of them should need to be.

Marriage is the only relationship that generally entails a near-complete pooling of finances, ownership, and debt. Thus, there is a point at which the government, for the purposes of recognizing these things, must get involved.

Oh, when you put it that way... I will just go tell the entire country to stop worrying about the gay marriage issue because there is no problem. Yep, everything is fine and dandy.

The recognition of marriage is not the problem. The UNEQUAL recognition of marriage is the problem. By your generalization you could claim that the reason there was a problem with women not having the right to vote was the right to vote should not have been recognized. The problem is not in the right, but in the unequal application of the right. You don't solve that problem by taking away the right entirely. You merely expand the problem that way.

This is flawed thinking.

The 14th Amendment is flawed thinking? Well then you better get on amending it out of the Constitution. But while it's there, we're going to have to follow it.

The Republicans (which I am not one of) are right to bring up the slippery slope argument that next people will want to be able to marry sandwiches, or whatever.

Can a sandwich exhibit informed consent and sign a contract?

They are only right because marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Why is it that the government should be able to define relationships?

The government should not define relationships. But it should be able to respond to them when they affect that which the government does regulate - ie. ownership, debt, inheritance, etc.

It makes no sense that the government can only recognize one kind of union.

The government need only recognize the personal relationships that affect it. When two people, for all legal purposes, essentially become one, that is something the government must recognize, both for its own convenience and for the people in question.

You kind of missed the point. Which was that marriage as a state institution makes no sense. Let us look at your consent definition. Polygamy fits that. Should the state recognize a man having two wives? Three? Ten?

Polygamy would be a different situation - more like a commune situation in which many pool their assets and debts, but the government has the same need to recognize that as they do marriage.

I just don't see why marriage can't be a personal issue like every other relationship.

Because, unlike my relationships with my friends, my relationship with my fiance affects legal matters. Neither of us really own anything alone, and yet it is only in my name or only in his name or, very occasionally, in both names but with no protection for the other person should something happen to one of us. Our debts are really owed by both of us, even if they are only in one name, because we bought these things *together*. However, if I were to die tomorrow, everything I legally own would go to my mother, no matter how much he has paid for it.

Although he would be best suited to make medical/funeral decisions for me if I could not do so myself, he is not legally allowed to do so. In truth, he wouldn't even be allowed in to the hospital to see me if I were in intensive care, unless my mother was present and explicitly told them to allow him in.

And so on...

There are things about a marriage that you don't see in any other relationship. This is why the government has an interest in recognizing it.

When my uncle was in a coma they required picture identification and marrige certificate


Seems rather complicated. Having the same surname and a picture of you together (possibly a wedding picture) would be enough.


Well, then, what relationships did you refer to?


I already said in the post of mine you just quoted.


Actually, I would argue that it doesn't fit the definition of consent, because to fit the definition of consent, it must be a freely decided and rationally determined decision between equal parties. Moreover, you cannot rationally decide to abandon the state of natural equality and enter into a relationship of slavery, because you cannot rationally make a choice that destroys the possibility of rationality. In John Stuart Mill's words, we are condemned to be free. In polygamous societies however, women have an inherently unequal status, and based on cultural practices fits well any common definition of slavery. Therefore, they could not possibly consent to enter into such a relationship.


Seems to me like you are making a decision for the women that is not yours to make. The number of partners involved does not make it slavery. The mere fact that there *is* a choice involved means it is not...


Marriage is the only relationship that generally entails a near-complete pooling of finances, ownership, and debt. Thus, there is a point at which the government, for the purposes of recognizing these things, must get involved.


People can't share debt without the government recognizing it? Seems to me this is just a way for government to have more control. That is what the government does. Get a divorce, and WHAM, the government arbitrarily divides your assets.

How do hospitals currently decide if someone is married? If you can answer this I will answer your question.





You do realize that this is not legal, right? Try applying some of those over one thousand rights to a situation where a man has over a thousand wives.

