Unless I'm wrong the Bible acknowledges the existence of pre-Christian religions though. Christianity itself dates back just under 2,000 years because that's when they say Jesus was born. To the Bible that leaves a few thousand years where marriage was notr dictated by Christian beliefs, and for evolution that leaves howevermany thousands of years humans were around before then (20,000 or so?)

Yes, the Bible gives its version of marriage, and that may be the modern version, but regardless the concept existed in one form or another long before.

 

But belief systems should still be able to have their own say on what their marriages are. Have the Government as a 'public option'.

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha

 

No it doesn't. I'd want to marry even if I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want any civil unions, even if I got the same benefits. The church shouldn't dictate the term marriage. The church did not invent it, the church is not the only one to offer that, the church is not the one that should have monopoly over it. If any pastor doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, it's his right, but state and religion should be seperated, and that includes legal marriages.

Unless I'm wrong the Bible acknowledges the existence of pre-Christian religions though. Christianity itself dates back just under 2,000 years because that's when they say Jesus was born. To the Bible that leaves a few thousand years where marriage was notr dictated by Christian beliefs, and for evolution that leaves howevermany thousands of years humans were around before then (20,000 or so?)

Yes, the Bible gives its version of marriage, and that may be the modern version, but regardless the concept existed in one form or another long before.

 

But belief systems should still be able to have their own say on what their marriages are. Have the Government as a 'public option'.

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha

 

No it doesn't. I'd want to marry even if I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want any civil unions, even if I got the same benefits. The church shouldn't dictate the term marriage. The church did not invent it, the church is not the only one to offer that, the church is not the one that should have monopoly over it. If any pastor doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, it's his right, but state and religion should be seperated, and that includes legal marriages.

Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more. Fine, call it a legal marriage as well. It makes no difference to me if a Church retains the right to dictate the terms of its own marriage. I would scoff at the vanity of any gay who would complain over an equal civil union just because they don't like the term, as it would be purely distinctive.

Unless I'm wrong the Bible acknowledges the existence of pre-Christian religions though. Christianity itself dates back just under 2,000 years because that's when they say Jesus was born. To the Bible that leaves a few thousand years where marriage was notr dictated by Christian beliefs, and for evolution that leaves howevermany thousands of years humans were around before then (20,000 or so?)

Yes, the Bible gives its version of marriage, and that may be the modern version, but regardless the concept existed in one form or another long before.

 

But belief systems should still be able to have their own say on what their marriages are. Have the Government as a 'public option'.

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha

 

No it doesn't. I'd want to marry even if I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want any civil unions, even if I got the same benefits. The church shouldn't dictate the term marriage. The church did not invent it, the church is not the only one to offer that, the church is not the one that should have monopoly over it. If any pastor doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, it's his right, but state and religion should be seperated, and that includes legal marriages.

Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more. Fine, call it a legal marriage as well. It makes no difference to me if a Church retains the right to dictate the terms of its own marriage. I would scoff at the vanity of any gay who would complain over an equal civil union just because they don't like the term, as it would be purely distinctive.

 

Call it whatever you want. I just find it absurd that legal marriages are not something that exists on every democratic country.

Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more.

 

But then you'd be letting the Church win. Progress doesn't come easy.

 

Same logic applies with the argument 'But the kid will get crap from all the other kids because of his gay parents.'

 

Progress doesn't come easy. A hundred years ago, a white kid would have been mocked for having a black friend. Think about it.

Unless I'm wrong the Bible acknowledges the existence of pre-Christian religions though. Christianity itself dates back just under 2,000 years because that's when they say Jesus was born. To the Bible that leaves a few thousand years where marriage was notr dictated by Christian beliefs, and for evolution that leaves howevermany thousands of years humans were around before then (20,000 or so?)

Yes, the Bible gives its version of marriage, and that may be the modern version, but regardless the concept existed in one form or another long before.

 

But belief systems should still be able to have their own say on what their marriages are. Have the Government as a 'public option'.

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha

 

No it doesn't. I'd want to marry even if I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want any civil unions, even if I got the same benefits. The church shouldn't dictate the term marriage. The church did not invent it, the church is not the only one to offer that, the church is not the one that should have monopoly over it. If any pastor doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, it's his right, but state and religion should be seperated, and that includes legal marriages.

Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more. Fine, call it a legal marriage as well. It makes no difference to me if a Church retains the right to dictate the terms of its own marriage. I would scoff at the vanity of any gay who would complain over an equal civil union just because they don't like the term, as it would be purely distinctive.

 

Call it whatever you want. I just find it absurd that legal marriages are not something that exists on every democratic country.

First of all, there is no successful country that I have heard of that is purely democratic. Democracy is something that is purely idealist and cannot be used in a large scale as the state would become extremely partisan, populist and mobocratic. Secondly, I dislike how people try to associate democracy with a synonymous connotation to justice.

 

As for letting the churches win? It is no win for the churches. It is nominal. The blacks fought for rights that were deprived from them. Making the distinction between legal civil union and religious marriage would be simply for clarity of distinction and plainly nominal other then one being religious and the other associated with legal benefits.

Unless I'm wrong the Bible acknowledges the existence of pre-Christian religions though. Christianity itself dates back just under 2,000 years because that's when they say Jesus was born. To the Bible that leaves a few thousand years where marriage was notr dictated by Christian beliefs, and for evolution that leaves howevermany thousands of years humans were around before then (20,000 or so?)

Yes, the Bible gives its version of marriage, and that may be the modern version, but regardless the concept existed in one form or another long before.

