A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.

They can keep their rights here on earth. But for eternity, I will stick to the Biblical plan, man & woman, which is the natural way.

And I will fight for your right to believe and live as you choose.

Just as I will fight to make sure our gov't does not base its laws solely on religious dogma.

 

[rightwinger]

RW. You and I should form a SupeHero unit that flies to the rescue of anyone on the Board who is being forced to marry someone of his or her own sex. I think we should make sure no one is ever forced to marry that way against their will. Up for it?

Absolutely

You are not even forced to marry someone of a different race if you don't want to.

 

[bodecea]

The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.

They can keep their rights here on earth. But for eternity, I will stick to the Biblical plan, man & woman, which is the natural way.

And that is your choice...because, believe it or not....giving gay couples the right to legally marry does not affect your marriage, however you want it to be, in any way.
Isn't that something?

 

[bodecea]

Dear BD Boop, Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children. Call gay unions what you will, but they have nothing to do with the intended purpose of marriage.

Except that gays can adopt or have children with outside assistance. At which point the same intended purpose you claim for marriage would apply.

It is also funny that you claim the purpose for marriage is all about children, but straight couples who marry and do not procreate still receive the same benefits.

The purpose of marriage is not to get benefits. Our society bestows benefits that are mostly related to the rearing of children which are offered regardless of marital status. Historically, marriage was necessary to identify the parents (fathers) of children and hold them responsible for supporting their children. Although some married couples do not have children, all children do have parents and the ruling authority wanted to know who was responsible for each child.

Oh really?

 

[rightwinger]

The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.

They can keep their rights here on earth. But for eternity, I will stick to the Biblical plan, man & woman, which is the natural way.

It's a good thing nobody is forcing you to marry another man then

Why are you forcing other people to only marry people you find acceptable?

 

[WinterBorn]

Dear BD Boop, Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children. Call gay unions what you will, but they have nothing to do with the intended purpose of marriage.

Except that gays can adopt or have children with outside assistance. At which point the same intended purpose you claim for marriage would apply.

It is also funny that you claim the purpose for marriage is all about children, but straight couples who marry and do not procreate still receive the same benefits.

The purpose of marriage is not to get benefits. Our society bestows benefits that are mostly related to the rearing of children which are offered regardless of marital status. Historically, marriage was necessary to identify the parents (fathers) of children and hold them responsible for supporting their children. Although some married couples do not have children, all children do have parents and the ruling authority wanted to know who was responsible for each child.

Oh, so if we removed the +/- 1,400 benefits that married couples received, you would be fine with that?

And gays have kids, either thru adoption, previous relationships or outside assistance. So they need to be held responsible as well.

 

[BDBoop]

I haven't had a storage tank since 1993. My marriage probably never should have taken place in 1995.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Except that gays can adopt or have children with outside assistance. At which point the same intended purpose you claim for marriage would apply.

It is also funny that you claim the purpose for marriage is all about children, but straight couples who marry and do not procreate still receive the same benefits.

The purpose of marriage is not to get benefits. Our society bestows benefits that are mostly related to the rearing of children which are offered regardless of marital status. Historically, marriage was necessary to identify the parents (fathers) of children and hold them responsible for supporting their children. Although some married couples do not have children, all children do have parents and the ruling authority wanted to know who was responsible for each child.

Oh, so if we removed the +/- 1,400 benefits that married couples received, you would be fine with that?

And gays have kids, either thru adoption, previous relationships or outside assistance. So they need to be held responsible as well.

The universal marriages in the states and DC that recognize them have all the responsibilities and privileges of such marriage.

This is not hard to understand.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The purpose of marriage is not to get benefits. Our society bestows benefits that are mostly related to the rearing of children which are offered regardless of marital status. Historically, marriage was necessary to identify the parents (fathers) of children and hold them responsible for supporting their children. Although some married couples do not have children, all children do have parents and the ruling authority wanted to know who was responsible for each child.

That a thing is perceived in the context of history or tradition is legally irrelevant, and does not justify its continued enforcement to the detriment of other citizens:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[nitroz]

An easy solution: Divorce is a sin aswell, as much as gay marriage, but it's much more common than Gay Marriage.

And no Christian Bigots protesting Divorce? Oh, because THEY might want to do it, so they ignore the issue. Okay. It just shows that they want to run things and use their own bigotry dictate what others can and can't do.

Divorce and Gay Marriage are equally as bad, but yet divorce happens more, and alot of Christians themselves go through the process, but yet they don't have to deal with what gays deal with. Thats called being Biased, which translates into HATE

 

[garyganu]

Except that gays can adopt or have children with outside assistance. At which point the same intended purpose you claim for marriage would apply.

It is also funny that you claim the purpose for marriage is all about children, but straight couples who marry and do not procreate still receive the same benefits.

The purpose of marriage is not to get benefits. Our society bestows benefits that are mostly related to the rearing of children which are offered regardless of marital status. Historically, marriage was necessary to identify the parents (fathers) of children and hold them responsible for supporting their children. Although some married couples do not have children, all children do have parents and the ruling authority wanted to know who was responsible for each child.

Oh, so if we removed the +/- 1,400 benefits that married couples received, you would be fine with that?

And gays have kids, either thru adoption, previous relationships or outside assistance. So they need to be held responsible as well.

I am unaware of 1,400 benefits. I challenge you list 10 that are not related to children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

garyganu then has no problem with universal marriage in that such marriages can have and raise children.

This issue is solved. Thanks gary.

 

[whitehall]

Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.

 

[garyganu]

Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.

Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?

 

[PredFan]

And what will they say "We're unionized?"

Perhaps. Who cares?

They care. They should have exactly the same rights as every married person out there. Not a "here, have 'close but no cigar' so we can continue to marginalize you."

What I am proposing is exactly that. The exact same privileges of marriage. What's the problem? you want the title too? So there is a total refusal to compromise on your part?

 

[Peach]

Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.

 

[rightwinger]

Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.

Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?

Given that a marriage, by definition, invokes fidelity

You should be in favor of it

 

[PredFan]

The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.

So all religious ceremonies result in a marriage and all civil ceremonies result in a civil union?

My wife and I went to a Justice of the Peace. If I get teh same benefits, I am fine with saying I am civilly unionized.

It's a silly argument that people are making. No one is going to argue with you or arrest you because you have a Civil Union and you go around claiming to be married.

Mkae civil unions the same in every legal way to marriage.the gays and the anti-gays will have to compromise. The homophobes get to keep the official title of Marriage, and the gays get complete legal status with all of the privileges that grants them. it's a completely reasonable compromise.

 

[rightwinger]

Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.

The majority should not have the ability to vote on what rights should be given to the minority

 

[Peach]

The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.

So all religious ceremonies result in a marriage and all civil ceremonies result in a civil union?

My wife and I went to a Justice of the Peace. If I get teh same benefits, I am fine with saying I am civilly unionized.

It's a silly argument that people are making. No one is going to argue with you or arrest you because you have a Civil Union and you go around claiming to be married.

Mkae civil unions the same in every legal way to marriage.the gays and the anti-gays will have to compromise. The homophobes get to keep the official title of Marriage, and the gays get complete legal status with all of the privileges that grants them. it's a completely reasonable compromise.

Would you have supported such a "solution" to anti miscegenation laws? Allow gay Americans to marry, end of problem.