I Solved the Gay Marriage Problem

[Laron Burgundy]

I agree with the OP on this. I'm pretty sure every reasonable person comes to this same conclusion. As to why this is not in the forefront of the debate I do not know. All one church has to do is say gay marriage is part of their beliefs and the government will cave on the issue altogether due to freedom of religion. It's the same way as how the government lets pacifists avoid war, even during a draft. Government should have gotten out of the business of marriage a long time ago. A religious institution mixed with government just spells bad news.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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?

I agree. However, I heard Jesse Ventura propose this at least a year ago, and I thought "wow, what a great idea."

But yes, it is the appropriate answer in my view as well.

[ACW]

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.

First of all, that's not gov't's role.

2nd, :rotflmao: looking to CONGRESS to legislate fiscally sound policy? CONGRESS? :rotflmao:

[LaxBuddy21]

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

Its just the difference between getting married in a church and at the courthouse now. One is a religious ceremony and the other is not. Both would be recognized as civil unions but the religious one could further be called a marriage.

[gbear]

hmmm. So 5 years ago I was married by a minister of the Church of Universal Life outside by a lake near Baltimore. The minister was/is my sister in-law who filled out the applicaiton on-line to be a minister just so she could marry us. She was one of my best friends in college and after. We couldn't decide whose side of hte aisle she belonged, so we put her in the middle.

I wonder how many people on this board think I'm just in a civil union or even not married (just a civil union?)?:hysterical: I guess it's a good thing my marriage doesn't depend on those who only believe a marriage is real if it's done in a church.

Having read the Church of Universal Life's documentation, I doubt they would be against homosexual marriage. Is it any church's beliefs that is holding us up, or do we need just one to perform the ceremony? There have been other churches beforming ceremonies...and at least one church split up over the issue.

[Predicto]

IsleHawg, I may just be being dense, but I still don't understand your concerns.

I think we may just be reading the OP differently.

[dockeryfan]

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?

Why do you need an actual verse from the bible? To me, marriage means a bond between man and woman before the eyes of God. To most of humanity throughout history it has meant something similar. Across different faiths and different cultures. I don't need to justify to you or anyone else with bible verse.

If we want to give gay couples rights under law defining the partnership, I really don't have a problem. They can have civil unions, get them dissolved, pay alimony, child support, etc. They can get insurance benefits for their partners, etc.

I just think it flies in the face of history to call it marriage. Just call it something else.

[Larry]

Why do you need an actual verse from the bible? To me, marriage means a bond between man and woman before the eyes of God. To most of humanity throughout history it has meant something similar. Across different faiths and different cultures. I don't need to justify to you or anyone else with bible verse.

If we want to give gay couples rights under law defining the partnership, I really don't have a problem. They can have civil unions, get them dissolved, pay alimony, child support, etc. They can get insurance benefits for their partners, etc.

I just think it flies in the face of history to call it marriage. Just call it something else.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Smoot. (And which he hasn't answered.)

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?

[ljs]

Why do you need an actual verse from the bible? .

Thank you for your response. I ask because time and time again I hear people saying that is how it is defined in the bible, but yet can not show me where.

See, your opinoin of it is just that, an opinion. And while I respect your opinon, I disagree. I don't beleive the bible defined it, I believe certain people defined it. But who gave them the right to define it? There are multiple meanings of words in all languages, especially the English Language.

We rely on Webster's dictionary for definitions, but who the hell gave Webster the keys to all word meanings?

Example, when I was in school the word "ain't" was not in a dictionary, so we were always taught that is wasn't a real word. Well now it is in the Webster dictionary and it has a definition. So who got to make that decision? Why can't we just say "ain't isn't word becuase all throughout history it has never been a word."

When you say "gay", you probably mean homosexual. When most teenagers say "gay", they mean stupid or idiotic. When my grandma says the word "gay", it means to be happy. So who is right?

who gets to decide what "marriage" actually means?

[ACW]

To most of humanity throughout history it has meant something similar. Across different faiths and different cultures. I don't need to justify to you or anyone else with bible verse.

:bsflag:

[isle-hawg]

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?

My 19 year old (with an infant) daughter got married 2 weeks ago to the father, due to perceived pressure (not coming at all from me). I advised against if for strictly pragmatic reasons as I could cover her medical and dental expenses under my coverage which is excellent through my job so long as she remained in school. Now she's got no coverage and less eligible for any public assistance which to date she refused to apply for any. Hopefully her and the baby will never get sick. Figure the odds of that...

[Larry]

My 19 year old (with an infant) daughter got married 2 weeks ago to the father, due to perceived pressure (not coming at all from me). I advised against if for strictly pragmatic reasons as I could cover her medical and dental expenses under my coverage which is excellent through my job so long as she remained in school. Now she's got no coverage and less eligible for any public assistance which to date she refused to apply for any. Hopefully her and the baby will never get sick. Figure the odds of that...

And if the government gets out of the religion business, this will change how?

[isle-hawg]

And if the government gets out of the religion business, this will change how?

I don't want the govt in the religion business.:doh: We obviously have a failure to communicate.

[jnhay]

I don't understand why people are so against gay marriage. What's so sacred about being legally married?

[dockeryfan]

To me, marriage means a bond between man and woman before the eyes of God. To most of humanity throughout history it has meant something similar. Across different faiths and different cultures.

:bsflag:

So you think marriage, by and large, throughout history, has not meant a union between a man and woman. What planet do you live on?

And Larry, the idea of life beginning at birth is not so much a tradition as an accepted truth or value.