Marriage, despite your protestations, is nothing more than a contract that infers certain rights and responsibilities. It is necessary because there is an aspect of marriage that is business, by it's very nature. It's very similar to forming a partnership in business. Rather than forcing people to create contracts or seperate individual agreements to solve the plethora of problems that need solving in order for the business relationship of a partnership or a marriage to work, the state created a standardized contract that recognizes all of the rights and responsibilities for that particular kind of business contract so as to prevent issues down the road. This is in the interest of the state because it minimizes the court battles it must get involved in and makes those it does get involved in easier to solve. The reason for regulating the relationship is compelling. If you can name any other personal relationship that has so many inherent business issues, I'd like to hear it.

Those are different as they have to do with minors that clearly need protection and supervision. Marriage on the other hand, is practically speaking no different than a relationship between friends. That it personally means more to people, if anything, should be less reason for the government to be involved.

You have got to be kidding me. How many friends do you have joint banking accounts with? How many friends do you buy houses, cars, pets, etc. with? How many friends do you have children with?

Seperately, I advocate using the word civil union and no longer using the word marriage. Let the churches have that word if they like, but the government should only recognize the civil contract.

The only problem here is the issue of international treaties to recognize the marriages of other countries (and have them recognize ours), all of which use the word marriage. Technically, without resigning the treaties, changing the name to "civil union" would cause the treaty to be essentially null and void, as such treaties only refer to marriage. We *might* be able to work out each and every single such treaty, but it would be a pain in the arse to even try.


People can't share debt without the government recognizing it? Seems to me this is just a way for government to have more control. That is what the government does. Get a divorce, and WHAM, the government arbitrarily divides your assets.

Actually, no, not really. There is no possible way that my credit card company could get money from my fiance if I were to die. They would be SOL. It wouldn't matter that most of the purchases were for him as well as me. It wouldn't matter that he has been helping me pay for it for years now. It wouldn't matter that he put money on the card to buy things that he would still use. According to the law, he wouldn't owe a single dime.

Seems rather complicated. Having the same surname and a picture of you together (possibly a wedding picture) would be enough.


Well, then, what relationships did you refer to?


I already said in the post of mine you just quoted.





Seems to me like you are making a decision for the women that is not yours to make. The number of partners involved does not make it slavery. The mere fact that there *is* a choice involved means it is not...





People can't share debt without the government recognizing it? Seems to me this is just a way for government to have more control. That is what the government does. Get a divorce, and WHAM, the government arbitrarily divides your assets.

No, it doesn't. It's clear you don't actually know. In the majority of divorces, the government is not involved AT ALL. In the cases where it is involved it does nothing arbitrarily. Divorces are civil trials where one or both parties, usually both are required, requested the state get involved to help them find a resolution. The division of assets when a union dissolves is necessary. How do you propose we do so when two parties cannot agree on an adequate division?

For the record, in the dissolution of a business partnership, the government also gets involved when the two parties cannot resolve it alone. It gets involved in all kinds of civil suits, including the relationships you mentioned earlier. The marriage contract greatly decreases the necessity of the government getting involved through the courts in issues naturally involved in the union of two people as one.

The only problem here is the issue of international treaties to recognize the marriages of other countries (and have them recognize ours), all of which use the word marriage. Technically, without resigning the treaties, changing the name to "civil union" would cause the treaty to be essentially null and void, as such treaties only refer to marriage. We *might* be able to work out each and every single such treaty, but it would be a pain in the arse to even try.

Unless the government grants that a marriage (within certain limitations) by a government approved licensee is granted the status of civil union provided the proper paperwork is signed. This is essentially how the government recognizes church marriages now. The only difference is that we would no longer call the government-recognized insitution marriage.

I can see how there would a problem with other nationstates recognizing our marriages but as some countries already refer to a civil union, I'd imagine there is a way to deal with it that has already been devised.

The recognition of marriage is not the problem. The UNEQUAL recognition of marriage is the problem. By your generalization you could claim that the reason there was a problem with women not having the right to vote was the right to vote should not have been recognized. The problem is not in the right, but in the unequal application of the right. You don't solve that problem by taking away the right entirely. You merely expand the problem that way.


