This gives me great joy...

---

there's nothing wrong with it but it seems the word "equal" has seen varying interpretations during many of these discussions.

If gays were given civil unions where they were given the same priviledges as heterosexual couples, I think you would have a much higher acceptance rate and eliminate a majority of the arguements against gay marriage.

Lolz...reminds me of one of my fave W&G episodes...Will:"Hurry up. We have to be at Tom and Larry's ceremony in an hour."Grace:"Yeah, I can't beleive they're getting married."W:"It's not so much a marriage as a same sex union with the same rights and priveleges afforded to a marriage."G:"(laugh). So when's they're honeymoon?"W:"It's not so much a honeymoon as a same sex trip with the same rights afforded to a honeymoon."But I see exactly where you're coming from, sdp. I'd be just as happy, if states granted the same rights, etc. under the name civil union, as much as I would marriage. That's what I think it's all about. Not the right to be married, but just to be joined together, the same as het. couples have it.

I agree, bob. I second the vote for an open discussion, without any name-calling, or putting down, etc.

Stirring up so more trouble, eh Chance?  Originally Posted By: LuvMyCatsI agree, bob. I second the vote for an open discussion, without any name-calling, or putting down, etc.Keep dreaming my friend. I'd be the third person to jump on that band wagon but it doesn't seem to happen. Like Mr. U said, some people take these things to heart. Maybe even too much.It would be an interesting discussion to read though...

yes.
As I've said before, it really falls into a semantic argument about ownership of a single word, "marriage"

Gays don't want a "civil union", they want a "marriage".

Opponents will often accept a "civil union", as long as it isn't called "marriage"

Proponents of "the traditional definition of marriage" haven't called for a ban on the Food Network when so many show hosts describe a "marriage" of flavors.

it's all a bit stupid, isn't it

I think a large part of the problem is that there are differing ideas about what a marriage is. For a Christian, which is where the concept of marriage began in this country, it involves God. God considers the homosexual act an abomination (His words, not mine), and so would never be a part of a gay "marriage". To change the definition of the word would, ipso facto, means that God now approves of gay marriages...which is bullcrap. So, to change the definition of the word means the government is now violating the concept of the separation between church and state. The state has no right to change the definition of the word that was created many years before this country (or any) was even here. That this country chooses to recognize the bond of marriage through various financial benefits is another matter. If the government wishes to do the same for gay couples, I really don't give a hoot. According to a lot of gays, the financial benefits are all they care about...but if the was really the case, the activists would have suggested the idea of a civil union a long time ago. They never have...which suggests that they're not as interested in the financial benefits as they are in some sort of validation they believe they can achieve through changing the defintion of the word "marriage". The other possibility is that they are attacking marriage directly for the purposes of undermining the authority of the Christian church. Take your pick...but one or the other is true.You don't alter to the focus of the camera to make the wrong move seem right. Changing the definition of the word will not change the meaning of it...it will only serve to confuse the generations that follow as to what marriage is really all about (to a Christian). That is the biggest negative effect of it, in my mind. God created a woman to be a man's partner...not another man. I want my daughter to understand this clearly when she grows up...not recieve a lot of mixed messages just to make a minority of the population feel validated about what they know is wrong...(otherwise why would they need to seek validation for it?)Anyway...that's my take on it. For a non-Christian, I can understand why they don't see what the big deal is. But to them, marriage is not the same thing as it is to me. And if "moving forward" means forgetting the past and all the lessons learned, then I think it's a stupid idea...and that in reality, it's actually moving backwards.

