NationStates Jolt Archive

This subject has been posted ten thousand times before, but this thread is going to be slightly different. Rather than ranting about a particular case, I want to discuss this issue, chiefly with why people care so much?

Why does it bother people if a man and a man or a woman and a woman get married? Does it impact your marriage? Does it somehow demean you or harm you? People throw about this "Family Values" bullshit but statistically speaking a heterosexual marriage is destined to fail and even if it doesn't statistically speaking in most married couples one partner will not be faithful.

And this is part of a larger issue, civil rights in general. I just cannot fathom why someone would ever oppose civil liberty for anyone. Anyone got a take on this? If you are opposed to gay marriage or other such topics pertaining to civil liberty please by all means debate it here, I'm curious to see you try to rationalise it without bringing up the bible. If you're going to argue the bible you aren't welcome here because your opinion holds no weight when built on the foundation of a book, unless you want to be made fun of.

The problem these people, that complain about gay marriage, have is that they don't think for themselves but simply parrot other peoples sayings from several hundred years ago.

I've yet to see a single person provide a single reason why another person's gay marriage harms anybody.

There's usually some vague blather about how gay marriage "weakens marriage" as an institution somehow, but that's just circular. Gay marriage weakens marriage because it weakens marriage!

Meh. I've never met a homophobe who wasn't also a coward, so it figures they wouldn't have the guts to stand up and tell the truth about their beliefs.

You know, I personally don't give a wet fart about gay marriage one way or the other but I do need to take exception to some of your inane talking points:

This subject has been posted ten thousand times before, but this thread is going to be slightly different. Rather than ranting about a particular case, I want to discuss this issue, chiefly with why people care so much?

Why does it bother people if a man and a man or a woman and a woman get married? Does it impact your marriage? Does it somehow demean you or harm you? People throw about this "Family Values" bullshit but statistically speaking a heterosexual marriage is destined to fail and even if it doesn't statistically speaking in most married couples one partner will not be faithful.


1)What possible relevance do marital statistics on heterosexual marriage have to do with gay marriage? if anything I could see statistics used like that to justify eliminating ALL marriage.

2)Reading this paragraph I can't help but think that if I were gay I might wonder why I'd want to get involved in a situation you're trashing the hell out of. "If marriage sucks that bad, why would I want to?" comes to mind.

3)Show me where you got the idea that most marriages are hit with infidelity.


And this is part of a larger issue, civil rights in general. I just cannot fathom why someone would ever oppose civil liberty for anyone. Anyone got a take on this? If you are opposed to gay marriage or other such topics pertaining to civil liberty please by all means debate it here, I'm curious to see you try to rationalise it without bringing up the bible. If you're going to argue the bible you aren't welcome here because your opinion holds no weight when built on the foundation of a book, unless you want to be made fun of.

Everybody knows the arguments surrounding religion and religious opposition to it. But guess what? You don't get to decide who is welcome in this or any thread, and who is not. And if someone does come in and want to talk about their religion, it's juvenile to make fun and justify it by saying 'I warned you!'

if we allow tehm to get marrie teh ebil gayz wll want everybod to be gayz!!!!!

itz in teh vivle!!!

KILL ALL THE MEN-LOVING GAY SODOMITES!!!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

3)Show me where you got the idea that most marriages are hit with infidelity.



Well, not "most", but close to half of them anyway it would seem : http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html

Everybody knows the arguments surrounding religion and religious opposition to it. But guess what? You don't get to decide who is welcome in this or any thread, and who is not. And if someone does come in and want to talk about their religion, it's juvenile to make fun and justify it by saying 'I warned you!'

He was talking about civil liberties, wasn't he?
I think people who deny others civil liberties on the basis of their own personal religion are on very thin ice indeed... religious freedom being one of those civil liberties after all.

