Elections are coming up here in the States. My state, California, recently legalized marriage by people of the same gender. Now, there is a proposition in the coming election to overturn that. Between my house and work (only half a mile), there are no fewer than 8 lawnsigns for one side of the issue or the other. I know that the issue has legal, social, and religious ramifications. It has an emotional impact of both sides. But, it is also an important civil rights issue that needs to be considered.

My own stance is that to deny rights to any group is discrimination. I believe in the seperation of church and state. Most of the objections I hear are religious in nature. I don't think any religion's mandate should affect the law. The law should be ethical, but not based on any one religion. Therefore, I think that gays should be allowed to legally marry same as anyone else. They should get the same benefits and responsibilities. That does not mean that religions need to perform or ligitimize these unions themselves. But, they shouldn't prevent a couple from marrying in the eyes of law. The eyes of God is up for debate. I think either we need to legalize marriage for all concenting adults or remove the word marriage from everyone and make "Civil Unions" for everyone.

This is just my opinion. I am curious to hear what others have to say. I trust we can all be respectful and mature about this.

I've heard just about every argument for/against there is.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not something the state needs to be involved in. It's not a government matter. If a guy and guy want to get hitched and there's a form to fill out let them. They can even have a ceremony in a church I suppose if they can find one that will actually let them (Believe it or not there are a few). It's not a government matter that needs a law. It's as simple as filling out a form and registering for benefits.

Of course it's not that simple. Government loves to screw us over by overcomplicating everything and saying they're making it better. It's a shame too. If it just stayed out of these sort of things we'd save so much political chaos. Why the government feels the need to argue bedroom practices when we have failing economy, a war, and so many other problems ins beyond me (Actually I call it scapegoating. Fire up both sides so they don't realize your not doing anything about the big problems).

I do agree that gay people shuld have the right to have a civil ceromny .... but I am not sure about marriage. The only reason I say this is because until the churches have decided whether they see gay relationships as being right, and they all agree, it is condradicting their beleifs. I am not saying I agree with the church one way or another, but it should not be a religious thing, like marriage, if the church things it is against God.

But yea, I am all up for gay people having civil cermonies or something ... everyone to their own.

Unfortunately, the reason it's a matter for government is that currently there are some pretty worthwhile tax and healthcare benefits to being married as opposed to single. It also makes inheritances and other such things vastly easier to deal with. All of those are government-regulated, so as long as marriage confers these legal benefits, the government is going to have a say in marriage.

(Personally, I'd rather they ditched the whole schtick and stopped giving tax breaks to married couples rather than cause all this fuss.)

As far as the religious aspects of marriage, well, what people do with other consenting adults is between them and their God. Not anyone's place to tell people what to believe about such matters, (at least from a legal point of view. Everyone's welcome to evangelize their point of view, of course.)

They can do whatever they like. Freedom and all that.

I cant believe people would discriminate people because of what gender they like... (does that make sense?)

It has never really been about religion.

It has everything to do with legal rights and responsibilities.

I will state right here that I am in favor of a person being legally able to marry whatever he or she likes--why shouldn't gay people have the right to be miserable just like everyone else who is married, ya know?

However, the larger legal implications are quite complex. It has mostly to do with people being able to legitimately claim another person as a recipient of benefits on life insurance, health insurance, estate, and what-have-you. That's really the bottom line.

I have known gay people whose partners died, and though the partnership had lasted for many years and was faithful and loving, the dying partner's family took advantage of the fact that there was no legally-recognized union to plunder the estate of both.

A shabby business, that.

Also you will find that in custody cases a child will consider both of the partners to be his or her parent--and yet when the court rules, the child must go and live with a stranger, because neither "parent" has legal claim to custody.

There is a possibility for a lot of abuse of the legal system (I'm talking worldwide here, not just in the U.S.). However, our legal system is already being abused, and to more of a frivolous purpose.

My personal opinion is that if people want to get legally married, the law should support it, regardless of their sex/gender/whatever-the-hell-you-call-it. Yep--it's going to increase the number of court cases, anyone can see that.

But, legally speaking, it's good for business.

yours in Chaos, Scarlett

Gay people are living in sin, but then so are every couple who have had sex before marriage. Yet the church is not putting up any resistance to these people being married. The fact of the matter is that some people in the church are too afraid to lose their congregations, and some polititions too afraid to lose their votes, to allow gay people to be married. Marriage is a religious institution, yes, but it is also a governmental institution.The American constitution supports the idea that church and state should be seperate, so in the eyes of the government, gay marriage should be allowed. The church can be a prude if wants to, but it runs the risk of someone pulling a Henry VIII. If you dont like the church, get a new church.

The American constitution supports the idea that church and state should be seperate, so in the eyes of the government, gay marriage should be allowed.
See now whether the church and the government are seperate, marriage is a contract under the eyes of God, so therefore if you ger married, especially in a church, then you should beleive in God and try to be a good christian self. If the church decides that gay relationships are wrong, then marrying in church under the eyes of God, is therefore contradicting the fact it is under God.

again, I do not beleive their is anything wrong with gay marriage, but until the majority of churchs agree being gay is not unholy, then is shuld not be a religous ceremony.

Well, not gonna hang out in the shadows, now are you Carmina? ;)

It is a delicate subject, and one that tends to raise hackles with every and all. I of course have to agree with you and take your side. I’m a gay person myself and there can be no doubt that the fact that there is no real legal recourse for gay couples to affirm themselves as a true and lasting partnership not only has ramifications which concern the law and civil rights, but there is also a social aspect to the concept as well.

I have felt from my own family the strange, and never really spoken aloud, idea that they see my relationship as something disposable. If things are not going well, they say, “Well, just come home. You don’t have to stay there.” I really feel that if I were legaly married, this would not be the advice given. Would you really advise your children to just leave their spouses during tough times? I think not.

So, from a sociological standpoint, having no legal standing means having no social standing. No standing from any standpoint. Of course you will always find people like yourself who understand the injustice of the situation and will stand by one’s side to affirm one’s right, but there is always the specter of those who would pull the rug of equality out from under one’s feet. And those who would pull the rug are only too ready to do so.

Marriage can be viewed two ways. As a governmental institution or a religious ceremony. According to the constitution, the government cannot force the Church or any religious body to recognize same sex marriage if they don't want too.

But the church doesn't rule marriage anymore. Many married couples never step foot in one, and many others never have a priest or pastor present. All you need to get married and recognized by government is to fill out a bunch forms and get the proper certifications (I think some states require you to see a judge or court official). It's been taken out of the church's hands and has been turned over the states. The states themselves legally cannot limit marriage to same-sex couples on religious grounds (if they want to limit it they need another excuse. Take your pick, immorality, unethical whatever. I'm sure if someone tried they'd probably come up with a better idea than god says it's bad).

At it's heart, marriage is a religious ceremony, and if a church doesn't want to offer it to same-sex couples they can't be forced to. But like I said it's been taken out of their hands. Marriage by religion has become a peripheral in what is now a government institution.

Hey, you totally ripped off my idea from the true or false thread you bitch! (j/k)


Gay people can do what they want. As long as they're not all annoying about it. I mean, wanting equal rights is one thing, but I fail to see why sexual preference is deserving of an entire sub-culture. Before you know it, blond-haired, blue-eyed people like me will development an unnecessarily flamboyant mode of expression, and we'll see how you all like it when it's forced on you through every medium...

That doesn't really have anything to do with gay marriage, though. And most gays aren't the irritating posers you get...

Thanks for asking Wreybies...

I am married to a man. But, I never closed my eyes to the posibility that my best mate might be a woman. I certainly find women attractive. I guess that makes me bi-sexual if you have to put a label on it.

In my own life, I have many friends in the gay communitry as well as family members. I was recently very upset by something my mother-in-law said. She said that doesn't think gay people should be allowed to "call it marriage." This upset me because her own brother is gay and has been in a committted relationship for over 30 years. My mother-in-laws marraige didn't last that long and was full of cheating and disrespect. Which relationship is more real, loving, mature, and healthful? This woman would deny her own brother the benefits, inheritance rights, pension and all that she recieved from her less than ideal marriage. Richard and Jerry are one the relationships I look at as a model to pattern my marriage on. It is simply a matter of the law acknowledging what is already there and bestoying the appropriate rights.

Let me begin with the truth. I am a bit homophobic as I find the idea of such behavior repulsive. I also do not believe in God so my reactions to this issue are in no way religiously influenced.

"Marriage" is a religious commitment. This sacred union between a man and woman is defined by history in many different religions, none of which has ever condoned homosexual unions. That said, the "modern" concept of marriage has become defined by government documentation and permission called a "marriage certificate".

When did government assume the right to define "marriage"? There were no government required "marriage certificates" in ancient cultures. Two people simply fell in love and went to their clergyman for consecration of their union. At some time, politicians decided to register these unions and this initial intrusion of government into the private lives of people expanded until you are forced to take blood tests, pay fees and obtain permission from the stinking government bastards (marriage certificate) in order to have your marriage recognized by tax law, medical rights, etc. THIS IS THE CURRENT PROBLEM!

Government should NOT be a part of the marriage decision. Unfortunately, politicians will never relinquish the power they have stolen from the people so we are now faced with the gut wrenching prospect of defining "marriage" by government decree. There are no winners in this vote. If gay marriage is nullified, then one segment of society feels they are unfairly restricted. If gay marriage is supported, then the religious members of society are crushed by the government repudiation of their core values. Either outcome will solidify contempt and foment hatred between these hopelessly polarized groups of society.

