Same sex marriage in California

[96Qowner]

Gays should go right ahead and get as "married" as they want to be.

But to say that it's the same as a traditional marriage is inane. I've asked on other boards what exactly they want out of it. Do they want the same rights, or do they want the societal recognition? By a landslide, they say they want the societal recognition.

They can get the same rights through existing legal contracts if they make the effort. They want society to recognize their marriage to be the same as a traditional marriage. I'm not in favor of legislating morality.

Plus, calling it marriage forces every other State to recognize it. THAT'S the reason for the argument over terminology.

[audtatious]

Hang on.

Are you seriously defending Fred Phelps? Do you know who the Westboro Baptist Church is? Do you know what they do?

I despise Fred Phelps. I just listed that as a lawsuit against a church due to not allowing gay marriage. I would have listed others but I am in and out of concalls all day and didn't feel like looking more up.

Realize, while I wish Fred would get hit by a truck, I do support his right as an American to protest as he wishes as long as it is not breaking any state or federal laws.

As for the other one, if that organization is indeed a religious nonprofit organization, the lawsuit won't stick. I mean, you can SUE anyone, but that doesn't mean it'll stick.

True, other than the church being drug through the legal system and having to pay to fight it. Of course, the more they do it the more chances of getting some judge to agree with them, thus a legal precedent is set.

The bottom line is that no one is going to be able to successfully sue a church or other "religious organization" (as defined by the law) for refusing to marry gays. It is blatantly unconstitutional, in the same way that requiring the Catholics to ordain women is unconstitutional. It won't happen, I promise, there is GOBS of precedent behind it.

I believe the intent of the groups is to change that viewpoint.

Because of the legal Pandora's Box that it opens that I already detailed to you.

If that is the sole intent of this then why would they not keep pressing until they get nail holds, then hands, then torso, etc.

I see this as a "step" by them whereas you see it as a "end to their cause".

[HashiriyaS14]

I see this as a "step" by them whereas you see it as a "end to their cause".

Yep, this sums up our entire argument.

You see a nefarious agenda and I do not. I see it ending with marriage.

I don't believe that, other than a tiny fringe minority, gay Americans have any interest in forcing their gay-ness on the rest of America, they just want the same freedoms that straight Americans enjoy.

There are always going to be crazies, but you can't assume the most extremist voice is the one running the show, because it almost always isn't.

Frankly, the idea that the gay lobbies could overcome the protection that organized religion enjoys in America is laughable. If women can't do it, the gays definitely can't do it (nor should they, obviously). It's a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the constitution, and it isn't going anywhere. Even if it WAS their intent, they would never succeed unless, overnight, a majority of Americans were suddenly gay.

[audtatious]

My counter would be:

Why are they not accepting "civil union" that has the same benefits as "married"? It gives them exactly what you claim they want without imposing it on the current use of the word "marriage". Seems the homophobes are willing to extend the benefits without having a definition change whereas the gays who are pressing forth for "equality" are not accepting.

[heliochrome85]

if you call it by a different name, is it really equality?

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[HashiriyaS14]

My counter would be:

Why are they not accepting "civil union" that has the same benefits as "married"? It gives them exactly what you claim they want without imposing it on the current use of the word "marriage". Seems the homophobes are willing to extend the benefits without having a definition change whereas the gays who are pressing forth for "equality" are not accepting.

Did I not answer this already AT LEAST once?

Because it would make it too easy for future governments to impose limitations on "civil unions" that would not apply to heterosexual marriages.

That's why, that's the reason. I think this is the third time I'm saying it.

It's NOT to throw their gay-ness in your face, it's to protect their rights to be treated as other Americans are treated.

They don't want to be legislated into being some kind of separate class of citizens, they want to be included in the same statues that apply to everyone else. This is based on firm legal ground.

How would you like it if, say, instead of "individuals", in the wording of laws, we could start referring to people as "black individuals" and "white individuals". You could apply separate tax codes to each one without affecting the other, you could do ALL KINDS of nasty things. This is precisely the same conundrum.

You don't want to refer to separate individuals into different classes under the eyes of the law, you want the same laws to apply to everyone. To do otherwise is to invite calamity.

[marlin29311]

I think the largest problem with this entire debate is the use of words.

I'm a highly religious person, and believe deeply in my Catholic faith - as anyone that is deeply routed in their faith, they know that you must question your faith all the time - if not, you're just going with the flow and not really "believing."