Well, not "most", but close to half of them anyway it would seem : http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html

Your link just has statistics with no source for them

Your link just has statistics with no source for them

Ok, how about this one, then? http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/quizzes/public/infidelity_statistics.html

Ok, how about this one, then? http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/quizzes/public/infidelity_statistics.html

Much better. Don't get me wrong though as I wasn't doubting your point just thought it was a hole in your argument that might need looking at

Well, not "most", but close to half of them anyway it would seem : http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html
I'd like to know what sources those statistics were derived from.

That site seems to suggest that most marriages end in divorce in the US - is that really the case?

It also seems to class "marriage counselor" as a field of medicine, which confuses me a little.

I also find myself wondering what they are classing as "emotional infidelity"... I suspect that, to bolster the shock value of their figures, a simple turn of the head to look at an attractive member of the opposite sex would qualify.


(Edit: I was far too slow in posting, and hadn't seen the alternative link that was posted while I was typing)

I suppose it depends on the definition of "marriage", and whether or not you believe that a definition can change.

If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that they can't fuck around with others without ruining it, then several things "threaten" the definition of marriage if you also believe that the definition can't change:

1. Adultery
2. Homosexuals getting "married"

It doesn't ruin marriage - it steps on their definition of it.

Now, if you believe that you can change the definition, then why stop at one person (of any gender) with one person of any other gender? Why not have group marriages? Why not polygamy? After all, it's consenting adults?

Me, I could care less. I have my own marriage - you can have your own marriage - with your own definition - as long as it's consenting adults.

This subject has been posted ten thousand times before, but this thread is going to be slightly different. Rather than ranting about a particular case, I want to discuss this issue, chiefly with why people care so much?

Why does it bother people if a man and a man or a woman and a woman get married? Does it impact your marriage? Does it somehow demean you or harm you? People throw about this "Family Values" bullshit but statistically speaking a heterosexual marriage is destined to fail and even if it doesn't statistically speaking in most married couples one partner will not be faithful.

And this is part of a larger issue, civil rights in general. I just cannot fathom why someone would ever oppose civil liberty for anyone. Anyone got a take on this? If you are opposed to gay marriage or other such topics pertaining to civil liberty please by all means debate it here, I'm curious to see you try to rationalise it without bringing up the bible. If you're going to argue the bible you aren't welcome here because your opinion holds no weight when built on the foundation of a book, unless you want to be made fun of.

I don't know if I qualify as an adequate judge, but this really does not seem any different from many of the other threads on the same issue. I'd suggest you google this issue, that way you don't pollute the boards with the same thing again and again. And again and again and again.

Well, not "most", but close to half of them anyway it would seem : http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html

Alright. Then he's wrong to say 'most.'

He was talking about civil liberties, wasn't he?
I think people who deny others civil liberties on the basis of their own personal religion are on very thin ice indeed... religious freedom being one of those civil liberties after all.

Sure but does that mean they can't discuss it, or would you censor such a person?

I don't know if I qualify as an adequate judge, but this really does not seem any different from many of the other threads on the same issue. I'd suggest you google this issue, that way you don't pollute the boards with the same thing again and again. And again and again and again.

But that's the raison d'etre of NS General - to post the same opinions on the same subjects over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And if you disagree with what the mainstream of NS General believes, even if you have linked evidence, you're a troll...

This forum is merely a place for unitary chanting of the sacred mantras of people with largely the same beliefs.

I suppose it depends on the definition of "marriage", and whether or not you believe that a definition can change.

If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that they can't fuck around with others without ruining it, then several things "threaten" the definition of marriage if you also believe that the definition can't change:

1. Adultery
2. Homosexuals getting "married"

It doesn't ruin marriage - it steps on their definition of it.

Now, if you believe that you can change the definition, then why stop at one person (of any gender) with one person of any other gender? Why not have group marriages? Why not polygamy? After all, it's consenting adults?

Me, I could care less. I have my own marriage - you can have your own marriage - with your own definition - as long as it's consenting adults.
That's a decent explanation of their thinking, but, it doesn't really justify their argument. After all, the one obstacle the above cannot overcome is that nobody else in the world NEEDS to care about their opinions/definitions of anything. With that lack of caring what they think, the whole rest of their argument, which is totally dependent on their pre-existing opinion, becomes meaningless to anyone but them.