The real solution to this problem is to REMOVE government from the marriage equation. "Marriage" should be defined ONLY by religious groups and only as they deem fit. Many religions would choose to honor only opposite sex unions. Let em! It's their religion. Some more tolerant or progressive religions might choose to include same sex marriages. Let em! Again, it's THEIR choice and government should simply not be a part of the issue.

That brings me back to the role of government in "committed" relationships. Why is it even important for government to register such unions? Law. Taxes are assessed differently for "couples" than for singles. Is THAT fair? No! So, change the damn tax code to make it fair for everyone. Another reason for government registering of "couples" is medical law. Such legal status carries special privileges like intestate rules at death, or the hierarchy of authority over comatose patients for medical decisions. These are a couple of legitimate reasons to have some form of "couples registry" as the orderly conduct of such matters benefits all of society. But, this civil certificate is not (and never has been) "marriage"! It's nothing more than government organizing society in some kind of categories that help clarify privileges like inheritance, taxation, medical authority, parental rights, community property, etc.

In summary, get government the hell out of our bedrooms. Terminate government authority over "marriage" and replace the "Marriage Certificate" with a "Certificate of Civil Union" for EVERYONE! This certificate would confer all the benefits of being "couple" on any two people who choose to make that commitment. For religious couples, they would get "married" in their church and receive a "Certificate of Marriage" from their pastor. Gays who want a "marriage" certificate would simply have to find a religion that would honor their choice. Get the damned government OUT of the "marriage" business.

I don't find anything wrong with being gay. On a religious stand, I am a Christian and realize that it says in the Bible that God didn't intend for it to be that way, but a person can't help how they feel.
On an emotional stand point, I have family who is gay. My cousin has been with his partner for more than ten years, but they can't get married because they don't live in California like me.

I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, and want to be together forever. If this applies to same sex couples as well, what is the big deal?

Seems like a semantics issue to me. Some people want to call it marriage and others want to call it civil union. I don't see much of a problem here, it could simply be resolved by (as the op said) changing marriage to civil union for everyone. It'd pretty much be the same thing under a different name, but It'll solve the issue, would not it?

I think the easiest way to settle this is to take marriage itself out of the law. Make it that it's domestic partnership, or civil union for everyone no matter what the peolpe's gender's are. And then are far as the law is concerned the term marriage won't even exist. It would purely be a governmental institution with no religious affiliation.

It'd pretty much be the same thing under a different name, but It'll solve the issue, would not it?

Some groups take issue with that. For them civil union is a pseudo-marriage, and to them even that is unacceptable for same-sex couples.

Some groups take issue with that. For them civil union is a pseudo-marriage, and to them even that is unacceptable for same-sex couples.
Well, that's just rude. I assume it's religious people the ones who disagree, right? Why do they care if people outside their church "don't" marry? The term is for the government to acknowledge not for them to approve. Sometimes I just don't get people : /.

It takes a man and a woman. If it's not that, it's not a marriage. Call it what you will, but a marriage, it is not.
If you couldn't tell, I have a biblical perspective.

NaCI, I do agree with you in the aspect of taking the governemnt out of religion. But the only problem is, if it is completely controlled by the churches, the law is lawless. What happens with divorces and money issues?
Who would determine the money?
Who would authorize the prenup?
What if your church won't allow the type of marriage you want- do you change churches?
Destruction of government is good in sense. But the logistics and the details of it would need to be fine-tuned. The truth is, in our society the government is pretty much involved in anything. This is because our soicety demands it. Without the government there to back us up, many villians appear and problems arise. The governent may be to involved. but I see no way around it.

Oh, and I am for gay marriage all the way. I am personally not gay- but I can't fault anyone for being themselves.

Let me say this: Any church, or any pastor, that says "Yes, you do love Jesus Christ, even though you spend every day intentionally sinning and not caring that for every step you take toward God you take one back as well, so we'll marry you." shouldn't be remotely concerned about marriage anyway.

Well, that's just rude. I assume it's religious people the ones who disagree, right? Why do they care if people outside their church "don't" marry? The term is for the government to acknowledge not for them to approve. Sometimes I just don't get people : /.

It actual does follow a logic. They aren't just being vendictive. For them, any union between two individuals is marriage, and Civil Unions for same-sex couples is just a run around to avoid the Marriage Protection Act of 1996. To them, its the same thing under another name and still wrong (You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. I say marriage, they say civil union that sort of things). For many religious groups, only heterosexual couples should have any standing to legally bind themselves in the eyes of God and the state.

It can get real complicated compared to that but that's it in a nutshell.

Thats were you fault, ferret. Marriage is almsot no longer a religous ceremony, it has been taken in to the governments hands, and trying to influence your personal religous beliefs in to law doesn't fly.

Let me say this: Any church, or any pastor, that says "Yes, you do love Jesus Christ, even though you spend every day intentionally sinning and not caring that for every step you take toward God you take one back as well, so we'll marry you." shouldn't be remotely concerned about marriage anyway.

And what about a pastor who takes the stance that homosexual love is not a sin? At that point, where is the flaw in saying, "You love Jesus Christ, and so you will be married in church under the eyes of God"?

It was in reference to the whole, "It shouldn't be in the hands of the government" thing.

You can't say you love Jesus Christ and then at least not try and turn from your sin. Don't get me wrong--sin in our lives will always be present, but you can never get closer to God while habitually committing a sin.

You can't say you love Jesus Christ and then at least not try and turn from your sin. Don't get me wrong--sin in our lives will always be present, but you can never get closer to God while habitually commuting a sin.

Quite true, and theologically irrefutable.

I ask again, what of the position that homosexual love is not a sin? This is certainly the position taken by many (I would think most if not all, but I'll hedge my bets) homosexual couples. The Episcopaleans seem to have found a theological common ground for the concept.

At that point, where is the objection?

Do you really think someone chooses to be gay and "sin the lord"?
Its not a choice- I have a lot of friends who are gay.
Of course you can love Jesus and be gay- who says you can't?
Because of a state of mind you were born with makes you "bad" in the eyes of Jesus doesn't mean you can't worship him.

It would be a fallacy. Call it a marriage all you want but that, it shall never be.
Go a head, do it. Let God sort it out.

On the other hand, I cannot, in good conscious, see something that I feel is sin being tolerated. I can respect those involved and hopefully, I can love them as commanded. Respect what they do? Never.

Tarnished, all people who love Christ are broken in their sin. It's what you do next. Can you really still be in such a sin and still be the "new creation" described in the new testament? No-when you decided to stay in sin, you can never get closer to God. So why even bother being a Christian at that point?

And what about a pastor who takes the stance that homosexual love is not a sin? At that point, where is the flaw in saying, "You love Jesus Christ, and so you will be married in church under the eyes of God"?

Said Pastor should try reading the Bible. It's in there several times and almost universally explicitly stated as being a sin, wrong, or an abomination.

Still irrelevant. The church has no say in state matters. I agree with the concept of removing marriage from the state and all people do is register as a "Union" with the government and that'll be as far as government involvement goes. The file should only say "Joe + Jenny = Union" or "Joey Bob + Bobby Joe = Union." I see no need for further intervention beyond simple record keeping.

In lieu of that, the Federal government really has no control over it as it's a state matter, and same-sex couples are winning on that front so why are they complaining? Give it another decade and nearly every state will probably recognize same-sex marriage.

Im going to head out of this one- if anyone wants to debate further they can PM me.

Said Pastor should try reading the Bible. It's in there several times and almost universally explicitly stated as being a sin, wrong, or an abomination.

So's eating oysters. Same chapter of the same book, actually. Ditto the bit where wearing clothing of mixed fibers (40% cotton, anyone?) gets you stoned to death and the stockpile of information on how to sell your daughter into slavery properly.

Jesus himself never mentioned the issue.

Quote one part of the Old Testament, quote it all. I hope you've never slept in the same bed as a woman who is menstruating; that's an abomination, too.

I'm from California too.
Not a subject I'm too comfortable with as people get too touchy (as we can already see here).

What I'm curious about is, what's the real difference between "civil union" and "marriage"?

Quote one part of the Old Testament, quote it all. I hope you've never slept in the same bed as a woman who is menstruating; that's an abomination, too.

It's not "slept in the same bed" with, but "sleeping with", as in "having intercourse with", dear.

I'm from California too.
Not a subject I'm too comfortable with.

What I'm curious about is, what's the real difference between "civil union" and "marriage"?

There is none, other than the name. Though many people seem to view them differently because the word marriage is linked to the religion.

I'm from California too.
Not a subject I'm too comfortable with.

What I'm curious about is, what's the real difference between "civil union" and "marriage"?

Government versus church, basically. The former conveys the tax benefits, the latter just means the priest of your choice said God was cool with it. (<- light tone for humor purposes only! Not belittling your chosen form of worship.)

Just as a note: I'm watching this. Very carefully. If it gets too heated, I will close it.

Well, let's look at it from a geopolitical standpoint. Many western nations have continued to make strides in repealing and removing antiquated laws against gays and lesbians.

The world already sees the US (I’m noticing that most of those against are chiming in from the USA) as a dinosaur. How much further behind the times are we going to fall? Are we going to hold on to our post WWII standing and rest on those laurels as the rest of the world moves forward politically, economically, and socially? Really?

I guess a good question for folks out there would be:

What, if any, limits should there be placed on what would define a marriage?