Marriage has a role in the social fabric. It's not just an event, in many cultures it signifies becoming part of the community, taking a leadership role in your community, procreating to further the future of that community, etc. That may not be how people see it here, but in a lot of cultures and communities that's how it works.

I've already stated that I have no problem with the legalization of gay civil unions. You can have all the rights granted to me under law, and I'm fine with it. Just call it something different, because it is different.

[Toe Jam]

I can haz gay marriage?

[Larry]

And Larry, the idea of life beginning at birth is not so much a tradition as an accepted truth or value.

I suspect that, now days, an awful lot of people would disagree with you.

[Smoot Point Really]

Which has nothing to do with my first sentence.

I answered your question... It's not my fault you can't understand the answer.

I have no problem agreeing with the "ancient tradition" concerning the definition of life... I just don't agree with you that people used to believe that life began at birth. You think people actually believed a non-living being was "growing" inside a pregnant woman's tummy? Or maybe she was just getting fatter and it appeared on the day of birth... Thank heavens we have modern science to teach us that non-living fetuses are being formed and there is no moral conflict to destroy them, even if they are "born-alive". </sarc>

Basically, you put forward a point that had no basis in fact. When I gave you an answer that included an early Christian manuscript that talks about the sins of those who terminate their pregnancies early using poisons (The Didache), you pretended that I owed you more on the subject. If you provided a thoughtful and informed question of your own, maybe I'd spend more time debating the topic with you.

[ljs]

S

Just call it something different, because it is different.

No, not it is not different. How is the love and commitment between you and your wife any better than mine?

and this whole argument of "it's been that way for all of history"....well good thing that argument didn't prevent people from exploring a flat earth, or people realizing that the earth moved around the sun not vice versa....and glad that argument worked when we allowed black and white people to marry each other, or when the Mormons started to allow black people in their church and university, or when we allowed women to vote, or women in the military, or ended slavery, or allowed a woman to serve in the military when she had kids...Good thing no one wanted to invent electricity, hell we've used candles since the caveman why change now? Or invented the car, or airplane cause our feet have taken where we've wanted to go throughout history....

just glad we are sticking with any and every "tradition" because that is "the way it has been throughout all of time."

[ACW]

So you think marriage, by and large, throughout history, has not meant a union between a man and woman. What planet do you live on?

Not the way it currently is. See HERE via HERE.

[dockeryfan]

I suspect that, now days, an awful lot of people would disagree with you.

Yes, I agree, but you were comparing the two things. The beginning of life is something to be determined. Marriage is something to be experienced. I thought you were saying why take one tradition yet not another. My feeling is that they are two wholly different things.

[dockeryfan]

Not the way it currently is. See HERE via HERE.

Why don't you explain what you think those links show. My statement had to do with the historical definition of marriage, which you called BS.

[dockeryfan]

No, not it is not different.

Why would you think that marriage between a man and woman would be the same as a committed relationship between two men or two women?

How could it be?

And why is it necessary to lump them all together? Why is it necessary to call all these relationships the same thing?

[Larry]

I answered your question... It's not my fault you can't understand the answer.

No you didn't.

I pointed out that throughout recorded history, human life has begun at birth.

You told me that some first century church opposed abortion.

(If I'd claimed that historical societies had always endorsed abortion on demand, then you'd have had a devastating response. But that wasn't what I said.)

You want to claim that human societies have always believed "life begins at conception"?

Show me where Christians celebrate Jesus's conception. The religions who consider the place of his conception to be holy.

Show me some First Century cemeteries, where a pregnant woman is buried, and there's two names on the headstone. (Hers and her "unborn child".)

Show me the societies where, when a fetus is stillborn, they have a funeral for the (unborn) child that died.

Show me the ancient society that measured a person's age starting at his conception. The one where fetuses are given names. The one where people commemorate aging by celebrating the anniversary of their conception. The one where, when a pregnant woman is killed, someone gets prosecuted for two counts of murder.

Show me the IMDB entry for that classic film Conception of a Nation.

I have no problem agreeing with the "ancient tradition" concerning the definition of life... I just don't agree with you that people used to believe that life began at birth. You think people actually believed a non-living being was "growing" inside a pregnant woman's tummy? Or maybe she was just getting fatter and it appeared on the day of birth... Thank heavens we have modern science to teach us that non-living fetuses are being formed and there is no moral conflict to destroy them, even if they are "born-alive". </sarc>

I've stated a fact. Societies marked human life as beginning with a person's birth.

Deal with that. Instead of trying to invent things I haven't said, so you can make fun of how stupid the things you've said are.

Basically, you put forward a point that had no basis in fact. When I gave you an answer that included an early Christian manuscript that talks about the sins of those who terminate their pregnancies early using poisons (The Didache), you pretended that I owed you more on the subject. If you provided a thoughtful and informed question of your own, maybe I'd spend more time debating the topic with you.

So far, you haven't started.

You've tried to change the question.

It's not working.

[maxiumone]

What I can't understand is why the HELL do Christians worry about this? Live your life like you want and do not judge others lifestyle whether you feel it is a choice or not.

It is not for you to decide it is for their maker period to decide. (Last time I check there is something in that bible all like not judging others)

The ONLY area that this should be an issue in AMERICA is in the churches that do not agree with this lifestyle.

I have been a person that did not agree with gays and lesbians but have come to the conclusions that this is not something I need to worry about because it is their choose not mine.

All groups should be provide equal rights under the law

And don't give me the crap of next we will be dog and people getting married