If marriage is a religious institution...

[syrenn]

Well, it has something to do with religion since it's usually religious institutions that oppose gay marriage. Most rational people agree that gay couples deserve the same tax breaks. The government has the right to tax people in any way that is best for the nation. So why doesn't the government cover civil unions and let churches (or non religious entities) cover marriage. This way, a gay couple could get the same rights from the government and have their union recognized as marriage from a religious affiliation.

Again... i am unaware that religious have exclusive rights to the word or concept of marriage.

They don't have exclusive rights. If a civil union is reserved for government and a marriage is a term connected with spiritual belief, everyone has equal access to it. Baptists can use it. So can Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and wedding houses in Vegas. You could even have a marriage without any religious affiliation at all. You could hold a ceremony with friends and family and you could have anyone you want perform the ceremony.

You are arguing to give religious exclusive rights for the term/word marriage.

Why does the word marriage have to exclusively have a religious meaning?

 

[atlasshrugged]

The constitution doesn't give religious control over marriage either does it?

I don't care if the religious recognize my marriage.... i DO care of the government recognize my marriage which and zero to do with anything religious.

You must have a marriage license to be get married...that is a legal document approved by the government. It has always been called a marriage license...

The 10th ammendment says that anything not given to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people. I'm claiming it would be wiser for it to belong to the people than the state. And maybe I should have expanded my definition. I said that marriage should be a term reserved for religions because it's usually religious people who oppose gay marriage. So maybe this revision would work better. Let the government control civil unions (and all accompanying rights and tax breaks) but let marriage be term reserved for the people. This way, nobody is denied a marriage and nobody is forced to accept a marriage they don't agree with.

And again...why? Why reserve the word marriage for the religious based on their bias?

If a civil union cannot be called a marriage.... you just denied them a marriage now.

If civil union is good definition for that marriage is... the how about we give the term civil union to the religious considering that term works for them.

I think we're having a disconnect. I don't think the government has any right to tell people what a marriage is. I think that's a personal decision based on the individuals perception of their relationships. Would you agree? I don't think any government has the right to deny a person a marriage. So why do they currently hold this privilege? A marriage is an intimate relationship that has been around longer than any government. So why don't we remove their stranglehold on defining us and let our own beliefs govern how we see our relationships with others?

 

[syrenn]

And again...why? Why reserve the word marriage for the religious based on their bias?

If a civil union cannot be called a marriage.... you just denied them a marriage now.

If civil union is good definition for that marriage is... the how about we give the term civil union to the religious considering that term works for them. [/COLOR]

Because the state separates religion from itself. If marriage is a religious institution, then it is not the state's to give to begin with. Why not allow people to decide for themselves that they want a civil union recognized by the state and a religious marriage recognized by their religion?

Why not allow them to have a marriage recognized by the state without any religious involvement?

 

[atlasshrugged]

Again... i am unaware that religious have exclusive rights to the word or concept of marriage.

They don't have exclusive rights. If a civil union is reserved for government and a marriage is a term connected with spiritual belief, everyone has equal access to it. Baptists can use it. So can Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and wedding houses in Vegas. You could even have a marriage without any religious affiliation at all. You could hold a ceremony with friends and family and you could have anyone you want perform the ceremony.

You are arguing to give religious exclusive rights for the term/word marriage.

Why does the word marriage have to exclusively have a religious meaning?

I would be more apt to say that marriage exclusively has a personal meaning. Does that resolve some disagreements? I've focused on religions because they are the most outspoken against gay marriage, but I believe marriage is more about the individuals in the relationship than the body that reconizes it.

 

[signelect]

I know a way to solve this problem...dont get married. Who really loves, honors and obeys anymore anyway? The only real benefit is if both spouses are working there are two incomes...but then there's the whole tax bracket issue. It's as blaspemous as religion itself.

 

[saveliberty]

Why not allow them to have a marriage recognized by the state without any religious involvement? [/COLOR]

If a civil union gives them all the rights and priviledges as a couple, why the need for the state to grant them a religious standing they have no right to give?

 

[syrenn]

The 10th ammendment says that anything not given to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people. I'm claiming it would be wiser for it to belong to the people than the state. And maybe I should have expanded my definition. I said that marriage should be a term reserved for religions because it's usually religious people who oppose gay marriage. So maybe this revision would work better. Let the government control civil unions (and all accompanying rights and tax breaks) but let marriage be term reserved for the people. This way, nobody is denied a marriage and nobody is forced to accept a marriage they don't agree with.

And again...why? Why reserve the word marriage for the religious based on their bias?

If a civil union cannot be called a marriage.... you just denied them a marriage now.

If civil union is good definition for that marriage is... the how about we give the term civil union to the religious considering that term works for them.

I think we're having a disconnect. I don't think the government has any right to tell people what a marriage is. I think that's a personal decision based on the individuals perception of their relationships. Would you agree? I don't think any government has the right to deny a person a marriage. So why do they currently hold this privilege? A marriage is an intimate relationship that has been around longer than any government. So why don't we remove their stranglehold on defining us and let our own beliefs govern how we see our relationships with others?

Just as i do not think the religious have a right to tell people what marriage is.

To the bolded... yes i would agree.... a marriage is a personal decision based on individual perception of their relationship. .... where did religion come into that statement?

No one is telling religious how to view their relationships. It would seem as if the religious are the ones trying to tell others how they view theirs.

 

[atlasshrugged]

And again...why? Why reserve the word marriage for the religious based on their bias?

If a civil union cannot be called a marriage.... you just denied them a marriage now.

If civil union is good definition for that marriage is... the how about we give the term civil union to the religious considering that term works for them. [/COLOR]

Because the state separates religion from itself. If marriage is a religious institution, then it is not the state's to give to begin with. Why not allow people to decide for themselves that they want a civil union recognized by the state and a religious marriage recognized by their religion?