Those, who strongly support gay marriage, for example...What limits should there be, and why? And if none, then why not...and what would the implications of that be?

Terry

The world already sees the US (I’m noticing that most of those against are chiming in from the USA) as a dinosaur. How much further behind the times are we going to fall? Are we going to hold on to our post WWII standing and rest on those laurels as the rest of the world moves forward politically, economically, and socially? Really?

Just because the rest of the world says it's OK doesn't mean it is.

Back in the thirties nearly all of europe was geopolitically anti-Semetic, but that doesn't mean it's cool for us to be mean to Jews too. Some could call it taking a step back in morality (not exactly my view point but all things are relative in the human perspective and someone somewhere probably thinks that). Progress is relative. What you say is a step forward one can say is a step back. I call legal abortion a step back in human morality and a new step forward in human stupidity but there are others with perfectly logical opinions that are the exact opposite (Abortion is another thing I don't think the government needs to legislate).

The only question I really care for is whether or not the government should be involved in it at all and I fail to see why bedroom choices and activities need to be legislated. It doesn't seem like what the founding fathers had in mind.

It doesn't seem like what the founding fathers had in mind.

Especially given their penchant for large, powdered, frou frou wigs! :D

For many religious groups, only heterosexual couples should have any standing to legally bind themselves in the eyes of God and the state.

That's the problem then. It's not their prerogative to command who can or cannot be legally bind themselves in the eyes of the state. In the eyes of God is their problem, not the Government's.

Just because you are religious doesn't automatically mean you have a problem with same-sex marriage, though. I am a religious person, but I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. I don't know why it was made illegal in the first place.

Especially given their penchant for large, powdered, frou frou wigs! :D

I think frou frou wigs are sinful. We should propose legislation to ban them just because I hate them and I can convince a bunch of silly teenagers that they're wrong! /end sarcasm

I think frou frou wigs are sinful. We should propose legislation to ban them just because I hate them and I can convince a bunch of silly teenagers that they're wrong! /end sarcasm

One day we're gonna yelled at for always bringing the levity into the heated arguments. You and I need to corroborate on a comedy piece to post here on the site. :D


Anywho....

The fundamental issue with this particular topic (and of so many other topics) is that it is being looked at from disparate epistomologies, hence there will never be an accord because neither side is asking the same kinds of questions or looking for the same kinds of answers.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

I have to agree with Wrey. The different sides of this might as well be speaking different languages to each other while debating this. To the people of opposite sides, the words marriage and civil union/domestic partnership have entirely different values.

One day we're gonna yelled at for always bringing the levity into the heated arguments.

On the contrary, it's that levity which keeps these arguments from being closed sooner :p

What's religion got to do with it? We live in secular societies for a reason: so that morality can evolve and not be tied to a moral yardstick that eventually sees it become a barbaric anachronism, as we see in many nations around the world were religion dominates morality. Would anybody still fancy living under medieval or victorian morality? That's what happens when you don't allow morality to evolve but tie it to strictures. Secualr societies should keep religion out of it unless they want to live in the moral past

What's religion got to do with it?

Exactly. That is precisely why government should not be involved in determining who can, or can not, be "married". The term marriage was coined by and an integral part of long established religions. The government has a vested interest in regulating civil unions that convey special privileges to the participants. (Tax benefits, medical rights, inheritance heirarchy for those who die intestate, parental rights, pension survivor benefits, etc.) Such registration is not "marriage"; it is simply a civil union and should not be denied to anyone. By the same token, "marriage" is a religious concept rooted deep in history and should be left to each religion to regulate it any way they see fit. And, if anyone does not like how their church handles the matter, find another church! GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION! (and vice versa)

BTW - in California, all applicants for a "marriage license" must take and pass a blood test for contagious diseases. I wonder if they will allow people with AIDS to get a "marriage license". Food for thought - are you sure you want government to control these unions? Consider the possibility of abuse BY government.

The contagious disease issue seems like a wholly separate one; that's getting into public health rather than individual moral choices. I'm hardly a fanboy for big government, but I can see an argument much more clearly when health and safety is involved rather than when its about who's sticking what where behind closed doors.

There is nothing that concerns me less than what two adults (or 3 or 4) want to do in the privacy of their bedroom. As for government recognized marriage? I think government should be out of the marriage game altogether. I don't think married couples should receive any special consideration or tax breaks from the government. And this is coming from someone who is getting married in about 6 weeks. If government left marriage alone than this whole thing would be a moot point anyway.

And I do believe most, not all, resistance to gay marriage stems from religion induced bigotry.

As for government recognized marriage? I think government should be out of the marriage game altogether. I don't think married couples should receive any special consideration or tax breaks from the government. And this is coming from someone who is getting married in about 6 weeks. If government left marriage alone than this whole thing would be a moot point anyway.

Believe it or not, in theory, marriage is good for the economy (in theory mind you). When two person's combine financial assets they create an entity as I like to call it that is more capable of purchasing goods. Separately, a man and women will spend more on utilities, but when they join, though the utility bill increases, because they've combined assets and supposedly are living together they pay less between the two of them. This leaves more left over cash flow to be spent on commercial goods. Even if one spouse doesn't work, the average utility pay is lower than if they were two separate people, and even so, these days families with two working spouses are going up.

Originally, the institution of marriage tax cuts was intended to encourage this behavior economically with the idea that the overall economy would benefit from more marriages and more couples combining their assets. It's all theory of course and one could say it's not much of a difference (i would see the logic in it making a tiny bit of difference but I fail to see how it makes one that matters in an economic sense).

Honestly the government does need to somehow regulate this behavior. Do you want to see eight year olds married to forty-year-olds? I don't care if they "love" one another there is something wrong with that picture in almost every sense. The problem I have is over regulation which is what we have now.

And I do believe most, not all, resistance to gay marriage stems from religion induced bigotry.

Even i'll agree with that one. I never see anyone trying to come up with something other than God says not too.

A lot of it is semantics, in my mind. A civil union is (as I think has already been said) a document that binds two people together. A marriage is a religious ceremony that binds a man and a woman together. I have no opposition to gay people being allowed civil unions, on the basis of all the arguments that have been put forward, such as it not being the place of religion to interfere in a government issue. But by that declaration, it has to work the other way. Marriage is the business of the church (or mosque, synagogue, whatever), and should not involve the government. By it's very definition, a homosexual union cannot be a marriage, and to my mind, complaining about the unfairness of that seems a lot like complaining about men being unable to give birth.

Don't get me wrong here, I'd hope most of you know that I'm very tolerant of homosexuality (though I don't like the word tolerant... It makes it sound like I think it's something wrong, and I just put up with it, which isn't true...). But there seems to be a lot of unfairness in this thread towards religion. If you want seperation of religion and the state, then it's gonna have to work both ways. The church cannot be allowed to interfere in governence, but neither can government be allowed to interfere in the church.

And as I've already said, if two consenting male adults love each other, and want to enter a civil union, I have no objections, and indeed am very happy for them. Maybe that makes me a bad christian, but on this score I think I'll settle for being a good person...

A marriage is a religious ceremony that binds a man and a woman together. .

That's incorrect, if you're attributing marriage to christianity. The act of creating an official 'union' between a man and a woman existed long before christianity came along. Marriage is a bit like christmas, it's something christianity took ownership of to assist with social control, but they certainly didn't invent it. :D

As another example, a form of homosexual marriage existed centuries before christianity did. Lovers in Thebes in ancient Greece often swore an oath to each other at the tomb of Iolas, who, in mythology, was Hercules' homosexual lover. Members of the Sacred Band of Thebes, an elite unit of warriors comprising of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers, would also swear oath's to their beloved 'shield-brother' at this tomb, in an act of union that went far beyond defending each other in battle.

Maybe so, but the definition of "marriage", is still a man and a woman. I'm not saying that it's an exclusively christian thing, and I'm not saying that there haven't been homosexual equivelents.

Maybe so, but the definition of "marriage", is still a man and a woman.

Yes it is, but it's an example of religious morality not being able to adapt and evolve and so becoming anachronistic. Human morality, in an unrestricted state, always seems to want to evolve. That would seem perfectly natural for a creature that has evolved specifically to adapt, and that can envisage abstract concepts. Religious morality itself is just a human abstract concept, but one that is resistant to change, and that's what's unnatural about it, and also counter-productive.

Take a look at the scramble for equality and human rights during and after western secularisation, and compare that to the frozen, unevolved morality that still occurs in many nations around the globe that have a religious moral authority. Some of those are like relics from the medieval era. A secualr society always has to question morality that is refusing to move in order to evolve it, whether it is religious or not. It's necessary to rationalise it rather than fall back on dogma, and if we approach the issue with some ancient moral yardstick then we're failing to do that, and undermining our own ability to morally mature.

Homosexuality has probably been around for as long as humanity has, it has certainly been around for as long as history can record, and our species has never suffered for it. So if gay marriage is proscribed by any religion or discriminated against you have to identify where the problem really lies.

Although is may seem that reserving the term "marriage" for the man-woman pairing, and just give the same rights to a civil union, it really does relegate civil union to a lower status. Many laws are already written to apply only to "marriage" or a "married couple", so unless specifically included in the definition of a civil union, it leaves a loophole that can be used in courts to deny benefits or rights accorded to a married couple from attaching to people in a civil union.

The fact is, marriage under the law is a contract entity and a legal status, despite its origins in religious custom. The same problems arise from using an "equivalent" term as caused the notion of "separate but equal" to be found an unacceptable policy in other civil rights cases.

