I Solved the Gay Marriage Problem

[Smoot Point Really]

Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman (and has been for the course of recorded human history)... Homosexuality has existed for quite a long time too, but the definition of marriage was never challenged until recently. What have we learned in the last few decades that we didn't know before that would suddenly make it worthwhile to change the definition of marriage? This is not a hypothetical question... I'm just throwing it out there.

I agree with the original poster and it's an idea I've floated myself here. You basically have to treat the ceremony at the justice of the peace as a legal and binding contract between two people... nothing more.

[Larry]

Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman (and has been for the course of recorded human history)... Homosexuality has existed for quite a long time too, but the definition of marriage was never challenged until recently. What have we learned in the last few decades that we didn't know before that would suddenly make it worthwhile to change the definition of marriage? This is not a hypothetical question... I'm just throwing it out there.

And for the same period, a person's life began at his birth.

You feel the same way about respecting the sanctity of that ancient tradition?

[isle-hawg]

It doesn't discourage anyone from getting married. Quite the contrary.

Agree with above comment. It would however discourage some, from getting a legal civil union for tax, welfare eligibility or as a hedge for possible future divorce. Marriage would be a matter then only of the church so the state has no reason to recognize it.

[isle-hawg]

If you want legal benefits you have to file for a license.

You missed my point that for some young people with a child marriage currently is not a legal benefit it is a penalty.

[Larry]

You missed my point that for some young people with a child marriage currently is not a legal benefit it is a penalty.

And what that has to do with gay marriage is?

[PokerPacker]

Agree with above comment. It would however discourage some, from getting a legal civil union for tax, welfare eligibility or as a hedge for possible future divorce. Marriage would be a matter then only of the church so the state has no reason to recognize it.

so?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

No, it actually makes sense. Terminology matters sometimes. People who feel that their religious beliefs are separate and special in this area will get to say: "They may have a civil union, but they don't have a Baptist marriage as we understand it" and they will be correct. It will remove the (false but strongly held) fear among the right that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages or face anti-discrimination laws.

And gays who wish to do so can go be married by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Everyone wins.

But marriages aren't necessarily a religious ceremony or even in need of anything religious. And most likely, if we made all unions equal and required straight couples to undergo a 2nd ceremony in order to differentiate themselves from the "merely" civil-unioned (lol), then you may be insisting on those who are NOT relgious (but still opposed to gay marriages) to undergo a religious ceremony. Not to mention those who will feel the traditional institution of marriage is somehow devalued by having everything "downgraded" to civil union status...and you'd probably still have those gay couples who will feel as if being granted "married" status along with all the goverment benefits is the only real way of granting equality in this matter.

[isle-hawg]

And what that has to do with gay marriage is?

I was responding to the OP's proposal of having two different solutions one legal (unions) and one religious (marriage) as I understood it, and the dynamic (negative) affect it may have on the loss of tax revenue and increase burden for the state.

That to me is the negative the OP asked for a potential problem - I gave it as I saw it.

If we do as the OP suggests I would not be against if we also have a flat tax or national sales tax and eliminate the IRS. Then it does not matter from a fiscal standpoint whether one is "married" or part of a "civil union".

[Larry]

But marriages aren't necessarily a religious ceremony or even in need of anything religious. And most likely, if we made all unions equal and required straight couples to undergo a 2nd ceremony in order to differentiate themselves from the "merely" civil-unioned (lol), then you may be insisting on those who are NOT relgious (but still opposed to gay marriages) to undergo a religious ceremony. Not to mention those who will feel the traditional institution of marriage is somehow devalued by having everything "downgraded" to civil union status...and you'd probably still have those gay couples who will feel as if being granted "married" status along with all the goverment benefits is the only real way of granting equality in this matter.

Your point is that if the government treats everybody equally, then the folks who want to be better than the gays will go to church? And this is bad because?

[ljs]

Problem 1: Why do they want to get married in the first place? I and millions of others can easily testify it aint worth it!

that's what I've been saying. Most marriages end in divorce, so let's let the hetero's keep their oh holy sanctity of marriage...:doh:

I just don't want it called marriage. Marriage is between a husband and wife. Let a civil union be between two males or two females. I'd be fine with that.

I've asked this a million times, not just on ES..where in the bible does it say that? I want the actual verse please. Who made the rule?

Here is a down side for the state - read taxpayer as I see it with this approach. Heterosexuals can make babies on their own - Homosexuals cannot - whether intended or not.

.

actually, with all of the medical technology, homo's can have babies. AND you forgot about all of the hetero's who can't have kids. So then what? If you're hetero and infertile you can't get married?

You missed my point that for some young people with a child marriage currently is not a legal benefit it is a penalty.

True. Unwed mom= welfare. I think many would be surprised at how many couples don't get married b/c then the woman couldn't collect welfare. But then again, homo couples w/ kids can do the same thing, cause they aren't technically married. However, out of all the homo couples I know w/ kids, they all have good jobs and not on welfare.

[Larry]

I was responding to the OP's proposal of having two different solutions one legal (unions) and one religious (marriage) as I understood it, and the dynamic (negative) affect it may have on the loss of tax revenue and increase burden for the state.

That to me is the negative the OP asked for a potential problem - I gave it as I saw it.

If we do as the OP suggests I would not be against if we also have a flat tax or national sales tax and eliminate the IRS. Then it does not matter from a fiscal standpoint whether one is "married" or part of a "civil union".