Originally Posted By: sdpIf gays were given civil unions where they were given the same priviledges as heterosexual couples, I think you would have a much higher acceptance rate and eliminate a majority of the arguements against gay marriage. And as I have said many times I would be happy with a Civil Union, but no one is offering us that now are they? Also there was a time when the gay community was trying to obtain Civil Unions and were denied, so we focused back on getting equal rights under the word marriage, and now that we have 5-6 states that have legalized same-sex marriage I don't see many people stepping back now and accepting Civil Unions.Problem is people are threatened by the though of homosexuals being their "equal" because they have this idea that we are deviants, that we choose this "lifestyle" etc. Really when it comes down to it people need to mind their own business and stop trying to tell people how to live their life. It just boggles the mind that people feel the need to control and deny other people rights when it doesn't affect them in the least.

Thank you for that Thor. I think that I actually understand your view on the matter AND agree with it. Although personally I see marriage being the same as civil union with just a little more flair, to you and I presume to a lot of people it is a deeply held religious tradition and is therefore up to the religion to decide on whether to perform and/or recognise the marriage.

As a legal matter, religion obviously has no say, just as the government has no say on the religious aspect of it. If homosexual couples want the financial and social advantages that the government gives heterosexual couples then they are fully entitled to it. If they want some form of recognition within certain religions then the argument has to be brought up with the religion itself.

Education, the great majority of which is government controlled, cannot then support or teach religious views on homosexuality. Education, science especially, is not decided on by majority. Just because, hypothetically, the majority of parents in the South didn't want their children to learn about slavery and the horrible things that their ancestors did in the past, it shouldn't influence that being taught. So homosexuality, being seen by science as normal and nothing completely out of the ordinary or wrong, should be taught as such in schools.

If you disagree with it then you can choose for your children not to engage in that particular lesson or send your child to a private school that supports your personal religious views, but a public school cannot support it. Your religion says that homosexuality is wrong and I'm fine with that, but biology and social science all say that its normal and that is what schools should be teaching.

You can of course have your say in when your child receives this education, just as with sexual education. You know your child best so you should know when it is right for them to learn this. But to me, personally, to hold back your child from learning something because your religious views solely disagree with it is intellectually dishonest.

What do you think about the proposition that government get out of the marriage business all together. Leave it, as far as the government is concerned, that the coupling of two lives is merely a legal contract and treated as such. Reserve "marriage" for societal and ceremonial functions.

Originally Posted By: RadThe goal is to have the same rights as everyone else.They already have that. They want to change the concept of "rights"...but they can't play the "victim" card if they approach it that way. Quote:To say it's financial is a slap in the face.Only echoing what I've been told on the matter by several gay folks. Quote:Not just marriage and/or civil unions, but the acceptance of gay people by society in general is crucial to gay people finding and choosing a partner in a normal manner.In other words, validation by society. But since marriage is God's domain, people can never validate it...so your cause is lost from the beginning, in that regard. And if you take God out of it, it's no longer a marriage anyway...so we're back to square one. Quote:I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do believe that making us all equal under the law, having all the rights and privileges and subject to all the rules as everybody else, is the only way that will benefit everybody. Once again, we already are all equal under the law. Gay activists want the law changed.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksWhat do you think about the proposition that government get out of the marriage business all together. Leave it, as far as the government is concerned, that the coupling of two lives is merely a legal contract and treated as such. Reserve "marriage" for societal and ceremonial functions. Reducing marriage to nothing more than a legal contract is just as bad. Why don't you just call it a legal contract (if that's what you want between yourself and another) and avoid messing with marriage and the way government treats it at all? I mean if that's all it is to you, why not?

You would still have "marriage." It would just be a word reserved for church and society at large. It would be outside of the realm of government interference to define, defile or change. Would you feel any less different if after the priest or minister says "you are now man and wife" the document you gave the government said "union" or "contract?" Would it really matter what the government's paperwork said?