Guys, just quietly I think the notion of marriage is all a little old now anyway. Sure alternative couples don't really get the same legal benefits but the landscape looks better every time you look in Australia with the introduction of 'domestic partner' laws, allowing alternative couples pretty well the same rights as married couples. Marriage I find is more or less a religious affair, and civil marriages are only carried out for the benefits in law of being married.

"Marriage" is a religious commitment. This sacred union between a man and woman is defined by history in many different religions, none of which has ever condoned homosexual unions. That said, the "modern" concept of marriage has become defined by government documentation and permission called a "marriage certificate".

When did government assume the right to define "marriage"? There were no government required "marriage certificates" in ancient cultures. Two people simply fell in love and went to their clergyman for consecration of their union.

I do hope people here (and elsewhere) realize that "marriage" isn't a solely Christian or even a religious concept and never has been...? The ancient Egyptians had marriage before Christianity arrived. That's just one culture. And "clergymen" weren't always involved. In some American Indian cultures "marriage" pretty much consisted of two people getting the consent of their parents and moving in together. When they wanted to divorce, one moved out. There was no written contract, no government involvement, and pretty much not even any religious involvement. They did not go to a "clergyman" for "consecration" because there was no such thing. But they were still married.

While this might not count as "marriage" in the eyes of a modern-day Christian, it DID count as "marriage" to the cultures who participated in it, so really, the issue here isn't about marriage or religion or government or whatnot, it's about what one particular culture or religious group defines marriage as.

And of course, not every other group is going to agree. Especially not in the US, which is a melting pot of cultures and where religious freedoms are supposed to be guaranteed.

The point being--there ISN'T always a religion, or a church, or a clergyman, or a government involved for something to be considered marriage by everyone involved. That's something that has to be kept in mind. Marriage isn't a new thing, it isn't a Christian thing, it isn't even always a religious thing. Different people will define it differently but one has to keep in mind that their definition won't necessarily agree with another's. And that's the problem.

And yes, there HAVE been cultures were two men or two women have gotten "married"--while it wasn't technically considered a "gay" union, it has happened. I just read about this recently with the American Indian concept of the two-spirit, but people can look that up if they wish, I shan't get into it here. Just saying that it has happened.

Also, what if one's PERSONAL religious beliefs condone gay marriage? One doesn't have to belong to an organized church or religion to have religious/spiritual beliefs, but those beliefs--and rights based on them (which don't infringe on the rights of others)--can just as easily be denied by the government. If my faith insists that gay unions are acceptable, but I don't belong to a recognized church, does that mean my beliefs are less worthy of consideration?

A short rant follows...I'm against inequality and discrimination in every way, especially where another human's right to equality is affected. Why do people discriminate against others? Fear? Ignorance? Sense of rightiousness? What's wrong with two people of the same sex marrying? If you don't like what they do together, mind your own business and get on with your own life. Who says it's wrong? The Church? Is the earth still flat? Are there dragons still out there? Be there demons around the corner? Is our tiny orb still the centre of the universe? Hmm, I don't think so. Such archaic ideas have, thankfully, long been flung overboard, along with many others as silly and as damaging. Ignorance is the biggest enemy of equality. I'd much rather live my life on an equal basis than live in blissful ignorance while those I disagree with suffer for my 'sins'. To paraphrase my late mother - "You'd want to take a good look at yourself before opening your mouth." If only we were ruled by mothers...

The problem arises where some religions believe they are sinning (substitute appropriate term for not operating piously) if they permit "evil" (anything not allowed under their belief structure) to thrive, even outside their membership.

For example, some Christians honestly believe that homosexuality is evil, and that to even allow it among non-Christians is sinful. They are ethically driven to take any possible action to prevent it from spreading.

I am not endorsing this position, only reporting that it exists. In fact, it is direct conflict with the broader human rights principal that allows people to follow their own belief system as long as it does not directly curtail the same rights for others.

In reality, the exact definition of what actions by one directly affects another is the sticking point. If Person A does not attack person B's sin, does person A go to Hell?

That's incorrect, if you're attributing marriage to christianity. The act of creating an official 'union' between a man and a woman existed long before christianity came along. Marriage is a bit like christmas, it's something christianity took ownership of to assist with social control, but they certainly didn't invent it. :D

Marriage is specifically a Abrahamic ceremony if you trace the origins of the word and the ceremony practice. There are ceremonies with the same purpose in ever culture, but the traditional "Marriage" ceremony as most people would think of it, is specific to the Abrahamic Religions. The Greeks, Romans, and Mesopotamians merely took oaths, and there was no recognition by governmental or religious bodies (Technically they had unions not marriages, as there was no recognition of the relationship by higher authorities). The word marriage however, at a time was specific to a union of two individuals in the eyes of God and as we have it now, is descended from Jewdism and carried on into Christianity and Islam.

As I said earlier though, word's change with time. Marriage has become a catch all term for any pair of two (or more...) individuals committed to a very personal relationship. It's sort of like the Palestinian-Israel argument. The Palestinians don't want history to go back any farther than when they had control of the land, while the Israelies want to go all the way back to Rome and say "no we were here first and got kicked out!" Both sides have legitimate claims, but only one of them is going to win unless they compromise. Marriage is the same way. You can't with hold it or give it out without discriminating against someone (In the marriage debate someone's going to get the short end, and it'll probably end up being the Christians looking at how things are going).

Compromise: No state recognition of marriage. Just throw it out as an irrelevant non-secular ceremony as it originally is and give everyone civil unions with marriages having no binding legal authority. Most christians I know don't mind civil unions it's the use of the word marriage that upsets them (It's sacred after all I guess...) and only a few radical die hards actually oppose same-sex civil unions, but you can't get rid of or please those groups so they're best ignored (And there will probably be similar groups forming on the other side of the argument too). Luckily they're so small they aren't really worth paying attention too.

You can't please everyone. If a line has to be drawn you draw it where it pleases the most people possible while minimizing unfairness and maximizing fairness.

Members of the Sacred Band of Thebes, an elite unit of warriors comprising of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers, would also swear oath's to their beloved 'shield-brother' at this tomb, in an act of union that went far beyond defending each other in battle.

Off topic but the Sacred Band of Thebes is a fun little group to learn about. Their service record was win-win-win until Alexander the Great crushed them (and I mean common he's Alex the Great. He's like a juggernaut who's only kryptonite is malaria :p).

The problem arises where some religions believe they are sinning (substitute appropriate term for not operating piously) if they permit "evil" (anything not allowed under their belief structure) to thrive, even outside their membership.

Not really. Yes, there are quite a sizeable group of Poster weilding zealots out there, but they certainly don't speak for a majority of the christian sects. Like lordofhats said, they're the "die hard radicals". There's always going to be some of them around, but they're the minority. What I hear from most of my neighbors and coworkers (all catholics and christians and a few protestants) stems from a justified fear that their religious rights will be threatened. This is, I suppose, a misunderstanding of sorts due to a mix-up of information from the media. However, what I can't understand is how certain members here (and certain louder groups in the gay community) can say, " Don't discriminate!" and " Christians shouldn't be stuck in the dark ages!" in the same breath. Aren't people entitled to their beliefs free of discrimination also? Or does this only apply to one group and not the other? >.>

Compromise: No state recognition of marriage. Just throw it out as an irrelevant non-secular ceremony as it originally is and give everyone civil unions with marriages having no binding legal authority.

Sounds like a great proposal.

Marriage is specifically a Abrahamic ceremony if you trace the origins of the word and the ceremony practice. There are ceremonies with the same purpose in ever culture, but the traditional "Marriage" ceremony as most people would think of it, is specific to the Abrahamic Religions.

You're narrowing the definition down to a semantic one but the real purpose of the point being made is that unions between two people seem to be a natural development amongst most human cultures regardless of their religion, or whether they are religious or not. The fact that western christianity (or judaism) has been most prevalent throughout human history doesn't mean that they can somehow lay claim to it end exclude certain people from it. That's a logical fallacy.

I agree with your second point though, in that marriages should become completely secular to cut out these anachronistic, outdated prejudices that have no place in a modern society. If these sort of discussions took place outside of religious circles (ie: discussions involving excluding people from certain everyday behaviours because of sexuality) they'd be condemned as discriminatory.

You're narrowing the definition down to a semantic one but the real purpose of the point being made is that unions between two people seem to be a natural development amongst most human cultures regardless of their religion, or whether they are religious or not. The fact that western christianity (or judaism) has been most prevalent throughout human history doesn't mean that they can somehow lay claim to it end exclude certain people from it. That's a logical fallacy.

Actually it's a logical fallacy to assume that because two things are similar they are the same. The ceremony and word "marriage" are distinctly Abrahamic in origin and replaced all other similar practices in western europe during the middle ages. Just because we have Mercenaries in Europe circa 1400 and Ronin in Japan circa 1400 doesn't make them the same thing. Similar yes but they are different in their behavior traditions and how they operated.

If you take the strict interpretation of marriage, and exclude what modern times have turned it into, it's a religious ceremony. Christians can't lay claim to every form of union just marriages. Marriage is a specific word (a word that comes from Hebrew mind you) that refers to a ceremony in which two individuals are recognized as being together and as another member said earlier "God is cool with it." Like I said, marriage has evolved into a catchall term, and it comes down to arguing how far back into the history of the practice we want to go. Go back 200+ years marriages were always heterosexual, but after that same-sex marriages began popping up.