I've questioned this myself, and I am for the government staying out of "marriage." Marriage is the union of a man and woman, as created by religions thousands of years ago - that's a fact. Marriage serves as a union for the purposes of procreation and fostering a loving relationship between said man and woman in which each partner can best see the face of God in one another, and this can be exemplyfied by numerous christian theologians from as early as about the 9th century on...

My opinion is this - remove the word "marriage." Marriage is a religious term, designed to do what I explained above. Everyone in the US should have access to a "Unionship," or some other term of the like. Marriage should be reserved for those that obtain a religious ceremony, but in the eyes of the government, they should be a "union", regarless if they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Tax breaks should be provided to anyone that has a legal claim to this "union," and the religious term "marriage" should have no dealing with anything that the government does.

I hope this post doesn't violate the "no religion" rule.

[HashiriyaS14]

My opinion is this - remove the word "marriage." Marriage is a religious term, designed to do what I explained above. Everyone in the US should have access to a "Unionship," or some other term of the like. Marriage should be reserved for those that obtain a religious ceremony, but in the eyes of the government, they should be a "union", regardless if they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Tax breaks should be provided to anyone that has a legal claim to this "union," and the religious term "marriage" should have no dealing with anything that the government does.

That is BRILLIANT!

I have *never* heard anyone bring up this idea before in all the debates I've seen on the issue. This is a really really good idea.

Completely separate the religious aspects from the legal aspects by removing any and all religious terms from the legal definitions.

Genius. Seriously.

[NY94J30]

That is BRILLIANT!

I have *never* heard anyone bring up this idea before in all the debates I've seen on the issue. This is a really really good idea.

Completely separate the religious aspects from the legal aspects by removing any and all religious terms from the legal definitions.

Genius. Seriously.

You must have missed the post where I replied to yours making a similar argument and then the subsequent post where I quoted it again to Audatious (who also must have missed it)

Seriously though, the assertion that government has no place in a religious construct advances the dialogue if neither side is being disingenuous.

[HashiriyaS14]

You must have missed the post where I replied to yours making a similar argument and then the subsequent post where I quoted it again to Audatious (who also must have missed it)

Whaddya know, you did!

I guess it was because you didn't actually suggest changing the nomenclature for heterosexual marriages in the letter of the law, I didn't pick up on what you were getting at.

It's still a great idea

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[SteveTheTech]

My opinion is this - remove the word "marriage." Marriage is a religious term, designed to do what I explained above. Everyone in the US should have access to a "Unionship," or some other term of the like. Marriage should be reserved for those that obtain a religious ceremony, but in the eyes of the government, they should be a "union", regarless if they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Tax breaks should be provided to anyone that has a legal claim to this "union," and the religious term "marriage" should have no dealing with anything that the government does.

I hope this post doesn't violate the "no religion" rule.

That is one of the most progressive things I have heard a devout catholic say. I really hope that is the view of the younger generation. I grew up very catholic and questioned my faith and found a different path than you did but I respect your choices.

For some reason the conversation of gay rights/marriage always comes down to religion it's the only legitimate opposing argument. They really do only want equal benefits that as Americans they are entitled to. They are not trying to turn your kids gay or impose unholy morals on your impressionable young minds.

Lets be realistic. Why would we be depriving Americans (regardless of sexual orientation) the right to happiness and shared benefits in a household? This is not about the religious argument just basic Constitutional rights.

[audtatious]

You must have missed the post where I replied to yours making a similar argument and then the subsequent post where I quoted it again to Audatious (who also must have missed it)

Seriously though, the assertion that government has no place in a religious construct advances the dialogue if neither side is being disingenuous.

We should do this across the board so that nobody can have a "leg up". If everyone had the same house, the same car, the same food, the same clothes, etc. Then there would be nothing to complain about. Make everything exactly the same and one color. That way there will be less people getting bent over "fairness".

FWIW, I've said to remove marriage completely from the gov. If someone wants to be married let them do it on their own time with their own religion.

[marlin29311]

That is one of the most progressive things I have heard a devout catholic say. I really hope that is the view of the younger generation. I grew up very catholic and questioned my faith and found a different path than you did but I respect your choices.

For some reason the conversation of gay rights/marriage always comes down to religion it's the only legitimate opposing argument. They really do only want equal benefits that as Americans they are entitled to. They are not trying to turn your kids gay or impose unholy morals on your impressionable young minds.

Lets be realistic. Why would we be depriving Americans (regardless of sexual orientation) the right to happiness and shared benefits in a household? This is not about the religious argument just basic Constitutional rights.