Quote: For a Christian, which is where the concept of marriage began in this country, it involves God. God considers the homosexual act an abomination (His words, not mine), and so would never be a part of a gay "marriage". First, don't speak for all Christians. Many Christians, straight and gay, believe Marriage is between two people who love each other; they don't class it as between and man and a woman. ALSO if you look at the original definition of marriage it was simply stated it was a union before two people who love each other. It wasn't until many many years later that it was changed to "Between a man and a woman" because it fit the “Christian Agenda”.Also, Homosexuality was only called an "abomination" in the Old Testament, but as we have talked about before there are many things classed as an Abomination in the Old Testament that I am sure you do regularly, but yet you so easily dismiss. But when Jesus gave his life for us, all sins became equal. There is no such sins that are considered an abomination anymore, all things regardless of severity are equal and just as equally forgivable. Don’t pick and choose what you wish to class as an Abomination… it’s all or nothing.  Quote:To change the definition of the word would, ipso facto, means that God now approves of gay marriages...which is bullcrap. Why not change the definition; the Christian Church did to suit their agenda. Again do some research and you might be surprised to learn that the original text said nothing about gender, but just two people who love each other.  Quote:So, to change the definition of the word means the government is now violating the concept of the separation between church and state. The state has no right to change the definition of the word that was created many years before this country (or any) was even here. That this country chooses to recognize the bond of marriage through various financial benefits is another matter. If the government wishes to do the same for gay couples, I really don't give a hoot. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want the legal system changing what you feel is sacred than it needs to be removed from the legal system. Because as you said, there is to be a separation of Church and State, which obviously there can never be if the State continues to uphold a religious sanction. So, lets remove Marriage from the legal system and put it back into the Churches hands and have it as a separate ceremony for Christians just as other religions have their separate ceremonies after being legally married through the state. Therefore everyone, through the eyes of the law, goes through a Civil Union where after everyone has the right to their own RELIGIOUS observation of their union.  Quote: According to a lot of gays, the financial benefits are all they care about...but if the was really the case, the activists would have suggested the idea of a civil union a long time ago. They never have...which suggests that they're not as interested in the financial benefits as they are in some sort of validation they believe they can achieve through changing the defintion of the word "marriage". Wrong wrong wrong... do your research. There was a push and a fight for Civil Unions years ago, but we were denied that as well. Again it wouldn't matter what we call it, there will always be bigots who wish to deny us on every ground before even remotely called us their equals. Again, last thing I am looking for from you or anyone like you is validation. Regardless what you might think, I could give a rats booty what you think about my sexuality and me. My wanting for marriage has absolutely nothing to do with what you think about me, it has to do with having equal rights and protections under the law. What I don't understand is I don't give a damn about your sexuality, why do you care so much about mine?  Quote: The other possibility is that they are attacking marriage directly for the purposes of undermining the authority of the Christian church. Take your pick...but one or the other is true.Neither is true, way to make an attempt to degrade the true meaning being homosexuals wanting equality. I think once you can put aside the fact we are not looking for validation or are we trying to attack the church you can possibly being to understand the true reasoning.  Quote: You don't alter to the focus of the camera to make the wrong move seem right. Changing the definition of the word will not change the meaning of it...it will only serve to confuse the generations that follow as to what marriage is really all about (to a Christian).I think the key words there, Thor, is "To a Christian" (And even than not all Christians believe this to be true). Why does everyone else in this country have to follow a Christian Guideline if they themselves are not Christian, especially when you said yourself there is to be a separation of Church and State? I still hold true to my idea above about removing the word Marriage from legal use and giving it back to the Church as a private ceremony like all other religions do.  Quote:God created a woman to be a man's partner...not another man. I want my daughter to understand this clearly when she grows up...not recieve a lot of mixed messages just to make a minority of the population feel validated about what they know is wrong...(otherwise why would they need to seek validation for it?) I have never objected to the fact that God created a woman to be a man's partner. I have even stated that biologically a Man and a Woman is what’s "supposed" to be, But it doesn't resolve the issue that gay people have been around as far back as history can track. It's not only in the human race; homosexuality is something that is found throughout the animal kingdom. Is it possibly a genetic mutation or something that were strangely wrong during gestation? Sure, but one thing I can tell you for absolute certain (whether you wish to accept it or not) it's not a choice.Now as for this "make a minority of the population feel validated about what they know is wrong".. I don't feel I am wrong. I feel this is simply how God made me. Maybe this is my trial in life that through the ridicule I still come out a good faithful man. Granted people like you make it hard for me to remain faithful, but I refuse to let ignorant people like yourself sway me away from my faith.  Quote:...(otherwise why would they need to seek validation for it?) I could actually tell you where I'd like you to stick that validation... but since we are trying to be nice I'll just leave it to the imagination But I will say I hope through all you teach your daughter, you still teach her acceptance and understanding. A person should not be judged on something as personal as sexuality, especially when its not something a person can change. Instead look past it and see the person for who they are, not what they are.