Again, we can debate etemology all we want, but someone's going to end up hosed. We can discriminate against same-sex couples and say what you guys do isn't cool with us so we can't let it happen, or we can spit in the face of christians and say they're uptight and illogical and living in the 1500's. It's wrong either way but we're going to be discriminating against one of the two groups (Is that a Catch-22? I'm not sure).

I agree with your second point though, in that marriages should become completely secular to cut out these anachronistic, outdated prejudices that have no place in a modern society.

Not what I said. Christians don't want it secular to them it's a religious ceremony and is sacred, and offering it to people who they consider are sinning is trampling over them instead of the "sinners."

The best way to solve the problem is not to use the word marriage. Do that and probably 80-90% of all Christian nay sayers will shut their mouths and stop complaining because their concern has been addressed (That concern being the sanctity of marriage). Just remove marriage from the equation it's that simple. People in the US love to call something old fashioned and throw it out the window for no other logical reason. I fail to see why we should stop now :p.

For christians the problem is that the government is saying it's OK, and in other words taking what is to them, a religious ceremony that is holy out of their hands, and letting "sinners" participate in it. For them that violate their beliefs. I really wish people would stop dismissing the christian position as being wrong and stupid because that is trivializing what is to a very large group very important. You can't just hand marriage over to same sex couples willy nilly that's just reversing the discrimination.

In my view what I've seen is one group saying it's all or nothing (Marriage for everyone) and another saying you can go this far but don't come into this territory because we have a problem with it (You two can be together but leave this practice out of it and we're cool).

It's not a hard problem to solve just call it something else and all reasonable people will give up the opposition and we can move on to the next social crises. *Checks list* And that would be frou frou wigs (damn them and their frou frouishness :p!)

The word "marriage" is used in too many legal contexts. Switching to a new term causes too many legal tangles, and guess who will end up strangled by the tangles? Not the traditional man-woman couples married in a church, but the argument will always be admissible that such and such law or precedent was not intended to cover same sex couples and should not be applicable, yadda yadda.

And just try pushing the notion to the Bible Belt that future church weddings will be named "civil unions" under the law instead of "marriages". Good luck getting that to pass!

There must be one term used for all, or there will not be equality under the law. History has clearly shown that.

Actually it's a logical fallacy to assume that because two things are similar they are the same. The ceremony and word "marriage" are distinctly Abrahamic in origin and replaced all other similar practices in western europe during the middle ages. Just because we have ceremony and is sacred, and offering it to people who they consider are sinning is trampling over them instead of the "sinners."

You're splitting hairs in an attempt to make it look as if that act gives your argument substance. It doesn't, it just deflects from the point. The fact is that 'marriage' is generally recognised in western societies as the ultimate act of union, by the vast majority, whether they are religious or not. Christianity long ago took ownership of that seemingly natural desire within people to bond themselves to a loved one. Those preconceptions of ownership that we have are testimony to the control that religion once had, and they're still backed by the law. That's a situation that has to change in a secular society.

As I said earlier, static moral systems can't evolve 'organically', because moral change and moral evolution is anathema to any institution that controls via a prescribed morality. That will always restrict us, as it currently restricts many non-secular nations. This debate over gay marriages is a prime and exact example of that. The control of who gets to say who can be 'married' has to be wrestled from religion to prevent outdated perpetuation of discrimination if they refuse to move with the times.

Of course, moral evolution can cause fear amongst religious conservatives as it can undermine what they've built their beliefs on. That's a shame, but it's also productive in any society.

The word "marriage" is used in too many legal contexts. Switching to a new term causes too many legal tangles, and guess who will end up strangled by the tangles? Not the traditional man-woman couples married in a church, but the argument will always be admissible that such and such law or precedent was not intended to cover same sex couples and should not be applicable, yadda yadda.

Of course laws can be rewritten (yeah... that's not simplifying things :rolleyes:) and a simple find/replace job can dissolve the problem. We rewrite and overturn laws all the time. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Honestly I don't think christians are going to win. We're going to be going back and forth for an eternity probably (or until we get over it... yeah. Good luck of that happening for the next century or two). The same-sex marriage argument will probably win out in the end and we can start arguing about those frou frou wigs :cool:.

And just try pushing the notion to the Bible Belt that future church weddings will be named "civil unions" under the law instead of "marriages". Good luck getting that to pass!

I'm from the Bible Belt. Trust me. Most of us are cool with it. We don't care what the government calls it. Not in my experience anyway and I've been in and out of hardcore Baptist Chruchs going on two decades now. The only real complaint is it's secularization (turning something viewed as holy and trivializing it).

" Don't discriminate!" and " Christians shouldn't be stuck in the dark ages!" in the same breath. Aren't people entitled to their beliefs free of discrimination also? Or does this only apply to one group and not the other? >.>

How is telling someone "You shouldn't be stuck in the Dark Ages" discriminatory? That's an opinion, the voicing of which is perfectly valid. (Just like certain Christians can, under the secular law, freely tell other people, "You're going to Hell.") A statement of belief is not discrimination.

Now, if you're talking about forcing Christian churches which do not support gay marriage to marry gay couples, then yes, that would be illegal under the Constitution.

---

So, uh, all this talk about how a Christian marriage "can't" involve homosexuals... did we kick out the Episcopaleans or something? They're not Christian any more? What gives?

You can't say, "Well, it won't ever be a marriage." Language changes. Concepts change. You can say that you believe a church which supports gay marriage isn't "true" Christianity, but you can't say that what they're doing isn't a Christian marriage. They identify themselves as Christians, they're ordained by a major church, and they performed a marriage ceremony. That makes it a Christian marriage.

You wanna debate theology? You wanna argue the appropriateness of the action? Go nuts. Doesn't change the fact that it's still a marriage and it's still Christian.

How is telling someone "You shouldn't be stuck in the Dark Ages" discriminatory? That's an opinion, the voicing of which is perfectly valid. (Just like certain Christians can, under the secular law, freely tell other people, "You're going to Hell.") A statement of belief is not discrimination.

In the same way that it's discriminatory to walk up to a black person and say "You were born to be a slave." You can claim it's just an opinion, but it is stated as a fact, which makes it doubly offensive.

Another thing I've noticed is the tendency for people in this thread to talk about Christianity as one single unified religion instead of the conglomeration of many smaller religions that it is. Each one has it's own doctrines and beliefs ranging from strict literal adherence to the bible to saying that the bible teaches good things but is essentially a work of fiction. There is even considerable debate over what constitutes a christian religion believe it or not, with many churches claiming others arent christian at all. With that in mind you can hardly pin anything like "christianity is against homosexuality" to christianity any more than you can say that "white people are against blacks."

As I said earlier, static moral systems can't evolve 'organically', because moral change and moral evolution is anathema to any institution that controls via a prescribed morality. That will always restrict us, as it currently restricts many non-secular nations. This debate over gay marriages is a prime and exact example of that. The control of who gets to say who can be 'married' has to be wrestled from religion to prevent outdated perpetuation of discrimination if they refuse to move with the times.

Of course, moral evolution can cause fear amongst religious conservatives as it can undermine what they've built their beliefs on. That's a shame, but it's also productive in any society.

It always surprises me how people can say let's end discrimination and unfairness and advance our morals, then point out a group as being obstructive and outdated in the same breath (hypocrisy much?). You're entire statement is itself discriminatory against 4/5 the world's population (If you divide the world between the religious and the non-religious, religion wins).

Try and step out of your view point. What you can call social evolution, others would call social devolution. You can't solve the problem by calling one group wrong and ignoring them (reverse discrimination again). The world is a complex place and just because you say something is wrong doesn't automatically make it wrong (Not that either of us is in any position to determine right and wrong). Society isn't made of a single moral system it's made of multiple moral systems (with social conflict sometimes being the clash of these systems). Christianity isn't outdated, it's just a moral system that's been flexible enough to last 2000 years and will probably last another 2000 (although I'll bet that in 100 years it's size will be drastically reduced).

There isn't a right or a wrong side in the same-sex marriage debate. Both sides have what I see as perfectly legitimate reasons. We can have them punch each other in the face till one passes out ($10 on same-sex marriage in 10 rounds/years :rolleyes:), or you can reach a middle point where both groups can get a little of what they want. Maybe they won't get everything but at least they both left with a little something.

I ask again, what of the position that homosexual love is not a sin? This is certainly the position taken by many (I would think most if not all, but I'll hedge my bets) homosexual couples. The Episcopaleans seem to have found a theological common ground for the concept.
That is what I was trying to say, when the majority of the church, and by this I mean like makes it official, like the pope or something, decides that being homosexual is not a sin and is allowed in the eyes of God, then sure, have a religious ceremony. Until then I think it is hyporcritical for the church to marry gay peple if they do not agree it is right.

And as for the people saying marriage is no longer a religious thing, well then that is where I have a problem. I think that marriage is the joining of two people, saying they will love one another and care for them, under the eyes of God. If someone does not beleive in God, do not get married, have a civil ceremony.

This annoyed me about my mam, she disbeilives anything to to with God and what not, yet made my dad attend church for a few weeks so they could get married there, because it is pretty. I think it is vain and it has no meaning if you do not beleive in God.

Of course laws can be rewritten (yeah... that's not simplifying things ) and a simple find/replace job can dissolve the problem. We rewrite and overturn laws all the time. It's not like it hasn't happened before.even if you enacted a federal law stating that the term "civil union" shall be equivalent to marriage in all legal contexts, someone would find one of the thousands (millions?) of decisions for which that new law would be clearly ridiculous (Any person entering into marriage civil union with a goat shall be subject to...), and that would be precedent to challenge other laws and decisions.