I believe that everyone has the right to all the benefits that the government has entitled to them - this idea is somewhat of a middle ground in my mind. It's a way for the people to get the tax benefits and such from the government while still keeping the sanctity and holiness of what marriage is supposed to be about.

Weddings still exist - the only downside is that you don't get "married" anymore, unless you go with a religious ceremony. It's unfortunate that these two things (partnerships and marriages) have become so intertwined in our culture that this is almost an impossible feat to accomplish. People that are married now want to be "married" and those wanting to get married would not simply enojy their "union" ceremony. But as I said, this is the middle ground that I think would be best, considering it trys to make everyone happy (my utilitarian side... ). The sanctity of marriage is preserved, and anyone that wants to become permanant partners, gay or hetero alike, can enjoy the benefits.

[krimsonviper]

Maybe a large reason why I don't want gay marriage is because I do not want my kids to be taught that it is right. Maybe not so some, who is quickly becoming a larger part of the community, it is OK to be gay, but to me I was raised as it not being ok.

I'm sure many of you agree with me, and if this law doesn't pass, it will be taught to them that being gay will be ok. Meaning more and more people with be gay, or bi-sexual.

I have always thought of marriage as being a strictly hetero thing. I wasn't taught, it's just something I've always been around, and it seems to be that a large majority agree with me, so it is apparent that we are not ready for gay marriages.

I am not h0m0-phobic. I have gay friends. I have friends who are bi-sexual. I accept and love them for their decision to live life, even if it isn't the same as my view.

*edit*

I think the largest problem with this entire debate is the use of words.

I'm a highly religious person, and believe deeply in my Catholic faith - as anyone that is deeply routed in their faith, they know that you must question your faith all the time - if not, you're just going with the flow and not really "believing."

I've questioned this myself, and I am for the government staying out of "marriage." Marriage is the union of a man and woman, as created by religions thousands of years ago - that's a fact. Marriage serves as a union for the purposes of procreation and fostering a loving relationship between said man and woman in which each partner can best see the face of God in one another, and this can be exemplyfied by numerous christian theologians from as early as about the 9th century on...

My opinion is this - remove the word "marriage." Marriage is a religious term, designed to do what I explained above. Everyone in the US should have access to a "Unionship," or some other term of the like. Marriage should be reserved for those that obtain a religious ceremony, but in the eyes of the government, they should be a "union", regarless if they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Tax breaks should be provided to anyone that has a legal claim to this "union," and the religious term "marriage" should have no dealing with anything that the government does.

I hope this post doesn't violate the "no religion" rule.

[NY94J30]

We should do this across the board so that nobody can have a "leg up". If everyone had the same house, the same car, the same food, the same clothes, etc. Then there would be nothing to complain about. Make everything exactly the same and one color. That way there will be less people getting bent over "fairness".

\

I'm not sure I follow. Are you implying that that's what's at the end of the road if we suggest that similarly situated people be treated in a similar manner?

[audtatious]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you implying that that's what's at the end of the road if we suggest that similarly situated people be treated in a similar manner?

Nope. Just saying if everyone had the exact same thing you would not have issues with fairness.......Except those who don't like to have what everyone else has, but who cares.

I guess my real point is that no matter what you do someone is going to get bent over it.

[audtatious]

Maybe a large reason why I don't want gay marriage is because I do not want my kids to be taught that it is right.

But there are some who think you are teaching them wrong if you do not teach your kids to be accepting of everyone. That's my main problem with liberal schools systems teaching kindergarten kids about gay relationships and such along with some of the other agendas.

[krimsonviper]

But there are some who think you are teaching them wrong if you do not teach your kids to be accepting of everyone.

While that may be true, I'm not going to teach them to hate and be hostile about it.

It's hard to put this into words.

Maybe the best I can put it is "Love thy neighbor."

That's my main problem with liberal schools systems teaching kindergarten kids about gay relationships and such along with some of the other agendas.

I agree. The school system shouldn't teach a kid personality. A school is for learning mathematics, english, literature, history and science. The socializing should be kept to the parents and the child's personal experiences in life.

[C-Kwik]

Religion is a major factor for me, and as a result I will vote for Prop 8. Yes we are created equal, but, to me, isn't appropriate and therefore shouldn't continue (please dont attack me for this, its my opinion and nothing you say or do will change it and nothing will change but get this thread locked or deleted). I dont hate my neighbor for doing this, in fact I'll accept you as a person regardless of how you live YOUR life, but that doesn't mean i approve it.