First, may I point out that neither state instituted marriage nor voting is a right? Rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty does not include voting or state instituted marriage. Liberty pertains to ones personal freedom. Only a personal marriage is a right. Second, I am not advocating eliminating marriage, just government involvment in it.

How do hospitals currently decide if someone is married? If you can answer this I will answer your question.





You do realize that this is not legal, right? Try applying some of those over one thousand rights to a situation where a man has over a thousand wives.

There's probably a few men who have nearly that many. Freedom of religion protects their right to marry as many people as they want. It's legal, unless you can show me where it specifies "Freedom of religion, except for the mormons, because they're weird".

If you can name any other personal relationship that has so many inherent business issues, I'd like to hear it.


So, what marriage is then, is a way for people to have government recognition of the combining of their assets? So it is a business partnership? Ok, you can have your business partnership, and everyone else can have their privite marriage. Just change the name to something more fitting though, so people don't get confused.

So, what marriage is then, is a way for people to have government recognition of the combining of their assets? So it is a business partnership? Ok, you can have your business partnership, and everyone else can have their privite marriage. Just change the name to something more fitting though, so people don't get confused.

How about we change it to CIVIL UNION, so you can remember how this thread began?

How do you propose we do so when two parties cannot agree on an adequate division?


Let's start by not automatically giving a wife fifty percent despite the fact that he earned 90 percent of the family income.


There's probably a few men who have nearly that many. Freedom of religion protects their right to marry as many people as they want. It's legal, unless you can show me where it specifies "Freedom of religion, except for the mormons, because they're weird".


Government instituted marriage is not a right. That is why Polygamy is not even legal in Utah. These Mormons married without state certification. Which is what everyone should do.

How about we change it to CIVIL UNION, so you can remember how this thread began?


Go ahead. I never objected to this.

Let's start by not automatically giving a wife fifty percent despite the fact that he earned 90 percent of the family income.





Government instituted marriage is not a right. That is why Polygamy is not even legal in Utah. These Mormons married without state certification. Which is what everyone should do.

Exactly. State-certified marriage would be known as Civil Unions.

I think that this is the obvious thing for the U.S. Govt. to do.


1) Everyone gets their terms straight: Civil Unions apply to government taxpayer status, and Marriage refers to religious ceremony.

2) The federal government lets individual states decide whether they will grant civil unions to gay couples.

3) The federal government acnowledges the separation of church and state and allows each religious sect and branch decide for themselves whether or not they will provide religious sanction to gay couples who want to get married.


But since this is a common sense solution, it will never happen. Church/ State Separation not only keeps religion out of politics, it keeps politics out of religion.

You're right on the money. Of course, unfortunately, not everyone will agree with it, both the ultra-seculars and the ultra-fundamentalists. They'll be united on something, ironically.

So, what marriage is then, is a way for people to have government recognition of the combining of their assets? So it is a business partnership? Ok, you can have your business partnership, and everyone else can have their privite marriage. Just change the name to something more fitting though, so people don't get confused.

It's more than that, but what the government recognizes is the business portion of it, yes.

Um, that's exactly what I said, by the way. It should be called a civil union. Glad to see you're following along.

Let's start by not automatically giving a wife fifty percent despite the fact that he earned 90 percent of the family income.

You assume that earning the income is the only thing that can be brought to the marriage. My company has people who bring in business, people who do business, and people who simply care for the company by answering phones, keeping the servers working, etc. Should they not get paid because they don't bring in outside money. As I said, it's clear you don't actually know what you're talking about. You didn't research this. You're dealing in generalities and assumptions.


Government instituted marriage is not a right. That is why Polygamy is not even legal in Utah. These Mormons married without state certification. Which is what everyone should do.

Good thing there is no such thing as Goverment-instituted marriage. There is government recognized marriage, but I know of no government institution requiring people to enter into a marriage contract.