Alright. Then he's wrong to say 'most.'

My other source says it's between 30 - 60%, so possibly it is most.


Sure but does that mean they can't discuss it, or would you censor such a person?

No, I don't believe in censorship. But I would probably point out the irony of their opinion... and maybe point and laugh, if I'm feeling nasty.

Basic underlying question - Is marriage:

1. An ancient cultural tradition that exists outside the jurisdiction of the State and is free to shift along with the culture,

2. A privilege granted by the state that only exists because the state approves and grants it, or

3. A religious observance that serves to represent the holy union of Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ, consisting of a union between a man, a woman, and God?

If marriage falls under the definition of 1, then it is up to the people to decide what marriage shall be. If it is 2, then the government can unilaterally determine who may marry. If it is 3, as most other Christians and I believe, then marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, can exist without State approval or license, and attempts to change this status are a violation of the separation of Church and State.

But that's the raison d'etre of NS General - to post the same opinions on the same subjects over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And if you disagree with what the mainstream of NS General believes, even if you have linked evidence, you're a troll...

This forum is merely a place for unitary chanting of the sacred mantras of people with largely the same beliefs.

Oh right, pardon my occasional forgetfulness :( .

Also, I quite agree with the quoted post in pretty much ever way.

My other source says it's between 30 - 60%, so possibly it is most.

A range like that makes the statistic useless.


No, I don't believe in censorship. But I would probably point out the irony of their opinion... and maybe point and laugh, if I'm feeling nasty.

Fine, but that's hardly the same as shutting them out of the discussion.

Basic underlying question - Is marriage:

1. An ancient cultural tradition that exists outside the jurisdiction of the State and is free to shift along with the culture,

2. A privilege granted by the state that only exists because the state approves and grants it, or

3. A religious observance that serves to represent the holy union of Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ, consisting of a union between a man, a woman, and God?

If marriage falls under the definition of 1, then it is up to the people to decide what marriage shall be. If it is 2, then the government can unilaterally determine who may marry. If it is 3, as most other Christians and I believe, then marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, can exist without State approval or license, and attempts to change this status are a violation of the separation of Church and State.

Except that reason 3 is inane, because christians know damn well that non-christians get married aswell.

3. A religious observance that serves to represent the holy union of Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ, consisting of a union between a man, a woman, and God?

If marriage falls under the definition of 1, then it is up to the people to decide what marriage shall be. If it is 2, then the government can unilaterally determine who may marry. If it is 3, as most other Christians and I believe, then marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, can exist without State approval or license, and attempts to change this status are a violation of the separation of Church and State.

See, this is the confusing and somewhat irrational argument that never fails to amuse me.
If marriage is what you claim, should you not be demonstrating against any form of state approval for any marriage, along with the abolishment of any preferential treatment of married couples by the state? File lawsuits against everybody who only has a civil ceremony, and people who have religious ceremony other than Christian for their marriages?

As it is at the moment, a great deal of marriages on the planet are either civil unions or non-Christian. Why not go against the biggest chunk of offenders? Why pick the tiny minority of gay wanting to get married?
Personally, I think your stance is hypocritical in the extreme.

I've yet to see a single person provide a single reason why another person's gay marriage harms anybody.
How in your years on NSG have you missed this?

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/HowGaymarriageaffectsthesanctityofm.jpg
(picture courtesy of Ruffy)

Basic underlying question - Is marriage:

1. An ancient cultural tradition that exists outside the jurisdiction of the State and is free to shift along with the culture,

2. A privilege granted by the state that only exists because the state approves and grants it, or

3. A religious observance that serves to represent the holy union of Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ, consisting of a union between a man, a woman, and God?