You think it would encourage people to get "church married", but not fill out the government paperwork?

(I know it may look like I'm ridiculing you, because this post does resemble the way I respond to people who I suspect are trying to make an argument which they're ashamed to actually state, so they try to hint at it, instead. But in this case, I literally don't understand what your position is, and I'm trying to guess it.)

[Smoot Point Really]

And for the same period, a person's life began at his birth.

You feel the same way about respecting the sanctity of that ancient tradition?

Actually, I do feel the same way... since your first sentence is completely wrong. There is documented evidence that the Church was against women terminating their pregnancy in the 1st century (The Didache).

[Larry]

Actually, I do feel the same way... since your first sentence is completely wrong. There is documented evidence that the Church was against women terminating their pregnancy in the 1st century (The Didache).

Which has nothing to do with my first sentence.

[gbear]

Worth noting that the religous marriages and state unions are separate in places outisde of the U.S? I know my sister-in-law's marriage in Germany was a 2 parter. Do they divorce a comparable frequency?

[Larry]

Just pulling an opinion out of my Philly, but I'd assume that would depend on the other country, which ones they'd recognize.

(For example, I'd assume that most Muslim countries wouldn't recognize gay marriages, no matter which word the US uses.)

Edit.

Sorry. Mis-read your post. Thought you were asking "If the US separates marriage into civil and religious, how would foreign countries treat them?"

[isle-hawg]

You think it would encourage people to get "church married", but not fill out the government paperwork?

YES if it benefited the family financially which is why the politicians will not support it!!!! This is my point! Thank you for asking the question.

Also some will then get married/union to avoid taxes depending on thier particular situation with or without defendants what is best in their tax/entitlement interest.

One poster asks what's the problem? For those not paying attention the govt wants more money to pay for the TRILLIONS they are borrowing and spending that is the issue.

[PokerPacker]

One poster asks what's the problem? For those not paying attention the govt wants more money to pay for the TRILLIONS they are borrowing and spending that is the issue.

A person's rights should not be sacrificed because the government wants to pay for a bunch of unnecessary programs.

[isle-hawg]

I know it may look like I'm ridiculing you, because this post does resemble the way I respond to people who I suspect are trying to make an argument which they're ashamed to actually state, so they try to hint at it, instead. But in this case, I literally don't understand what your position is, and I'm trying to guess it.

I am not ashamed at all in my position. From a moral give a **** perspective I could care less who one "marries". One could marry their dog or cat I REALLY don't care REALLY!

I do think however it is incumbent on our legislature to encourage behavior among other things that is fiscally sound for the betterment of society in general.

If you or others still do not understand my point from all my posts in this thread I'll chalk it up to my failure to articulate it properly - I give up as I do not want to be more repetitive.

[grhqofb5]

I don't think this will solve our problems. Gays will then just try to get church-married. We have to go to the source of the problem to root it out.

Yes, that's right. Once we get rid or this enormous purple dog-like animal from our airwaves, our children will be turn gay on us, obviating the need for legislation.

Edit: Sorry if the pic is a little bit big, I can't fix the dumb thing. I will remove it if it becomes too much of a hot button issue.

[ThePreciating]

I don't think straight couples should need a second ceremony. A religious marriage should automatically make you a civil union. No problems.

[btfoom]

I have yet to find a flaw in this solution.

The state from now on will only perform civil unions between two people. No marriages. Any two people who want the legal bindings brought about by marriage need to get this civil union.

Marriages are handled by religious institutions only, and get no state recognition by themselves. Each religion can therefore set its own standard. The state will have no reason to intervene, since the state is only concerned with civil unions.

What's the problem with this approach?

Nice to know you are for brother/sister nuptuials. WVA salutes your foresight, my friend.

[Larry]

YES if it benefited the family financially which is why the politicians will not support it!!!! This is my point! Thank you for asking the question.

Also some will then get married/union to avoid taxes depending on thier particular situation with or without defendants what is best in their tax/entitlement interest.

One poster asks what's the problem? For those not paying attention the govt wants more money to pay for the TRILLIONS they are borrowing and spending that is the issue.

Uh, you are aware that people consider the financial implications before getting married, right now, aren't you? (Or at least, they should. I suppose that there are a few people out there who get married for reasons other than financial. )

In what way would this system be different?

[Larry]

I am not ashamed at all in my position. From a moral give a **** perspective I could care less who one "marries". One could marry their dog or cat I REALLY don't care REALLY!

I do think however it is incumbent on our legislature to encourage behavior among other things that is fiscally sound for the betterment of society in general.

If you or others still do not understand my point from all my posts in this thread I'll chalk it up to my failure to articulate it properly - I give up as I do not want to be more repetitive.

I seem to have mis-stated my meanings in the paragraph you quoted.

No, I'm not accusing you of being ashamed of your position. Mainly because I can't figure out what your position is. I'm simply asking for clarification.

[Larry]

I don't think straight couples should need a second ceremony. A religious marriage should automatically make you a civil union. No problems.

I think that's the way it is now. Get married in a church, and the Pastor/Rabi/Elvis Impersonator fills out the government paperwork for you. (Admitting that I don't know.)

[Larry]

Nice to know you are for brother/sister nuptuials. WVA salutes your foresight, my friend.

Nice to know you are opposed to interracial marriage. Alabama already agrees with you.

(Seemed appropriate, as long as we're congratulating people on off-topic things that they didn't say, and all.)