You're right on the money. Of course, unfortunately, not everyone will agree with it, both the ultra-seculars and the ultra-fundamentalists. They'll be united on something, ironically.
Really I have never heard it out of the secular side

Unless the government grants that a marriage (within certain limitations) by a government approved licensee is granted the status of civil union provided the proper paperwork is signed. This is essentially how the government recognizes church marriages now. The only difference is that we would no longer call the government-recognized insitution marriage.

I can see how there would a problem with other nationstates recognizing our marriages but as some countries already refer to a civil union, I'd imagine there is a way to deal with it that has already been devised.

There are countries that we have marriage treaties with that also provide civil unions, but civil unions are not, in any way, recognized by our government. Thus, if a couple gets civil unioned in France, and moves here, they have no legal union in our country. The same would be true in the reverse.

There are hundreds (at least) years of legal documentation, both national and international, having to do with marriage. Changing it to "civil union" wouldn't be the cakewalk many people seem to think it would. Like I said, it *might* be possible to do it without screwing a lot of people over, but I doubt that's how it would happen.


So, what marriage is then, is a way for people to have government recognition of the combining of their assets? So it is a business partnership? Ok, you can have your business partnership, and everyone else can have their privite marriage. Just change the name to something more fitting though, so people don't get confused.

Along with other legal issues such as next-of-kin and legal representation, yes. And that "business partnership" has been called marriage for the entire history of our country, and most of those that came before it. If you are really that confused by it, then perhaps it is you that has a problem?

Let's start by not automatically giving a wife fifty percent despite the fact that he earned 90 percent of the family income.

Yes, because I'm sure she did nothing but sit around on her ass and eat bonbons all day. And I'm sure that, during their marriage, they kept things split 90-10. Meanwhile, I have yet to see a law that says, "Both spouses automatically get 50%," especially when you consider that most divorce settlements are carried out with the only court involvement being a judge signing off on the papers.

it would be much more simple to kill all the repulicians tho.:D

You're right on the money. Of course, unfortunately, not everyone will agree with it, both the ultra-seculars and the ultra-fundamentalists. They'll be united on something, ironically.

I'm a religious person who is neither "ultra-secular" nor "ultra-fundamentalist," but I would disagree with any plan that made equal protection under the law something that states could shit on.

There are countries that we have marriage treaties with that also provide civil unions, but civil unions are not, in any way, recognized by our government. Thus, if a couple gets civil unioned in France, and moves here, they have no legal union in our country. The same would be true in the reverse.

There are hundreds (at least) years of legal documentation, both national and international, having to do with marriage. Changing it to "civil union" wouldn't be the cakewalk many people seem to think it would. Like I said, it *might* be possible to do it without screwing a lot of people over, but I doubt that's how it would happen.

If we created legislation that equated the two for those specific purposes then it would cover the issue. The only reason to change the treaty itself would be if we changed the nature of the treaty, which is not a part of what I'm suggesting.

Yes, I agree, however, that there appears to be a complete lack of foresight in the eyes of our legislators.

Along with other legal issues such as next-of-kin and legal representation, yes. And that "business partnership" has been called marriage for the entire history of our country, and most of those that came before it. If you are really that confused by it, then perhaps it is you that has a problem?



Yes, because I'm sure she did nothing but sit around on her ass and eat bonbons all day. And I'm sure that, during their marriage, they kept things split 90-10. Meanwhile, I have yet to see a law that says, "Both spouses automatically get 50%," especially when you consider that most divorce settlements are carried out with the only court involvement being a judge signing off on the papers.[/QUOTE]

There are countries that we have marriage treaties with that also provide civil unions, but civil unions are not, in any way, recognized by our government. Thus, if a couple gets civil unioned in France, and moves here, they have no legal union in our country. The same would be true in the reverse.

There are hundreds (at least) years of legal documentation, both national and international, having to do with marriage. Changing it to "civil union" wouldn't be the cakewalk many people seem to think it would. Like I said, it *might* be possible to do it without screwing a lot of people over, but I doubt that's how it would happen.

You're making too much out of this.