The problem is that marriage has not been meticulously defined from the beginning, unlike many other terms also heavily used in legalese. That looseness of definition practically guaranteed that any attempt to make the terms marriage and civil union legally equivalent would be doomed from the start.

Then there are the various legal phrases indirectly derived from the term marriage, especially when you drill down into state and local laws...

It always surprises me how people can say let's end discrimination and unfairness and advance our morals, then point out a group as being obstructive and outdated in the same breath (hypocrisy much?). You're entire statement is itself discriminatory against 4/5 the world's population (If you divide the world between the religious and the non-religious, religion wins).

Incorrect. I'm talking about a moral system, not a set of 'people'. There are many spiritual people who don't hold with dogma. You're indulging in hyperbole for mere effect.

Society isn't made of a single moral system it's made of multiple moral systems

Of course it is, that's moral evolution for you. Of course, that's not often the case in non-secular states where other moral systems are often treated with intolerance, as was also often the case in the pre-secular west (and, as we can see with this whole gay marriage thing, can still happen today).

There's another thing we have to consider. Some are talking about secular, non-religious unions as an alternative, as if they're unions made out of the sight of God's eyes for fear of offending him, but what of the homosexuals who do believe in God?

Christianity for a long time had a mission statement that pledged to extirpate all other religious contenders. It executed this so thoroughly that the christian god still presides over most western people's idea of divine approval and an afterlife. But he's obviously an exclusive god, the christians have ownership of him. Are gays meant to accept christian 'we cornered the market on god, buddy, we've got the monopoly, so we call the shots.'?

That's not acceptable in a secular society that not only aims for tolerance of all beliefs and faiths but aims for total tolerance within them. Those sorts of decisions, whether it's gay marriage, education, or whatever else, should be taken well out of religious hands. God should belong to the people, not to the church.

God should belong to the people, not to the church.

Persoanlly I don't believe in religion but that has to be one of the wisest things said in this thread so far.

In the same way that it's discriminatory to walk up to a black person and say "You were born to be a slave." You can claim it's just an opinion, but it is stated as a fact, which makes it doubly offensive.

Word up on the "Christianity not a monolith" point. I've been pointing to the Episcopal Church, which has an ordained homosexual bishop among other innovations, for like three pages now.

Anyhoo, saying to a black person "You were born to be a slave," is not discrimination. It's racist as all get out, but it's not discrimination. Discrimination is what happens when someone violates the law because of their prejudice. You and I and everyone else in America can SAY whatever we want about our beliefs, whether we're followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or heading off to the latest Klan rally in our clean white robes.

Saying "Don't discriminate," and "I think [institution] is stuck in the Dark Ages," in the same breath is not contradictory. Saying "Don't discriminate," and "We should ban all [members of institution] from holding public office," would be a contradiction.

Anyhoo, saying to a black person "You were born to be a slave," is not discrimination. It's racist as all get out, but it's not discrimination.

My question is, can you be sued for saying so?

I believe if you love someone then it matters not whether they are the same sex or female. Love is love after all. Society today is better than the past decades have been. But there is still that prejudice that religious level that seems to still linger in peoples opinions. Once you’ve past that age of 16 your capable of choosing who to fall in love with.

Been Gay isn’t illegal so gay marriage should be acceptable to everyone and everywhere regardless of religion and those who are prejudice.

You can’t help who you fall in love with and wish to share your lives with so why should people even have the right to decide about gay marriage been acceptable or not. Just because two males or two females love each other enough to have a relationship doesn’t make them any different or change their personality anymore than it would a heterosexual couple.

You love who you , love because its who you are.

And in my opinion no one has the right to prevent gay marriage or even oppose it whether religion dictates this or that of a county/country or someone who is prejudice or not thinks otherwise.

Gay or heterosexual it matters not if you love the person you love I see no wrong in that whether same sex or not.

Been Gay isn’t illegal so gay marriage should be acceptable to everyone and everywhere regardless of religion and those who are prejudice.

While I don't agree that it should be "acceptable to everyone and everywhere regardless" (we're still entitled to our prejudices, are we not? as Scatterbrain said), I feel that regardless of their prejudices there should be a level of civility and tolerance when it comes to these matters.

"Can you be sued for saying so?"

Maybe after you get out of hospital. Definitions won't prevent people from taking offence. A question I'd like answered, in relation to this debate - Where does prejudice come from? If it was 'written' 2000 years ago that homosexuality is an abomination, why, today, 2000 years later, do people still believe it to be the case? Haven't we evolved enough, from our darkest experiences through the millennia, to have copped onto the fact that prejudice breeds nothing but prejudice? I have no religion, but aren't compassion and tolerance central tenets of Christian belief? What is it - Love thy neighbour, but not if he's gay?

While I don't agree that it should be "acceptable to everyone and everywhere regardless" (we're still entitled to our prejudices, are we not? as Scatterbrain said), I feel that regardless of their prejudices there should be a level of civility and tolerance when it comes to these matters.

I completely disagree with you 100%

What gives any of us the right to judge. A person will fall in love with whom they have the right to.

Not one living person has the right to take that feeling away.

One of the best friends I've ever known is in love with a fellow woman and she is a great person with a great personality and the pair of them love each other greatly.

So I repeat myself. Not one person alive has the right to take anothers feelings of love away just because they are prejudice or religious.

My parents have been in internment camps. I understand prejudice as much as anybody else whose suffered. :)

What gives any of us the right to judge. A person will fall in love with whom they have the right to.

The same rights that allow you to say, " You shouldn't judge people?"

I'm not saying that people should be prejudiced, which I think you are saying I am. I'm saying, you can't force somone not to say or think something regardless of their beliefs. I personally feel that would be taking a step backward.

edit: sorry cheeno, I didn't read your post thoroughly the first time. I get your point now.

I'm not saying that people should be prejudiced, which I think you and Cheeno are saying I am. I'm saying, you can't force somone not to say or think something regardless of their beliefs.

Thats true enough we cannot tell anyone what they should be thinking privately. But that said to enforce those beleifs well I see that as a different thing altogether.

A question I'd like answered, in relation to this debate - Where does prejudice come from? If it was 'written' 2000 years ago that homosexuality is an abomination, why, today, 2000 years later, do people still believe it to be the case? Haven't we evolved enough, from our darkest experiences through the millennia, to have copped onto the fact that prejudice breeds nothing but prejudice? I have no religion, but aren't compassion and tolerance central tenets of Christian belief? What is it - Love thy neighbour, but not if he's gay?

Prejudice just comes from people being unwilling to deal with other people. I like to call it being inconsiderate :p.

Just because your supposed to be tolerant and compassionate doesn't mean you have to like it. I'm was tolerant of my room mate last year but darn if he didn't get on my nerves when he came back to the room drunker than hell every night and I had to deal with it because he couldn't even get into his bed (The hangovers each morning weren't fun either). I'll be darned if I wasn't one of the most tolerant roommates who ever lived (sarcasm).

Honestly I don't care if same-sex couples get married. Go ahead it really has no effect on me and what I do (it's God's universe he can sort the mess out). I'm more interested in what justifies ignoring another groups beliefs because they disagree with it.

Been Gay isn’t illegal so gay marriage should be acceptable to everyone and everywhere regardless of religion and those who are prejudice

For a second I thought you meant the foot cream as part of some metaphor XD.

My question is, can you be sued for saying so?

I heard of a guy who sued a woman for having a non-regulation stair case that was too steep. He won the case, even though he broke into her house to rob it, slipped and fell down the stairs and broke his leg. Nothing surprises me when it comes to lawsuits.

My question is, can you be sued for saying so?

No.

Well, okay. You could sue for "emotional damages" caused by the anguish and despair caused by the words. (Weirder things have happened, and frivolous lawsuits are entertainment for a certain segment of the population.)

However, you CAN'T sue them just for being racist assholes.

There has been a lot of talk kicking around about discrimination and reverse discrimination. There has also been a lot of talk about semantics. Just proof of the power of words. The Proposition is California that will soon either pas or fail is about legal marriage. Some people say that marriage is strickly religious. In this country, that is already not the case. We have men and women who go before a justice of the peace and sign some papers and are legally wed. For those us who marry in a church, it is not legally binding until said paperwork is filled out whetehr or not the union is sanctified by that church. Marriage is a legal issue whether is originally was, whetehr it should be, whatever. It is. I can marry whomever I want, inside a church, outside a church, in Vegas, in the courthouse. I can recieve benefits, insurance, tax breaks, inheritance rights, and the right to make medical decision for my partner should illness or injury render my partner unable to make desicions. I can do this because the law recognizes my marriage. Not because the church does. It is unfair to deny these legal rights and benefits to others simply because they can't be married in the church. That shouldn't stop them from getting married in the courthouse, or their backyard or anywhere else they want. They should get the same rights for making the same commitment. This doesn't take anything away from the sacrament of marriage in a church. We are talking about expanding the legal definition of marriage not taking anything away from the religious definition. The two share a word, but not a definition. I don't care about the history of the word or the origins of the institution. What it comes down to for me is that we have citizens of our country who are being denied the same rights as others. That is a civil rights issue. It is up to the government whether on a state of federal level to make sure that all of its citizens are treated equally. That is not happening until we get the same right and the same title for our unions. I am a Christian. I work in the churhc office. I sing the choir. I read the scripture during service. I am a communion steward. I support gay marriage because it is the right thing, the humane thing, the ethical thing.