I'm going to preface this by saying we should not take this down a path of religion for the sake of the rules of this forum. But I'd ask you to ponder one thing:

I consider myself non-religious. Despite growing up in a Christian household, I just simply do not believe. But should my belief that there is no god be a reason for me to push a law through that would put limitations or a ban on practicing your religion? The freedom of religion encompasses those that do not practice a religion either. Imposing a law that is spawn out of anyone's religion is essentially forcing some aspect of your religion onto everyone else. I'm sure you would protest if some other religion was forced onto you in some way.

The 2nd reason why I dont like it in my state is because the Gov. and the supreme court over turned our decision to ban gay marriage. The majority of the people did not want it, so why did they go against our wishes? To gain support in politics. A dirty trick, but it's a trick I've been seeing alot lately and something thats always been around in politics and as a result I'd like this proposition to be a sort of "spit in the face gov'na!"

I live in CA. It wasn't my decision to ban gay marriage. Please don't speak broadly of what it is CA supposedly wanted.

3rd reason is I see it affecting(sp?) kids train of thought. They will look at homosexuality as a cure to not interact with the different sex because they are too afraid. Alot of gay and lesbian couple are gay and lesbian because it's easier for them to be that way, meaning they aren't really gay. It's a trend and while it may make them happy, it might not be who they really are.

Homosexuals face plenty of persecution. I doubt its "easier" to be gay. In fact, until we had the level of acceptance we do now, most stayed in the closet or tried to live straight lives. Yet, many left their significant other at some point when they figured out they were lying to themselves.

4th is doesn't this effect our economy, tax wise? dont married couple get a tax break because they have a family or can create kids? Granted lesbian couples can have kids because of our oh so useful sperm banks, but what about gay men? They get a tax break because why...?

So are you saying they are not entitled to the same tax breaks as hetero couples? My GF's cousin had to adopt a child as she and her husband could not successfully have one on their own. Are you saying she is not entitled to tax breaks that other families are?

I dont agree with gay marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because its how nature intended life. If it wasn't then why don't we have both sexual reprodutive organs? Hetero's produce kids, I believe that because of that specialty, it should be honored with a sacred tradition-marriage, and should be kept as such.

When did "nature" define a marriage?

Besides, if you have to show your "ultimate love" to another person through marriage, than I think there is something wrong in the relationship. There are couples out there that love each other and proclaim each other as their soulmate, yet they don't get married. MANY will view them as having a problem.

Ok then, why not propose a law to ban all marriages outside of religion? Good luck with that one.

I think the largest problem with this entire debate is the use of words.

I agree. There is a high degree of semantics in this debate. Marriage is nothing more than a word. A form of communication. As I stated before. A marriage is defined by the couple that enters into it.

I've questioned this myself, and I am for the government staying out of "marriage." Marriage is the union of a man and woman, as created by religions thousands of years ago - that's a fact. Marriage serves as a union for the purposes of procreation and fostering a loving relationship between said man and woman in which each partner can best see the face of God in one another, and this can be exemplyfied by numerous christian theologians from as early as about the 9th century on...

I'd love to see historical references to back up that claim. Considering that most claim that the origins of Marriage predate any reliable historical evidence.

Here is an article that might be of interest to those who would like to see some historical info. Keep in mind its not a research paper, but a historian's response to Mitt Romney on the issue of Hetero Marriage being a "tradition":

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

My opinion is this - remove the word "marriage." Marriage is a religious term, designed to do what I explained above. Everyone in the US should have access to a "Unionship," or some other term of the like. Marriage should be reserved for those that obtain a religious ceremony, but in the eyes of the government, they should be a "union", regarless if they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Tax breaks should be provided to anyone that has a legal claim to this "union," and the religious term "marriage" should have no dealing with anything that the government does.

Noble to think that way, but highly unrealistic as it then becomes another semantical argument between the religious and the non-religious.

I hope this post doesn't violate the "no religion" rule.

To be fair, I find myself struggling not to at least discuss religion on this particular topic. Given the issue, I think it would be hard to truly discuss it without some aspect of religious discussion as many arguments for the ban are religiously based. Feel free to let me know if anything I've said so far bothers anyone.

Maybe a large reason why I don't want gay marriage is because I do not want my kids to be taught that it is right. Maybe not so some, who is quickly becoming a larger part of the community, it is OK to be gay, but to me I was raised as it not being ok.

That's where it becomes your choice to teach your kids. But keep in mind, ultimately, it becomes their decision what they choose to believe.

I'm sure many of you agree with me, and if this law doesn't pass, it will be taught to them that being gay will be ok. Meaning more and more people with be gay, or bi-sexual.