Why not allow them to have a marriage recognized by the state without any religious involvement?

Because I don't need any "government" to tell me what I have with my wife. I don't need their "thumbs up" to tell me that I have a special, intimate relationship with a person I love. I don't think anyone should need the gov to tell them what relationships are acceptable. That's up to the people who love one another. Now, I do need gov to give us spousal rights, but my marriage is more than tax breaks and the right to visit her in the hospital.

 

[WillowTree]

If marriage has nothing to do with religion then someone needs to re write the marriage vows.

 

[saveliberty]

I know a way to solve this problem...dont get married. Who really loves, honors and obeys anymore anyway? The only real benefit is if both spouses are working there are two incomes...but then there's the whole tax bracket issue. It's as blaspemous as religion itself.

Cheaper health insurance and property rights to start with. These are actually granted under the civil union part as I have defined it.

 

[syrenn]

They don't have exclusive rights. If a civil union is reserved for government and a marriage is a term connected with spiritual belief, everyone has equal access to it. Baptists can use it. So can Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and wedding houses in Vegas. You could even have a marriage without any religious affiliation at all. You could hold a ceremony with friends and family and you could have anyone you want perform the ceremony.

You are arguing to give religious exclusive rights for the term/word marriage.

Why does the word marriage have to exclusively have a religious meaning?

I would be more apt to say that marriage exclusively has a personal meaning. Does that resolve some disagreements? I've focused on religions because they are the most outspoken against gay marriage, but I believe marriage is more about the individuals in the relationship than the body that reconizes it.

agreed.....

marriage is about personal meaning.... religious or not.

 

[saveliberty]

If marriage has nothing to do with religion then someone needs to re write the marriage vows.

...and that's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Nonreligious folks want to appear religious for some reason.

 

[atlasshrugged]

And again...why? Why reserve the word marriage for the religious based on their bias?

If a civil union cannot be called a marriage.... you just denied them a marriage now.

If civil union is good definition for that marriage is... the how about we give the term civil union to the religious considering that term works for them.

I think we're having a disconnect. I don't think the government has any right to tell people what a marriage is. I think that's a personal decision based on the individuals perception of their relationships. Would you agree? I don't think any government has the right to deny a person a marriage. So why do they currently hold this privilege? A marriage is an intimate relationship that has been around longer than any government. So why don't we remove their stranglehold on defining us and let our own beliefs govern how we see our relationships with others?

Just as i do not think the religious have a right to tell people what marriage is.

To the bolded... yes i would agree.... a marriage is a personal decision based on individual perception of their relationship. .... where did religion come into that statement?

No one is telling religious how to view their relationships. It would seem as if the religious are the ones trying to tell others how they view theirs.

Well, a good percentage of perceptions of people are defined in part by religious/spiritual beliefs. Religion only comes into play because people, when given the right to define their relationships however they want to, will often apply religious beliefs. But this doen't mean religions have any more dominion over marriage than the individual gives to them. My religion should have no control over how you see your marriage.

 

[syrenn]

Why not allow them to have a marriage recognized by the state without any religious involvement? [/COLOR]

If a civil union gives them all the rights and priviledges as a couple, why the need for the state to grant them a religious standing they have no right to give?

Why does the word marriage have to carry any religious meaning at all?

How about if a civil union is equal to marriage... lets not let the religious use the word either.

That works for me too.


btw...cute avi.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Some of us want it all, including the word, "marriage".

 

[syrenn]

Because the state separates religion from itself. If marriage is a religious institution, then it is not the state's to give to begin with. Why not allow people to decide for themselves that they want a civil union recognized by the state and a religious marriage recognized by their religion?

Why not allow them to have a marriage recognized by the state without any religious involvement?

Because I don't need any "government" to tell me what I have with my wife. I don't need their "thumbs up" to tell me that I have a special, intimate relationship with a person I love. I don't think anyone should need the gov to tell them what relationships are acceptable. That's up to the people who love one another. Now, I do need gov to give us spousal rights, but my marriage is more than tax breaks and the right to visit her in the hospital.

Just as gay couples don't need religious to tell them what they have with their partners. Gay couples do not require a religious thumbs up or down either.

marriage is marriage....gay or not, religious or not.

 

[atlasshrugged]

I know a way to solve this problem...dont get married. Who really loves, honors and obeys anymore anyway? The only real benefit is if both spouses are working there are two incomes...but then there's the whole tax bracket issue. It's as blaspemous as religion itself.

That's a good point. What if a couple feels their relationship is in no way connected with their religious beliefs? What if two people care about each other but don't want to make "til death do you part" vows? What if they just want to be recognized in a civil union? In this way, they could achieve these things without have to make vows and act like their relationship is the sameas everyone else.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Some of us don't have a conflict between our religious views of our relationship and our legal status as married.

 

[atlasshrugged]

Why not allow them to have a marriage recognized by the state without any religious involvement?

Because I don't need any "government" to tell me what I have with my wife. I don't need their "thumbs up" to tell me that I have a special, intimate relationship with a person I love. I don't think anyone should need the gov to tell them what relationships are acceptable. That's up to the people who love one another. Now, I do need gov to give us spousal rights, but my marriage is more than tax breaks and the right to visit her in the hospital.

Just as gay couples don't need religious to tell them what they have with their partners. Gay couples do not require a religious thumbs up or down either.

marriage is marriage....gay or not, religious or not.

Agreed wholeheartedly. They don't need any government or religion telling them whether or not what they have is acceptable or special.

 

[syrenn]

If marriage has nothing to do with religion then someone needs to re write the marriage vows.

Marriage vows have been changing for a very long time....ever since couples started writing them...for themselves...and not just what the one marrying them had you repeat.