If marriage falls under the definition of 1, then it is up to the people to decide what marriage shall be. If it is 2, then the government can unilaterally determine who may marry. If it is 3, as most other Christians and I believe, then marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, can exist without State approval or license, and attempts to change this status are a violation of the separation of Church and State.
If that is true, does that mean you do not recognize the validity of the marriages of Jews, since they do not refer to Jesus or the Church of Christ? Does it mean that nobody in the world is married except Christians, in your view?

For the record, I prefer definintion #1, [EDIT] with the priviso that the "ancient cultural tradition" is a contract designating authorized parties to control units of property/wealth. It is essentially a financial arrangement between private citizens.

Basic underlying question - Is marriage:

1. An ancient cultural tradition that exists outside the jurisdiction of the State and is free to shift along with the culture,

2. A privilege granted by the state that only exists because the state approves and grants it, or

3. A religious observance that serves to represent the holy union of Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ, consisting of a union between a man, a woman, and God?

If marriage falls under the definition of 1, then it is up to the people to decide what marriage shall be. If it is 2, then the government can unilaterally determine who may marry. If it is 3, as most other Christians and I believe, then marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, can exist without State approval or license, and attempts to change this status are a violation of the separation of Church and State.So you're suggesting we revert to the times when the Church had nothing to do with it? Marriage has changed over the past: People marry for love, people can marry people of different social "rank", skin color or religion, and marrying underage individuals is frowned upon. (Which is a generalization, as there are examples in the world where this is not the case.)

well, I support gay marriage and all, but this is more subject of religious definitions than civil liberties. if some people are too offended by the use of the word "marriage" it possible to give it another name which include all the rights and legal consequences of hetrosexual marriage.

That's a decent explanation of their thinking, but, it doesn't really justify their argument. After all, the one obstacle the above cannot overcome is that nobody else in the world NEEDS to care about their opinions/definitions of anything. With that lack of caring what they think, the whole rest of their argument, which is totally dependent on their pre-existing opinion, becomes meaningless to anyone but them.

I'm not saying it justifies it - it only explains why they're upset.

And, as we know, you don't have to be right to have a right to be upset.

well, I support gay marriage and all, but this is more subject of religious definitions than civil liberties. if some people are too offended by the use of the word "marriage" it possible to give it another name which include all the rights and legal consequences of hetrosexual marriage.Should we call marriages between people of different skin colors a different name as well, since some people are offended?

Should we call marriages between people of different skin colors a different name as well, since some people are offended?

Polygamy gets a different name, why not?

Should we call marriages between people of different skin colors a different name as well, since some people are offended?

if that gesture would be al it need to be settled with everybody happy, why not?

btw, I know it isn't the case.

if that gesture would be al it need to be settled with everybody happy, why not?

btw, I know it isn't the case.

Gays want to call theirs "marriage", too.

Gays want to call theirs "marriage", too.
I undersand that, but by my view "rose is a rose is a rose".
as long as nobdy lose his rights, what so important in that name?

I undersand that, but by my view "rose is a rose is a rose".
as long as nobdy lose his rights, what so important in that name?

Then the fundie heteros are upset. You can't make everyone happy.

Polygamy gets a different name, why not?

I get the urge to scream every time polygamy is brought up when someone is talking about gay marriage.

And polygamy gets a different name because it is distinctly different from monogamy. That's kind of a "no shit" statement, but I see no reason for anyone to bring it up in a gay marriage discussion. Gay marriage doesn't have to do with the number of partners, it has to do with the gender of partners.

Marriage is a legal contract that binds two consenting adults in to one legal entity/household. If you call it something else because it's between two men/women, that could lead to people discriminating against this new institution (and possibly having to change legal codes to bend for this new institution) and to me it just reeks of "separate but equal".

Then the fundie heteros are upset. You can't make everyone happy.
true, but I also think you should choose your fights. if you can't get everything you want, wouldn't it be better for the oprressed to get equal rights and status legal, than cermonial stuff?