All that would happen is that those who are already married would be given a Civil Union certificate. Civil Union certification would grant the legal benefits. None of the marriage benefits would be taken away.

You could still get married, and get a certificate from a pastor or something, but it would be entirely cosmetic. Get it? Nobody's getting screwed.

You're making too much out of this.

All that would happen is that those who are already married would be given a Civil Union certificate. Civil Union certification would grant the legal benefits. None of the marriage benefits would be taken away.

You could still get married, and get a certificate from a pastor or something, but it would be entirely cosmetic. Get it? Nobody's getting screwed.
Too bad fucking with current legal precident as well as changing all current laws would be INCREADABLY complex

The theory is simple

The application is complex

Or:
Guy/Guy: Fratrimony.
Girl/Girl: Sororimony.
Ehh? Ehh? This would be assuming 'marriage' becomes for only a man and a woman, and all the other definitions are true to the nature of the union. Churches would be happier, because then they could be all "we only do *marriages*", while some churches would do all three types of unions. But under the law, they would all have the same rights, as Fratrimony/Sororomony/Marriage would all be counted as a Union.

Or:
Guy/Guy: Fratrimony.
Girl/Girl: Sororimony.
Ehh? Ehh? This would be assuming 'marriage' becomes for only a man and a woman, and all the other definitions are true to the nature of the union. Churches would be happier, because then they could be all "we only do *marriages*", while some churches would do all three types of unions. But under the law, they would all have the same rights, as Fratrimony/Sororomony/Marriage would all be counted as a Union.
Good except what if you have one church that decideds *Marrige* is all the above. How are they any more right or wrong then the others?

You assume that earning the income is the only thing that can be brought to the marriage. My company has people who bring in business, people who do business, and people who simply care for the company by answering phones, keeping the servers working, etc. Should they not get paid because they don't bring in outside money. As I said, it's clear you don't actually know what you're talking about. You didn't research this. You're dealing in generalities and assumptions.


No, I don't. I know exactly what I am talking about. There are numerous cases where women have taken half the money without having done half the work. I am not saying women don't work, just that *some* don't contribute as much as their husbands. Woman marries well to do man. Woman divorces well to do man. Courts award woman half of well to do man's money. It happens more often than you might think.


Along with other legal issues such as next-of-kin and legal representation, yes. And that "business partnership" has been called marriage for the entire history of our country, and most of those that came before it. If you are really that confused by it, then perhaps it is you that has a problem?


No, it has not. Marriage used to be solely a religious matter.

No, I don't. I know exactly what I am talking about. There are numerous cases where women have taken half the money without having done half the work. I am not saying women don't work, just that *some* don't contribute as much as their husbands. Woman marries well to do man. Woman divorces well to do man. Courts award woman half of well to do man's money. It happens more often than you might think.



Lazy mooching man taking half the womans hard earned money happens as well




No, it has not. Marriage used to be solely a religious matter.
Care to point out a time and or place where it was soly a religious matter and not tied in with government/society?

Too bad fucking with current legal precident as well as changing all current laws would be INCREADABLY complex

The theory is simple

The application is complex

I think we're all talking a bit out of our arses.

However, I think if a part of the legislation made it possible to recognize the civil unions from all legal sources (and then list the sources including certificates from currently recognized nationstates that are or equate to civil unions and including people who have been ordained by the government to create a civil union at the same time as a religious one) that we would not run afoul of other governments. I think the bigger concern would be the civil unions from this country going to other countries, but given that other countries have done it, there must be a way to get it done.

No, I don't. I know exactly what I am talking about. There are numerous cases where women have taken half the money without having done half the work. I am not saying women don't work, just that *some* don't contribute as much as their husbands. Woman marries well to do man. Woman divorces well to do man. Courts award woman half of well to do man's money. It happens more often than you might think.


I'm sure there are similar cases of men doing the same. You cite the exception as if it is the rule.

There is a contractual agreement that can be entered into to prevent said occurrance. If people do not take the necessary steps to protect their assets then who are you to to break the system to protect them?