If I may be indulged to quote the Bible,"But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God (Romans 14:10)."

Treat your bothers and sisters with respect and kindness in this life. If there is a judgment to be made, it isn't up to us to make it. At least, that is what I try to do.

It is unfair to deny these legal rights and benefits to others simply because they can't be married in the church.

California doesn't deny legal rights because people can't be married in the church ( I don't think "where" you choose to marry matters), but does deny certain benefits (like taxes or financial aid for children of homosexual couples) to those who are not a heterosexual couple.

The important word in that quote is "can't." I know California doesn't deny rights to straight people who marry outside the church. That is my point. If the government can give those rights to straight people who marry outside the church there is no reason to deny them to gay couples who also marry outside the church (and are not allowed to marry in the church). Gay couples marrying outside the no different than straight couples marrying outside the church. It isn't in a church. It isn't their business. If as a straight person I can do it, why can't my gay friend? That was my point.

I mean no personal offence, this is just my opinon:

But I find it really rediculous. I mean, if a person wants to be gay then fine, but to have it a legal thing is kind of over-board. I mean if the government allows this, the next thing will be that guys have marry more the 1 wife and then people who want to marry animals.
I'm sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but one things always leads to something else. I believe people can do whatever they want with their lives, but lets leave the 'making this and that legal'.

Gay couples have been blocked on many issues like insurance benefits and medical consent, etc. because of the lack of legal status.

The "slippery slope" argument is fallacious.

The "slippery slope" argument is fallacious.

Even I agree with that one. Slippery slope never made sense to me. I could see someone making the argument for legal polygamy, but come on. How many men/women in US culture do you know who would really commit themselves to someone who would also be committed to someone else? Last I checked as a general rule, people tend to get pretty pissed when their significant other is around. Last I checked that tends to have 75% chance of you being dumped by one of the individuals, or or a 25% chance of someone winding up dead.

And animal marriage? That's just ridiculous. Anyone who actually thinks you can have n personal relationship on the level of marriage with a goat needs a CAT scan and maybe a little sit down time with Dr. Kroger. Sure they're related concepts but one just won't last in US culture and the other is just plain silly and would probably be deserving of it's own wacky latin name in a list of psychological disorders.

I'm not religious in any way (wait, I’m not having a go at religion!), But I just don’t see the problem with gay marriages and all, I mean what do people fear. That the world is going to turn gay and create gay churches etc.... I mean I don’t really think about the issue much, but if anyone for ANY reason is going to be blocked on issues of health, finance, emotional support then that does get me thinking, and I don’t like it.... everyone should be on the same ballpark (imo).

Times change, I just can’t see it, that when I’m an old man that the gay population will be held back. Look at the black world, no its still not perfect but its not like it was decades ago….and the gay population has a lot of information out their, and many strong societies (I mean a lot of discrimination and the sort comes from lack of knowledge right?, no?).

But I find it really ridiculous. I mean, if a person wants to be gay then fine, but to have it a legal thing is kind of over-board. I mean if the government allows this, the next thing will be that guys have marry more the 1 wife and then people who want to marry animals.

How do you find it ridiculous…. The follow sentences didn’t actually explain so, except…. Never mind.

and the other is just plain silly and would probably be deserving of it's own wacky latin name in a list of psychological disorders.

Honestly, it probably already has one.

But I just don’t see the problem with gay marriages and all, I mean what do people fear.

In California, the problem was a mixup in information from the media. They had to issue a few lines in the papers to clarify that passing the law to allow gay marraiges would not undermine religious rights. Also ads for Prop 8 were very misleading, which have already led to misunderstandings (that homosexuality would be taught in schools to children regardless of their religious background). The problem also was that homosexual couples here were very vocal about changing the definition of marriage to mean that heterosexual couples = homosexual couples. While I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought, I see no reason to stop people from marrying and getting "equal benefits". I care more about the starving children in Africa than all these idiots on both sides arguing over here.

I personally don't see how the government allowing gay marriages (along with all the benefits of heterosexual couples) will affect religion (particularly certain christian denominations), but I personally don't understand why the definition of marriage has to be changed.

Don't reply on this. It's just a silly opinion of mine.

Look at the black world, no its still not perfect but its not like it was decades ago….and the gay population has a lot of information out their, and many strong societies (I mean a lot of discrimination and the sort comes from lack of knowledge right?, no?).

Discrimination doesn't just come from lack of knowledge. While I don't find homosexuality natural (there, I admit it, however I don't say it out of contempt, so please don't take it that way), it's none of my business to say that the law should discriminate against homosexuals and homosexual couples, because it shouldn't. I see nothing wrong with people discriminating and having their prejudices ( I wish people would stop telling people they're somehow wrong for thinking a certain way, it irks me), but I see a problem when the government does.

Honestly, it probably already has one.NOT "animal husbandry", though...

Originally Posted by Speedy
But I just don’t see the problem with gay marriages and all, I mean what do people fear.
In California, the problem was a mixup in information from the media. They had to issue a few lines in the papers to clarify that passing the law to allow gay marraiges would not undermine religious rights. Also ads for Prop 8 were very misleading, which have already led to misunderstandings (that homosexuality would be taught in schools to children regardless of their religious background). The problem also was that homosexual couples here were very vocal about changing the definition of marriage to mean that heterosexual couples = homosexual couples. While I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought, I see no reason to stop people from marrying and getting "equal benefits". I care more about the starving children in Africa than all these idiots on both sides arguing over here.

I personally don't see how the government allowing gay marriages (along with all the benefits of heterosexual couples) will affect religion (particularly certain christian denominations), but I personally don't understand why the definition of marriage has to be changed.

Don't reply on this. It's just a silly opinion of mine.

Quote:
Look at the black world, no its still not perfect but its not like it was decades ago….and the gay population has a lot of information out their, and many strong societies (I mean a lot of discrimination and the sort comes from lack of knowledge right?, no?).
Discrimination doesn't just come from lack of knowledge. While I don't find homosexuality natural (there, I admit it, however I don't say it out of contempt, so please don't take it that way), it's none of my business to say that the law should discriminate against homosexuals and homosexual couples, because it shouldn't. I see nothing wrong with people discriminating and having their prejudices ( I wish people would stop telling people they're somehow wrong for thinking a certain way, it irks me), but I see a problem when the government does.

Thats cool, i see where your coming from a lttle better now.

All points valid, and understood.


on this topic and education, there was something on the news (In Australia) about opening a gay school...... i really wasent that interested (Sport was on), but i really should try to find something on it now, err and see what feedback it got.

Have a look at the countries listed in this article where gay marriages are legal.

Legal Gay Marriage Around The World (http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm)

I Googled a number of these countries and I found NO articles about people marrying livestock or other non-human beings in same said countries.

Slippery slope argument..... wow, people.

Slippery slope argument..... wow, people.

Reminds me of a comic:

http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/slippery_slope.png

Slippery slope, aka reducto ad absurdum, is a logicaql fallacy. That is to say, it is one of a number of faulty logic patterns that is known to produce incorrect conclusions in logical arguments.

This type of fallacy takes the form:

If A => B, that will lead to A => C, because we all know that B will eventually lead to C. The fallacy rests in the assumption in red, that lumps B and C together as being "kind of similar".

When you look at it that way, it doesn't look so harmless - gay marriage is like marrying animals?

Recognize slippery slope on sight, and avoid falling for it. It is truly an ugly beast that feeds on fear.

I do recall learning in debate class that the slipper slope argument is one of the gravest of logic errors to make during competitive debate.

I think the only one that'd get laughed off a debate stage faster would be an ad hominem.

I think the only one that'd get laughed off a debate stage faster would be an ad hominem.

The one's I know that are real argument killers are Ad Hominem, Red Herring, and Slippery Slope.

I think this argument has become a bit stereotypical world-wide really - I bet alot of people from religious groups actually support gay marriages, but in the media, of course, the people that strongly object will get reported on TV etc, which gives the entire religious community a bad name. During sociology we've studied this, and evidence actually shows that a high percentage of religious groups are pretty outraged when these laws are put in place, because they arent always a result of their beliefs, but of the governments irritating urge to be as politically correct as possible, even doing things that are totally unnecessary. For example, Christmas nativity's were banned in england (not sure of its status now) so's not to offend Muslim groups - but alot of Muslims were writing in to the radio and the media saying that it's totally uneccessary and they dont support it. (Personally i dont conform to any religion)
I think the media has alot to do with picking and choosing who to blame, but the government just needs to chill out and stop panicking in my opinion :rollseyes
A marriage is just a certificate - I think they should be able to celebrate marriage in any way they choose. Plus "Marriage" just sounds like you're being bound by lock and key anyway. aaagh the government wont learn.

In the eyes of the law, marriage is more than a certificate - it is also a contract, and it has iys own special laws associated with it in every culture.

If you doubt that marriage is a legal entity with a life of its own, ask anyone who has ever gone through a divorce!

In the eyes of the law, marriage is more than a certificate - it is also a contract, and it has iys own special laws associated with it in every culture.

If you doubt that marriage is a legal entity with a life of its own, ask anyone who has ever gone through a divorce!