Basic underlying question - Is marriage:

1. An ancient cultural tradition that exists outside the jurisdiction of the State and is free to shift along with the culture,

2. A privilege granted by the state that only exists because the state approves and grants it, or

3. A religious observance that serves to represent the holy union of Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ, consisting of a union between a man, a woman, and God?

If marriage falls under the definition of 1, then it is up to the people to decide what marriage shall be. If it is 2, then the government can unilaterally determine who may marry. If it is 3, as most other Christians and I believe, then marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, can exist without State approval or license, and attempts to change this status are a violation of the separation of Church and State.

So, non-Christians cannot get married?

And it's a violation of Separation of Church and State if the State refuses to enforce a Church's Dogma?

Wow. I mean, really. What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Polygamy gets a different name, why not?

Because interracial marriages and same-sex marriages already have a designation associated with polygamy. We call it "monogamy." I'm surprised you've never heard of it.

The problem these people, that complain about gay marriage, have is that they don't think for themselves but simply parrot other peoples sayings from several hundred years ago.

Winaaaaaaa!:D

Polygamy gets a different name, why not?
Plural marriage isn't called marriage? :confused:

Because interracial marriages and same-sex marriages already have a designation associated with polygamy. We call it "monogamy." I'm surprised you've never heard of it.

Legal marriage in the US is enforced as monogamy. Perhaps you've never read about it.

Legal marriage in the US is enforced as monogamy. Perhaps you've never read about it.That's a legality, not a naming issue. Plural marriage is still considered marriage, even if it isn't legally sanctioned.

Legal marriage in the US is enforced as monogamy. Perhaps you've never read about it.

What an amusing goal post shift. First we're talking about why polygamy is called something other than marriage (Laerod pointed out that it is, in fact, not, but simply refers to the marriage of more than two partners) and how this relates to calling interracial and same-sex marriages by names other than marriage, and now all of a sudden we're on the subject of its legal status.

*laugh*

That's a legality, not a naming issue. Plural marriage is still considered marriage, even if it isn't legally sanctioned.

The problem is, not everyone agrees on what "marriage" is, legal or not. And deciding one way or another is going to leave one group or another pissed off.

I suppose it depends on the definition of "marriage", and whether or not you believe that a definition can change.

The definition of civil marriage is determined by the protections granted by it.

Because it is civil marriage, those protections must either be granted equally or not at all. It doesn't matter what any given person thinks a marriage "should be".

Meanwhile, the definition of marriage, from a societal viewpoint (and, often, from a legal one) has been changing throughout history. Someone who thikns the definition cannot change is woefully ignorant of the institution they are supposedly trying to protect.


Sure but does that mean they can't discuss it, or would you censor such a person?

Someone with a religious objection to same-sex marriage can certainly discuss it, just a Catholic can discuss objections to divorce and remarrying after divorce and people who think that inter-religion marriages are not real marriages, and so on.

However, they have to realize that their religious objections are irrelevant when discussing civil marriage.

The definition of civil marriage is determined by the protections granted by it.

I hardly think so. Can you prove that?

Because it is civil marriage, those protections must either be granted equally or not at all. It doesn't matter what any given person thinks a marriage "should be".

Meanwhile, the definition of marriage, from a societal viewpoint (and, often, from a legal one) has been changing throughout history. Someone who thikns the definition cannot change is woefully ignorant of the institution they are supposedly trying to protect.

Someone with a religious objection to same-sex marriage can certainly discuss it, just a Catholic can discuss objections to divorce and remarrying after divorce and people who think that inter-religion marriages are not real marriages, and so on.

However, they have to realize that their religious objections are irrelevant when discussing civil marriage.

It also raises another question. Most religious leaders are granted authority by the state to perform marriages - that is, sign off on the marriage certificate after performing the ceremony (as an officiator).

Most Christian churches won't perform a marriage for gay people. So, if a gay couple walked into a Catholic church, and insisted on a Catholic wedding, the priest would refuse.

Would you revoke his ability to perform marriages? Or the right of every Catholic priest to perform marriages? Or would you force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages in violation of their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?