Meanwhile, I suspect it happens much less often than you think. What percentage of the time would you say this is an issue? One in 10,000 marriages? Less maybe.

No, it has not. Marriage used to be solely a religious matter.
In what country?

I think we're all talking a bit out of our arses.

However, I think if a part of the legislation made it possible to recognize the civil unions from all legal sources (and then list the sources including certificates from currently recognized nationstates that are or equate to civil unions and including people who have been ordained by the government to create a civil union at the same time as a religious one) that we would not run afoul of other governments. I think the bigger concern would be the civil unions from this country going to other countries, but given that other countries have done it, there must be a way to get it done.
Yeah there probably is ... I just cant imagine resetting all that legal precident

Honestly with todays society you would have to be nieve that every frigging precident wont be challanged cause it was "mariage" not "union"

They may not win but ovey

If we created legislation that equated the two for those specific purposes then it would cover the issue.

For us, *maybe*. Of course, the people who pass laws never seem to close little loopholes in things like this. But not to everyone else.

The only reason to change the treaty itself would be if we changed the nature of the treaty, which is not a part of what I'm suggesting.

It isn't a matter of the nature of the treaty. We can say, "We're gonna call these things we've called marriage for hundreds of years, 'civil unions' instead," and, unless a country with which we have a treaty wants to continue recognizing them, it can say, "We don't have civil unions. We have marriages. That means we cannot recognize your civil unions." Interestingly enough, this is *exactly* what happens when a homosexual couple from Virginia gets a civil union and then moves to Georgia. Georgia says, "We don't have civil unions, so we don't recognize anything about you."

Yes, I agree, however, that there appears to be a complete lack of foresight in the eyes of our legislators.

=) Exactly. Thus, while, in principle, it seems as if the idea would work out, I don't think it would be so easy.


You're making too much out of this.

All that would happen is that those who are already married would be given a Civil Union certificate. Civil Union certification would grant the legal benefits. None of the marriage benefits would be taken away.

You could still get married, and get a certificate from a pastor or something, but it would be entirely cosmetic. Get it? Nobody's getting screwed.

Ah, such faith in our legislators - people who, in at least one state, passed a bill that pretty much made all marriage illegal when all they were trying to do was make same-sex marriage illegal. Sorry if I don't have the kind of faith in our lawmakers that you do.

And I also know that there is no reason that international law would recognize our "civil unions", unless they just wanted to.

No, I don't. I know exactly what I am talking about. There are numerous cases where women have taken half the money without having done half the work. I am not saying women don't work, just that *some* don't contribute as much as their husbands. Woman marries well to do man. Woman divorces well to do man. Courts award woman half of well to do man's money. It happens more often than you might think.

Yes, and this never happens the other way around. And these cases make up such a very large chunk of divorce cases. :rolleyes:

No, it has not. Marriage used to be solely a religious matter.

Oh? So our country hasn't recognized marriage for its entire history? Do tell. At what point did the country suddenly start recognizing marriages?

You mean we don't have treaties with other countries that our government will recognize marriage licenses granted by their governments? Do tell.....

Good, except what if you have one church that decides *Marriage* is all the above?
Well, 'Right' and 'Wrong' are abstract concepts, depending upon your POV, some churches would be doing the 'right' thing by accepting all forms of a union, while in another POV the churches would be doing the 'right' thing by doing the opposite. But it's not like the government could order any church to take action on one, or both, or all.
How are they more right or wrong than the others?
Well, again, it depends on your POV.

I'm sure there are similar cases of men doing the same.

If you are right that in no way invalidates my position.

In what country?

All of Europe before the French Revolution.

Seems to me like you are making a decision for the women that is not yours to make. The number of partners involved does not make it slavery. The mere fact that there *is* a choice involved means it is not...

My statement may have a been a bit garbled, so I can see why you didn't get what I said. The mere fact that there is a choice involved does not make it slavery. The fact that the society that advocates polygamy is inherently unequal, as well as the fact that women are entering into a fundamentally unequal contract does. The man is permitted rights that the woman is not. Were they operating out of a free and equal setting in the first place, no rational woman would consent to such a union. Therefore, because it arises out of fundamental inequality, because it perpetuates fundamental inequality, and because were women in a state of natural equality they would never consent to it, we do not allow it in a just society now.