Ooohh no i agree, i Know it is. Things are dealt differently in every aspect with married couples - thats why i feel it should be relaxed a little - People commit suicide over divorce!
That said however, It'd be easier to con benefits and such if the legal side of marriages and the family were relaxed. There's always a positive and negative to everything.:rolleyes:

Personally, I don't support gay marriage; however, nor do I oppose the idea of a partnership between two people of the same sex. Rather, I think the government should stay out of it altogether. I think the government should have little to no say on marriage, and that it should be primarily a religious contract rather than a legal one. Assuming this would not be imposed, I think the decision should be left up to each state (in the U.S. anyway).

Personally, I don't support gay marriage; however, nor do I oppose the idea of a partnership between two people of the same sex. Rather, I think the government should stay out of it altogether. I think the government should have little to no say on marriage, and that it should be primarily a religious contract rather than a legal one. Assuming this would not be imposed, I think the decision should be left up to each state (in the U.S. anyway).

You think the government should stay out of marriage, and you don't oppose the idea of homosexuality, but you don't support gay marriage? Are you saying that you're largely apathetic about the issue, or something else? Understand I'm not picking a fight; I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean. The more I know about opinions about this, the better.

You think the government should stay out of marriage, and you don't oppose the idea of homosexuality, but you don't support gay marriage? Are you saying that you're largely apathetic about the issue, or something else? Understand I'm not picking a fight; I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean. The more I know about opinions about this, the better.

He's differentiating between marriage and partnerships.

Keep this thread friendly.



~Raven.
Senior Super Moderator.

Gay marriage makes no difference to me at all.
Canada has legalized it and guess what.
The world has not spun out of control.
The sun still rises and sets.
Who really cares what goes on in the bedrooms
of strangers or friends.
People and the media should deal with what really matters.
Food on the family table.
Money in the bank.
Jobs for everyone.
Education and health care.
Leave the private lives of people just that. PRIVATE.

Gay marriage makes no difference to me at all.
Canada has legalized it and guess what.
The world has not spun out of control.
The sun still rises and sets.
Who really cares what goes on in the bedrooms
of strangers or friends.
People and the media should deal with what really matters.
Food on the family table.
Money in the bank.
Jobs for everyone.
Education and health care.
Leave the private lives of people just that. PRIVATE.

This needs to be carved into a beautiful sheet of dark grey or burgundy granite and erected for all to see in a public area. Yup, that's what I think.

Gay marriage makes no difference to me at all.
Canada has legalized it and guess what.
The world has not spun out of control.
The sun still rises and sets.
Who really cares what goes on in the bedrooms
of strangers or friends.
People and the media should deal with what really matters.
Food on the family table.
Money in the bank.
Jobs for everyone.
Education and health care.
Leave the private lives of people just that. PRIVATE.

As usual, Lessa has cut to the heart of the matter, and I think has it exactly right. Another issue that, really, should not be an issue.

Bravo. Applause.

Leave the private lives of people just that. PRIVATE.

It's this one line that sums it all up. Its this one line that we should ALL respect.

Gay marriage makes no difference to me at all.
Canada has legalized it and guess what.
The world has not spun out of control.
The sun still rises and sets.
Who really cares what goes on in the bedrooms
of strangers or friends.
People and the media should deal with what really matters.
Food on the family table.
Money in the bank.
Jobs for everyone.
Education and health care.
Leave the private lives of people just that. PRIVATE.
Agreed with 100%


But I see the reason why gay marriage is so tender in this world is that its not "natural" or to those who believe it not "natural".
Not only that, but in this society...mostly in the American society we make anything not "natural" something to fear whether with religion calling it a sin to love whomever you love or the media, for those who don't believe in religion, they make it seem frightful.
In this society to make people bend we use fear.
That is why so many people are against gay marriage.
Its half religion and the other is fear.
We make this "unnatural" fearful.

Hope that made sense and didn't confuse anybody.

I'm curious, if marriage is such a distinctly Judeo-Christian institution how is it that atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc. are able to get married and no objection has been raised?

I'm curious, if marriage is such a distinctly Judeo-Christian institution how is it that atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc. are able to get married and no objection has been raised?

It isn't only Judeo-Christian. But that's the context in which it is generally known within the western world, thus any issues with marriage in the western world are going to be largely concerned with the Judeo-Christian element, rather than that of other religions.

In terms of atheists marrying, I would think that any true atheist would choose to get married at a registry office, rather than a church, to avoid hippocrisy.

In terms of atheists marrying, I would think that any true atheist would choose to get married at a registry office, rather than a church, to avoid hippocrisy.

That works if it is two atheists marrying. I am United Methodist; my husband is atheist. We had a compromise ceremony with my pastor presiding over the ceremony, but we got married outside instead of in a church with secular readings as well as scripture.

I actually think it is funny that a clergy person can marry an atheist to a Christian and have the church recognize it, but two believers who happen to be gay cannot be married or recognized.

@Banzai - Yeah, that's sort of my point. A previous argument made in this thread was that gay people couldn't be "married" because the marriage ceremony and etymology of the word itself was Hebrew and therefore "marriage" was a strictly (Judeo-Christian) religious term. By that argument anyone not belonging to an Abrahamic religion should be barred from "marriage".

And like Carmina, I've found the "typical" Christian reaction to homosexuality odd. I recall when a pastor who'd cheated on his wife with a male prostitute made news in the Christian circle (maybe it made real news too I don't remember) nobody cared that he had:

a. cheated on his wife.
b. paid for a prostitute.
c. lied about about it.

The only focus was whether he was gay and when he said he saw a therapist who informed him he wasn't, well, 'praiseJesushallelujah!' they all breathed a sigh of relief and moved on. Apparently, a harmless orientation is more concerning to the Church than adultery, lying, and prostitution.

where religion is involved someone is going to object to just about anything.
my husband says he is athiest, I am baptised United.
We eloped so got married at the court house.
Our witness's are catholic.
According to our witness' we are not married because we didn't get married in
church. And if we were married in a United Church it still isn't considered married
because we are not Catholic and a priest told me I wasn't Christian because I
was not Catholic.
Does this explain why I steer clear of Religions in a big way.
Do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.
35 years ago my brother was in training to become a United Church Minister.
He wanted to get married to a French Catholic girl.
Between her father and the church he had to convert to Catholic to do so.
He did then dropped it and went back to United but he couldn't become a minister
because he had converted to Catholic.
Now he is a pastor for a different religion.
Such a rigamaroll. just to try and live their lives.
Religion and government should stay out of private lives when it really won't change
the world or even impact it in any great way.

Marriage is not specific to any culture or race. It is an ancient custom. As such, it has changed radically through the ages, though in essence it remains constant as an officially-recognized procreative union of two individuals. In ancient times there were officially-recognized procreative unions between individuals of like gender. (Look it up if you don't believe me.)

Western civilization has put its own peculiar onus on marriage, and made it seem that marriage must be between two (and only two) male/female individuals ONLY with no exceptions. That is really just a culture-specific thing that most of us (regardless of where on Earth we live) have grown so used to that we seldom question. xoxoxo

I wasn't asking that question in an honest manner I was making a point: that marriage isn't only a Christian institute (even Thomas Aquinas said as much) with the hopes of hearing what the person who claimed that marriage was only a Judeo-Christian practice had to say on the fact that non-Judeo-Christians were marrying.

I think Prop 8 is gonna pass. Last I heard it was pretty tight, but I just saw the latest ad from those Yes on 8 folks (those guys have a lot of money, judging from all the airtime they're buying up), and it's brutal. It really hammers the "they're gonna teach gay marriage to your kids!" thing down hard. I think it's gonna freak parents out and they'll vote to pass it.

I don't know if I'm qualified to comment on this.....personally Ithink I'm not.....


From the Indian perspective though, I don't care because I don't see. Most same-sex couples here are still in the closet........the Indians know that they exist but as long as it's all hushed...they don't give a damn. There's only one instance I've heard of it leading to marraige and it was a female couple. And it caused media sensation. We still have arranged marraiges, love marraiges are a scarcity, and sex before marraige is a taboo subject, the male population being more hesitant. So I don't have any take on it, though I don't care. They're human too.

I read a really interesting article by a gay last year, and I posted a poem by him. I'll see if I can pull it up.

Tomorrow I get to vote. After that, we will see how it comes out. I know I am voting No on Prop 8. We shall see how the rest of California votes. I will keep my fingers crossed for civil rights and tolerance.

Gay marriage should not be legalized. That would be a seismic progression in perversness. What's next? Brother and sister should be allowed to be married? Marrying Zebras? Where does it stop? It is unnatural.

As far as civil unions I am unsure. What really is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage" if they provide the same functions?

Don't be so daft, allowing two people to declare their love for each other isn't going to undermine society, nothing will change as a result other than two people feeling happier cos they got married.

Comparing that to incest or marrying an animal is just ridiculous (although there are people in America who have had ceremonies with animals), people made similar arguments about letting women vote and so far civilisation is still standing. (One second. We didn't have global warming back then though did we? Maybe letting women vote caused global warming!)

Personally, I think not allowing gay marraige is against the first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Banning gay marriage is being done due to religion wich means that they are passing laws in respect to an establishment of religion. Also, some religions in the U.S. such as Quakers, Unitatarians, Laveyian Satanists and most Pagan sects that allow same-sex marriage. By refusing to let them do it, the law is prohibiting their free excercise of religion.

Gay marriage should not be legalized. That would be a seismic progression in perversness. What's next? Brother and sister should be allowed to be married? Marrying Zebras? Where does it stop? It is unnatural.

As far as civil unions I am unsure. What really is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage" if they provide the same functions?