 

But belief systems should still be able to have their own say on what their marriages are. Have the Government as a 'public option'.

That's kind of what I said. I said have the government give civil unions unbiasedly with the same benefits to any couples, then the churches and religious communities could dispense marriages. I don't know why someone disagreed, probably because it satisfies all parties >.> hahaha

 

No it doesn't. I'd want to marry even if I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want any civil unions, even if I got the same benefits. The church shouldn't dictate the term marriage. The church did not invent it, the church is not the only one to offer that, the church is not the one that should have monopoly over it. If any pastor doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, it's his right, but state and religion should be seperated, and that includes legal marriages.

Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more. Fine, call it a legal marriage as well. It makes no difference to me if a Church retains the right to dictate the terms of its own marriage. I would scoff at the vanity of any gay who would complain over an equal civil union just because they don't like the term, as it would be purely distinctive.

 

Call it whatever you want. I just find it absurd that legal marriages are not something that exists on every democratic country.

First of all, there is no successful country that I have heard of that is purely democratic. Democracy is something that is purely idealist and cannot be used in a large scale as the state would become extremely partisan, populist and mobocratic. Secondly, I dislike how people try to associate democracy with a synonymous connotation to justice.

 

As for letting the churches win? It is no win for the churches. It is nominal. The blacks fought for rights that were deprived from them. Making the distinction between legal civil union and religious marriage would be simply for clarity of distinction and plainly nominal other then one being religious and the other associated with legal benefits.

 

What I'm saying is marriage isn't always religious. People don't get married solely for the benefits. People marry because they love each-other. Calling their union a 'civil union' would be somewhat degrading.

First of all, there is no successful country that I have heard of that is purely democratic. Democracy is something that is purely idealist and cannot be used in a large scale as the state would become extremely partisan, populist and mobocratic. Secondly, I dislike how people try to associate democracy with a synonymous connotation to justice.

Democracy, by it's definition, combined with the logic behind same-sex marriage, should offer equal rights in that matter.

 

As for letting the churches win? It is no win for the churches. It is nominal. The blacks fought for rights that were deprived from them. Making the distinction between legal civil union and religious marriage would be simply for clarity of distinction and plainly nominal other then one being religious and the other associated with legal benefits.

 

Really? And if a white man's job was legally named "job", and a black person's job could not be called that, say it would be called, I don't know, daily-work, and both offered the exact same things, do you think there's nothing wrong with that? That it's okay not to allow blacks have jobs, only daily-works?

Names don't matter though. Before arguing that it's called such-and-such the priority should be to make sure that it actually is equal.

Hell, even if it was a civil union people would still call it a marriage. I can't think of people using a legal term in casual conversation when there's an easier word that means the same thing.

Names don't matter though. Before arguing that it's called such-and-such the priority should be to make sure that it actually is equal.

Hell, even if it was a civil union people would still call it a marriage. I can't think of people using a legal term in casual conversation when there's an easier word that means the same thing.

 

Names do matter. By calling it civil union, you're not helping homosexual acceptance into society.

Then it just becomes a brawl from rights over a nominal term, and that is just pathetic and is on the verge of being a child who wants more more more more. Fine, call it a legal marriage as well. It makes no difference to me if a Church retains the right to dictate the terms of its own marriage. I would scoff at the vanity of any gay who would complain over an equal civil union just because they don't like the term, as it would be purely distinctive.

Yes, how *dare* those "uppitty" gays object to being treated like second-class citizens, eh? Demanding equal rights and all!

 

The childishness here is on the part of heterosexuals who somehow think their marriages will be "ruined" because gays use the same word.

 

Few realize that nearly EVERY argument used against gay marriage was used against mixed-race marriages 50 years ago.

Names don't matter though. Before arguing that it's called such-and-such the priority should be to make sure that it actually is equal.

Hell, even if it was a civil union people would still call it a marriage. I can't think of people using a legal term in casual conversation when there's an easier word that means the same thing.

 

Names do matter. By calling it civil union, you're not helping homosexual acceptance into society.

Should have mentioned something about it then. Personally I think that should be the legal term for any marriage, regardless of sexuality. Always thought marriage was just the ceremony, married for the state of being married, and so on.

 

...I should probably quit while I'm ahead :mrgreen: . As long as it ends up equal I'm satisfied.

Names don't matter though. Before arguing that it's called such-and-such the priority should be to make sure that it actually is equal.

Hell, even if it was a civil union people would still call it a marriage. I can't think of people using a legal term in casual conversation when there's an easier word that means the same thing.

 

You wouldn't know how much names matter. The minute a black man has a "daily-work" and a white man has a "job", the black man is a second-class citizen like others have said here. It's as if he is not deserving of a better definition.

 

If I were a lesbian, I'd want to marry, not union.

Names don't matter though. Before arguing that it's called such-and-such the priority should be to make sure that it actually is equal.

Hell, even if it was a civil union people would still call it a marriage. I can't think of people using a legal term in casual conversation when there's an easier word that means the same thing.

 

Names do matter. By calling it civil union, you're not helping homosexual acceptance into society.

Should have mentioned something about it then. Personally I think that should be the legal term for any marriage, regardless of sexuality. Always thought marriage was just the ceremony, married for the state of being married, and so on.

 

...I should probably quit while I'm ahead :mrgreen: . As long as it ends up equal I'm satisfied.

 

Perhaps that's what you think, and frankly what I think aswell, but I know of quite a few straights, and quite a few gays, who'd want to marry. It makes no sense that only one group owns that right.