I understood what you said. It is just that if polygamy were legalized today there is no reason women wouldn't still have a choice. I disagree with your assertion that an unequal relationship is automatically slavery.

Also, don't forget that polygamy can go both ways.

I understood what you said. It is just that if polygamy were legalized today there is no reason women wouldn't still have a choice. I disagree with your assertion that an unequal relationship is automatically slavery.

Also, don't forget that polygamy can go both ways.
Sure could
I have no problem with any one or more person entering in a social contract with eachother in such a manner

I understood what you said. It is just that if polygamy were legalized today there is no reason women wouldn't still have a choice. I disagree with your assertion that an unequal relationship is automatically slavery.

Also, don't forget that polygamy can go both ways.

Well technically I believe it's polyandry when it's the other way, but very true.[/nitpick]

Marriage is a legal binding of 2 people. it can also be religious but is not necessarily. You can get married in a church, or by a priest elsewhere, but you still have to sign a contract to make it legal. So let gay people do the legal thing, and let churches decide who they will let do the religious thing. Some churches will not marry divorcees, or couples where one is not a member of that faith, but those people can still get married. If churches want to discriminate against gays thats their business, they discriminate against a lot of people, but marriage doesnt necessarily have to involve the church.

While I dont' agree with #2 I like it. :D I think everyone has the right to a civil unions.

I agree, after all civil unions are contracts, and legal contracts that are valid for males and females to enter into should also be valid for any other (human) couple. whether or not horses or dolphins can enter into legal contracts are a different matter, why.. well thats a discussion for a different thread, naturally we would have to be able to prove the horse or the dolphin could understand and argees to the contract willingly. but aside from that one must remeber the constitution is a legal contract, the very intergrity of the goverment institution depends on respecting all legal contracts. imagine if we were able to prove that one of the signers of the constitution was gay, if their was an exception to the rule and contracts signed by gays were invalid then the constition would be automatically invalid. but we dont even need one of the signers to be gay, the very concept of it possible for a legal contract to be rendered invalid based on some religios group saying so. is like saying that it is okay if a religious group (say one that belived by doctrine that only same sex marriges were holy and all others unnatural) said hetrosexual marrige is evil then all civil unions of hetrosexual couples should be null and void.

I agree, after all civil unions are contracts, and legal contracts that are valid for males and females to enter into should also be valid for any other (human) couple. whether or not horses or dolphins can enter into legal contracts are a different matter, why.. well thats a discussion for a different thread, naturally we would have to be able to prove the horse or the dolphin could understand and argees to the contract willingly. but aside from that one must remeber the constitution is a legal contract, the very intergrity of the goverment institution depends on respecting all legal contracts. imagine if we were able to prove that one of the signers of the constitution was gay, if their was an exception to the rule and contracts signed by gays were invalid then the constition would be automatically invalid. but we dont even need one of the signers to be gay, the very concept of it possible for a legal contract to be rendered invalid based on some religios group saying so. is like saying that it is okay if a religious group (say one that belived by doctrine that only same sex marriges were holy and all others unnatural) said hetrosexual marrige is evil then all civil unions of hetrosexual couples should be null and void.

Holy gravedig, Batman! Who the hell goes this far back in threads to find something this old? You need to get a hobby. ;)

why should it be legal for them to be married, I don't want to have to schedule my wedding inbetween fag weddings. gay people arn't born that way its a choice they made; even if it was unconsious it was still a choice.

so you chose to be hetro sexual, you were not born that way. whats your point. you think gays should ban you becuase they dont want to schedule between streight weddings

That looks like it would work, but with number 2, you'd have to make it that each state has a vote that is put to the people. Not just the courts of the state.

<pointless gravedigging>
Don't reopen debates that have been closed for months. Start from scratch, or visit one of probably dozens of current threads.