I fully accept people who are homosexual. Its not like I am suddenly becoming gay as a result. Its not contagious. Its absurd to think otherwise. Perhaps you should have an open discussion about how your gay friends became gay. It might actually be enlightening.

I have always thought of marriage as being a strictly hetero thing. I wasn't taught, it's just something I've always been around, and it seems to be that a large majority agree with me, so it is apparent that we are not ready for gay marriages.

I'll just try and quote best I can an inspirational poster I saw yesterday:

"Just because something has been done a certain way for a very long time, doesn't make it any less stupid."

Please don't consider this as any kind of an insult. I can apply it to many things in life and it just seemed appropriate in the sense that I want to provoke further thought. If you want to consider this in the context of marriage, look up dower and dowry. Research the reasons people were married throughout history. One of the last things you'll actually see on the list is love. Perhaps that should have never changed either. Perhaps we should have not been able to choose who we marry either as that was a norm throughout history as well. Marriage as we know it today is quite different than it was throughout history. No person can claim any right to tradition here...

*Sorry for the long post, my schedule is pretty hectic and I wanted to respond to many of the posts. I didn't want to overrun the thread with multiple posts.*

[krimsonviper]

I live in CA. It wasn't my decision to ban gay marriage. Please don't speak broadly of what it is CA supposedly wanted.

I am simply going by what californians had passed in the past, then the courts/politicians reversed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ornia

So are you saying they are not entitled to the same tax breaks as hetero couples? My GF's cousin had to adopt a child as she and her husband could not successfully have one on their own. Are you saying she is not entitled to tax breaks that other families are?

Not at all. I am saying gay males shouldn't because they can't procreate because they aren't suppose to(wow, that came out really wrong, but you get what I mean).

When did "nature" define a marriage?

It never did, but nature gave us seperate male and female organs, without the ability to give birth without the opposite sex. Us, human beings, made marriage.

Ok then, why not propose a law to ban all marriages outside of religion? Good luck with that one.

This would solve alot of credit problems, and it might also save alot of mental anguish on the kids that rise from failed families.

That's where it becomes your choice to teach your kids. But keep in mind, ultimately, it becomes their decision what they choose to believe.

Indeed it does, but I will love them regardless. I expect every parent to accept their child even when the child takes a job the parent doesnt like or disagrees with them on some subjects or lifestyles. You can only guide them so far, but the decision is the childs.

I fully accept people who are homosexual. Its not like I am suddenly becoming gay as a result. Its not contagious. Its absurd to think otherwise. Perhaps you should have an open discussion about how your gay friends became gay. It might actually be enlightening.

I have and it is indeed enlightening. As for contagious, it might be to some aspect. It's the same way I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman, its something I've always seen and accepted as "correct"

I'll just try and quote best I can an inspirational poster I saw yesterday:

"Just because something has been done a certain way for a very long time, doesn't make it any less stupid."

Please don't consider this as any kind of an insult. I can apply it to many things in life and it just seemed appropriate in the sense that I want to provoke further thought.

That's a very good quote. Seriously. And I don't take anything people say in here as an insult, unless they start ignorantly blabbing hateful, spiteful things.

If you want to consider this in the context of marriage, look up dower and dowry. Research the reasons people were married throughout history. One of the last things you'll actually see on the list is love. Perhaps that should have never changed either. Perhaps we should have not been able to choose who we marry either as that was a norm throughout history as well. Marriage as we know it today is quite different than it was throughout history. No person can claim any right to tradition here...

That's a bit of knowledge I'm going to store away for future arguments, or just good to know. (Not being sarcastic)

*Sorry for the long post, my schedule is pretty hectic and I wanted to respond to many of the posts. I didn't want to overrun the thread with multiple posts.*

It's K
Modified by krimsonviper at 5:42 AM 10/28/2008

[marlin29311]

I agree. There is a high degree of semantics in this debate. Marriage is nothing more than a word. A form of communication. As I stated before. A marriage is defined by the couple that enters into it.

I'd love to see historical references to back up that claim. Considering that most claim that the origins of Marriage predate any reliable historical evidence.

lol, naturally I do my Nico'ing at work, and don't have my old text/work books from college where I took a class on Christian Marriage. When I get home I'll scurry around for it and try to post the references I was talking about. The definition of marriage has not changed much since those times in terms how how the Church feels about marriage - however, it has been perverted by our culture and somewhat changed in the eyes of the general public. If you were to talk to a Christian theologian about what marriage is and what it means, you would get a completely different answer that what you might think - it's mostly along the lines of what I was brushing upon, but I stopped because I did not want to get into religion too much.