Mind you, I have zero problems with gay marriage. I also have no problems with group marriage, etc. But it does open the door to forcing people to act in a way that violates their religious freedom.

Basic underlying question - Is marriage:

1. An ancient cultural tradition that exists outside the jurisdiction of the State and is free to shift along with the culture,

2. A privilege granted by the state that only exists because the state approves and grants it, or

3. A religious observance that serves to represent the holy union of Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ, consisting of a union between a man, a woman, and God?

If marriage falls under the definition of 1, then it is up to the people to decide what marriage shall be. If it is 2, then the government can unilaterally determine who may marry. If it is 3, as most other Christians and I believe, then marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, can exist without State approval or license, and attempts to change this status are a violation of the separation of Church and State.

1) Yes.

2) Sort of. It's more a set of protections than a privilege.

3) To some.

1a) Individuals will certainly decide what they consider to be marriage.

2a) The government certainly determines what it will count as marriage. But it is restricted in how it can do that.

3a) A church can define marriage as it likes. It's definition will not always coincide with the legal definition or with the way that others see it.


well, I support gay marriage and all, but this is more subject of religious definitions than civil liberties. if some people are too offended by the use of the word "marriage" it possible to give it another name which include all the rights and legal consequences of hetrosexual marriage.

Only if heterosexual marriages have the same name change.

"Separate but equal" doesn't cut it.

Someone with a religious objection to same-sex marriage can certainly discuss it, just a Catholic can discuss objections to divorce and remarrying after divorce and people who think that inter-religion marriages are not real marriages, and so on.

However, they have to realize that their religious objections are irrelevant when discussing civil marriage.

Well, in YOUR opinion they're irrelevant. (And in mine too, as it happens) but don't fall into the trap of assuming there's no other way to look at it.

Well, in YOUR opinion they're irrelevant. (And in mine too, as it happens) but don't fall into the trap of assuming there's no other way to look at it.

In order to have freedom of religion, they have to be irrelevant.

If someone wants them to be relevant, they'll first have to admit that they don't want a nation in which freedom of religion is protected, which means that their own religion is no more protected than the ones they don't agree with.

I undersand that, but by my view "rose is a rose is a rose".
as long as nobdy lose his rights, what so important in that name?

Because the name is vital to the general acceptance.

If a man was badly injured then there'd be no questions asked about letting his wife ride in the ambulance and stay with him in hospital: her word that she's his wife and a wedding ring would be considered more than enough proof.

If we're talking about a lesbian 'civil partnership' then the woman's much more likely to be asked for proof of their union in the form of legal documents (which she almost certainly doesn't carry around) and she's at the mercy of bigoted ambulance drivers and hospital staff.

This isn't a hypothetical: there's been at least one documented case of a woman being unable to be with her partner in her final hours because the ambulance crew refused to let her ride along. This would never have happened if it'd been a man with his wife or vice versa, and it probably wouldn't have happened if civil partnerships were viewed as somehow 'second-class' and not real marriages.

The name matters, but even if there didn't I don't see any reason to humour the reactionaries.

Because the name is vital to the general acceptance.

If a man was badly injured then there'd be no questions asked about letting his wife ride in the ambulance and stay with him in hospital: her word that she's his wife and a wedding ring would be considered more than enough proof.

If we're talking about a lesbian 'civil partnership' then the woman's much more likely to be asked for proof of their union in the form of legal documents (which she almost certainly doesn't carry around) and she's at the mercy of bigoted ambulance drivers and hospital staff.

This isn't a hypothetical: there's been at least one documented case of a woman being unable to be with her partner in her final hours because the ambulance crew refused to let her ride along. This would never have happened if it'd been a man with his wife or vice versa, and it probably wouldn't have happened if civil partnerships were viewed as somehow 'second-class' and not real marriages.

The name matters, but even if there didn't I don't see any reason to humour the reactionaries.
actually, those cases had more to do with the crew homophobiac believes, than to the legal status. probably they would late hetro civil partner or even close friend ride the amblunace.
anyhow, I talked about theoritical possibility when the only thing which divide the marriages will be their name. in the current reality, many people will see gay marriage as "second class" even if it will be exactly like hetrosexual marriage.

