Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by froggy, Jan 23, 2010.
yes or no
No--because it's like deciding to call dogs elephants.
Nope. Sure don't. Civil Union, no problem. Call me old fashioned but I beleive marriage should be between a man and a woman just as its alway been.
Marriage occurs when one man and one woman are bonded in holy wedlock under the rules of religion. The couple is recognized by law as a married couple.
A couple of same-sex partners is a couple bonded by their own desire to be a couple. The couple should be recognized by law as a same-sex-couple, having the same rights and protections under the law as married couples.
Government has no need to redefine "marriage". Is has no right to redefine marriage as this would amount to a forced change to existing religious proclamations, thus violating the first amendment rights of religious citizens.
This should not be construed as an attack on same-sex-couples. I applaud their right to exist in peace. There is a pair of lesbians that I particularly like.
Sure, why not.
I believe the government has no business defining behavior between adults. Yes, there should be common sense type of limitations such as protecting underage children, but when the government thinks it has the right to determine whether or not two adults of the same gender can be recognized as a couple, then that government is crossing the line.
Personally, it's not my thing. But that's not the point. The point is how much authority we're willing to give the government, especially when it comes to personal relationships. Time to take off the blinders and see that we are permitting tyranny to exist all in the name of religion.
Tyranny? My God! Not allowing two men to call themselves "married" is tyranny?
Gheeese! What a stretch!
That's like saying it's tyranny to make boys and girls use separate restrooms.
What we are proposing is that the government let religion exist without tyranny.
Pick another word to call the same-same-couples besides "married".
This argument amounts to nothing more than the gay community seeking forced respect from the rest of the world. It's just a frantic effort to say, "We won!"
Oh fiddlesticks. The "marriage" they're talking about requires a re-definition of the term, and the desire to make it legal isn't so they can obtain rights (there are civil contracts BESIDES the marriage contract that can secure property rights between couples of any gender). Legalizing marriage in the legal system is just code for getting a foot into those churches who currently don't perform marriages between gay folk.
And you're right...the government has absolutely no place in the churches. So no, the state has no right to force the hand of the church.
I do believe that gays should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state. Since the government grants currently grants benefits and rights to heteroseual couples who are married, "marriage" is a completely legal and secular term. This legal contract with the state has nothing what so ever to do with religion and no one would force religious institutions perform these marriage ceremonies so there is no first amendment violation as asaratis claims. I am of the opinion that the government must call all of these legal contract for both heterosexual and homosexual couples either "marriage" or "civil unions."
Setting aside the emotionalism of gay marriage, how willing are you to allow government to define the personal relationship between two consenting adults? It's easy to support same-sex marriage bans because you think it doesn't affect you since that's something you would ever do. However, you have to look at the bigger picture and realize that you just permitted government to place another restriction on you that perhaps might not affect you in terms of marriage but may affect another part of your life. I'm huge on limiting government. I don't want to give it an inch of intrusion into my personal life.
Do you realize that, by definition, every law Congress passes is another method of either intruding into our lives or placing limits on our freedom? Granted, we do need reasonable limits placed on us, otherwise we'd have total chaos and anarchy. However, we need to jealously guard our freedoms.
As for the term "marriage" itself, gimme a break. The US has an approximately 40%-45% divorce rate. So all this talk about protecting the institution of marriage, protecting the children, etc is a bunch of horseshit. The institution of marriage is already weakened by that high divorce rate among heterosexual couples. The children in those marriages are already adversely affected as a result, and a fair number of them grow up repeating the same pattern of behavior they grew up with resulting in more divorces and a further deterioration of the institution of marriage.
What we're really talking about here is the economic benefits that come from a legally-recognized marriage: the ability to file taxes jointly, enjoy special rates afforded to couples, and other discriminators that benefit married couples over unmarried singles.
None of this forces a church to change its doctrine or position on homosexuality.
We need to step all the way into the 21st century with both feet.
Separate names with a comma.