Ok then, why not propose a law to ban all marriages outside of religion? Good luck with that one.

This is my idea. Again, the problem is the wording - marriage is a religious term, and it is unfortunate that it has been sucked into the secular world and used here. We need to discuss "unions" or something the like - a word that does not contain religious connotations; something that is completely neutral - which is what the government should be. Anyone would be allowed to enter into a "union" with one another, and the word "marriage" would be preserved and used in a religious context - the way it was intended to be used. In older civilizations that had more theocratic overtones this was not an issue, as the religion and the state were closely intertwined, but in the civilization that we live in today, it is vastly different.

People that get "married" in my idea are still considered a "union" by the state, just like anyone else. "Married" is simply a reference that connotates that a couple has been joined or bound by the theology of a religion. Everyone gets the same benefits from the state, and the sanctity of sacred religious traditions is upheld at the same time.

However, this removes the "glamour" of a wedding for many people. Why do women wear white at a wedding? It is supposed to represent purity and chastity - 2 things that almost no one has going into a wedding anymore. Women use it now as an excuse to wear a lavish gown that they pay way to much for and will only wear once. As I eluded to before, the notion of marriage has been perverted by our society (and the global society as well) to the point where the original purpose has changed in common society. When religions get irked at what's happening, they're doing it rightfully so - someone took their tradition and changed it into what they wanted it to be, not what it was supposed to be...

[audtatious]

The problem with changing the legal use of the term marriage to be union will not give these groups what they are looking for. They see "marriage" as being morally justified and union as not. They are seeking perceived approval and not just similar benefits.

[HashiriyaS14]

They are seeking perceived approval and not just similar benefits.

See, and I disagree.

At some point, it WILL be enough. I think that point would be renaming ALL "marriages" as "unions", hetero and h0m0 alike, in the eyes of the law.

Then they'd be as free to start their own churches and get their own "marriages" just like hetero couples can, totally separated from the state.

They are not out to get you, lol.

[marlin29311]

The problem with changing the legal use of the term marriage to be union will not give these groups what they are looking for. They see "marriage" as being morally justified and union as not. They are seeking perceived approval and not just similar benefits.

I agree in a sense, considering the fact that the term has been perverted for so long that people don't understand that the true meaning behind it really is. If everyone that wanted a "marriage" really knew where it came from, I think this would be a completley different discussion, but since our culutre has changed the definition to fit our own purpose, this is difficult. Hell, there are hetero couples out there that are not "married" in my opinion....

[audtatious]

See, and I disagree.

At some point, it WILL be enough. I think that point would be renaming ALL "marriages" as "unions", hetero and h0m0 alike, in the eyes of the law.

Then they'd be as free to start their own churches and get their own "marriages" just like hetero couples can, totally separated from the state.

While I honestly could care less if the Gov called it dog ****, there are people who have a traditionalist meaning to the term marriage (Traditionalist /=historic). So while there is no impact to you or to the gays or to some others, there is an impact to these people who feel they are being forced to accept and adapt when they don't want to. They feel they are being persecuted for Christmas and religious beliefs more and more each year. You simply dismiss it because to you it's "nothing" and the minute percentage of gays want something that is being kept from them so we must be lenient to their sexual preferences.

I've stated before that I don't care if the Gov drops it all together or renames it a union. If I were to get married again for some reason I'd do it in a church regardless of any benefits I may or may not receive out of a stupid state-sponsored marriage license. Of course, doing such in a church without allowing the gays to do it too will lead to lawsuits and claims of discrimination. You can dismiss that all you want.

They are not out to get you, lol.

That's right, if you are against the gay agenda then you hate gays and are a homophobe. I'll walk right over to my sisters house and tell her and her "partner" that I'm a homophobe. She'd laugh her butt off.

I'm on the fence about most religious and gay rights decisions because I can see both sides of the equation. Just because I argue for one side should not fool you into thinking I support that particular viewpoint. I simply see it whereas you don't.

[krimsonviper]

I'll walk right over to my sisters house and tell her and her "partner"

PICS!

just kidding, this topic is ratherly tense and i figured it could use some humor, just to ease things like bottle of KY.

[marlin29311]

ratherly

I'll be sure to call up websters to have them add this word to the dictionary There's the humor for ya

[smockers83]

Its usually the Oxford Dictionary that adds words to the English language. Ratherly is already word though.