The problem is, not everyone agrees on what "marriage" is, legal or not. And deciding one way or another is going to leave one group or another pissed off.Yeah, and I pointed out that I don't really care that a white supremacist doesn't like "inter-racial" marriages.

Most Christian churches won't perform a marriage for gay people. So, if a gay couple walked into a Catholic church, and insisted on a Catholic wedding, the priest would refuse.

Would you revoke his ability to perform marriages? Or the right of every Catholic priest to perform marriages? Or would you force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages in violation of their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?
You're just being silly. A man-woman couple who walks into a Catholic church and insists on a Catholic wedding, even though neither one is Catholic, will also be refused. If one of them is Catholic (like my sister-in-law), the non-Catholic (like my brother) will be made to agree that any children will be brought up as Catholic (all my nephews have been baptized; I even stood godfather once, which would be even more of a laugh if you knew me better). There is no requirement at present for Catholic priests to marry, in their church, any couple who demands it, nor is there ever going to be such a requirement. Priests have the power to marry, not any obligation to perform marriages.

I hardly think so. Can you prove that?

Um...it's by definition. Civil marriage refers to a set of legal protections applied to couples who obtain a marriage license. This means that it is defined by those protections.

It also raises another question. Most religious leaders are granted authority by the state to perform marriages - that is, sign off on the marriage certificate after performing the ceremony (as an officiator).

Most Christian churches won't perform a marriage for gay people. So, if a gay couple walked into a Catholic church, and insisted on a Catholic wedding, the priest would refuse.

Would you revoke his ability to perform marriages? Or the right of every Catholic priest to perform marriages? Or would you force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages in violation of their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?

Mind you, I have zero problems with gay marriage. I also have no problems with group marriage, etc. But it does open the door to forcing people to act in a way that violates their religious freedom.

No, it doesn't. Because it is more convenient for those seeking both religious and civil marriage, the state has granted religious leaders the authority to officiate a civil marriage (once the couple has obtained a legal marriage license).

However, the government has not, does not, and cannot force any given religious leader to perform a marriage on any given couple. Purely civil officiants, like a justice of the peace, cannot pick and choose because the government is required to be non-discriminatory. The JP has to officiate for anyone who comes in with a proper marriage license. Religious leaders, however, are not required to officiate for anyone. They can refuse for any reason.

And they often do. Catholic priests will only marry couples in which one or both is Catholic and they will not marry a couple in which one or both are divorced unless they have had their previous marriage officially annulled by the church. Primitive Baptists won't perform marriages unless both members of the couple are also members of the church. Some religious leaders will not perform inter-religious marriages. And yet all of these unions can receive legal recognition, whether they go through a religious leader or not.

The whole "ZOMG! My preacher's gonna be forced to perform gay marriages!" argument is ridiculous. If every state in the union decided tomorrow to recognize gay marriages, any church that did not wish to sanction such marriages would still be free to refuse.

We haven't had homosexuality accepted since the classical age, and society is so determined to resist change after such a long time that it fights things because they are not the "status quo".

Personally, I see no difference.

You're both legally joined and You're both stuck with each other forever and you will learn to hate each other as a result with both styles of marraige.

Anyway, does it matter so long as we don't have to hear about their consumations?

We haven't had homosexuality accepted since the classical age, and society is so determined to resist change after such a long time that it fights things because they are not the "status quo".

Personally, I see no difference.

You're both legally joined and You're both stuck with each other forever and you will learn to hate each other as a result with both styles of marraige.

Anyway, does it matter so long as we don't have to hear about their consumations?

Why should that issue matter any more than it does for heterosexual people?

Why should that issue matter any more than it does for heterosexual people?

I meant for either. Some things were meant to be kept quiet. Details of what goes on behind anyone's closed door are just too weird.