Originally Posted By: RadYou know, above and beyond any shadow of a doubt, you are merely making a lot of that up.We do not have the same rights as you: We can not marry the one we choose.That all depends upon who you choose. If I chose a man, or a married woman, then I couldn't marry them...and niether can you. If I choose an unmarried woman, all is good...same for you. Same rights...same laws. You want to change the laws so that men and women can marry each other. Again, that's called changing the laws/rights...not making anybody equal. There should be nothing in any laws of this land that says certain people have certain rights, while other do not. Quote:No gay person ever told you it was strictly financial (no other reason) and was speaking for all gay people. That is correct...just as you don't speak for all gay people.

"There should be nothing in any laws of this land that says certain people have certain rights, while other do not."If the law was changed you would have the right to go out and marry an unmarried man. You wouldn't be being denied any special right.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksWould you feel any less different if after the priest or minister says "you are now man and wife" the document you gave the government said "union" or "contract?" Would it really matter what the government's paperwork said? Of course it would matter. Because it is not a "union" or a "contract"...it is a marriage. And again, marriage is recognized by the government...not controlled by it.That's about all I'm going to say on the subject...I really just wanted to make my point of view clear. I'm bailing before this turns into just another poo-fling.

Again I will address this foolish statement of "gay people have equal rights".If a gay man wished to marry a woman… for whatever strange or deceiving reasons… sure he can do that. BUT what separates what you are trying to say, falls under normalcy. In a normal situation two people marry because they are in love and wish to share their lives together. This is something homosexual couples cannot do, which is a HUGE difference.Now even with that said, homosexuals are not looking for MORE rights. It’s called Same-Sex Marriage, so if two men wish to marry they can… regardless of sexual orientation. Just as now a man and a woman can marry, regardless of sexual orientation. So homosexuals would not have more rights as straight people when it comes to same-sex marriage; everything would still be quite equal.

Thor I really hope you read my long post.The only reason you are bailing is because you know we are making sense, especially when it comes to removing marriage from the law and giving it back to the Church as a ceremony just as every other religion has to do. Christianity should get no special privileges in this country over any other religion... and that’s coming from a Christian!!

I caught that and just chose to let it pass on the grounds that "country" as Thor is using it I think refers to a political institution of governance and not the country side.However I can assure you that there was plenty of marriage long before the great white fathers came and placed these unions under government regulation. In my tribe marriage was a social/sacred ceremony. Social first as in a societal agreement who's sacredness came in the vein of asking blessings upon this union from Grandpa (god). Same-sex marriages where not uncommon. In fact having one wife that was a man was looked on as a great advantage. Beyond that there was another ceremony that would take place between two men, or women, who were members of different households. The word for the male ceremony is the only one still known and it directly translates "closer than brothers." In this ceremony two men of different families would pledge their lives and love to each other in front of the family and community and sex was a given just as in the modern idea of marriage. It was a sanctioned relationship that took place outside the confines of the "home." While many would stare jaw agape at this today, it should be noted this ancient society also held cheating as one of the most treacherous things a person could inflict on another and penalties for cheating were socially devastating. Now having said all this none of it matters. We were godless heathens, still are, and there is nothing of value to be learned from us or any similar culture anywhere in the world.