Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The people have spoken, and that's not good enough?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.

---

Quote:

---

So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.

---

Quote:

---

Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.

---

Quote:

---

Religion. Which, I'd say, should stay out of politics. This is why I've always taken issue with marriage being a religious institution. If people want to get married in a church, that's their choice, but the dictates of the religion shouldn't rule who can get married. That's not separation of church and state.
Everyone should be able to get married, or everyone should have domestic partnerships. Me, I would be fine with it all being domestic partnership, since marriage is a religious institution an' all. But, you know, marriage has also become a state institution, and it's a tradition, and everyone knows what it means already, that two people who are in love are joining their lives together. Also, it's shorter and easier to say, rolls off the tongue so to speak, and people tend to prefer that in their words and terms. So why not call it all marriage, then? Well, if the Church and their sheeple would stop screaming about it, we could right? Except that again brings up keeping religion out of law... I could just go on in that circle.
Bottom line, calling it something different but claiming it's the same thing is patently ridiculous. Calling it the same thing but saying it was a little different would also be ridiculous. Just let everyone have the same options.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

and it has already been strongly declared that 'Civil Unions are the same as Marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
How is marriage a religious word? And, even if it is, can it not also be a non-religious word as well? Just like there are two different versions of Christmas - the secular celebration with Santa Claus, etc., and the religious one involving the birth of Jesus - can't there be a secular marriage and a religious one? Because I for one don't think that the religious own the word marriage, nor should they.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Rue,

Its not a right to get married.

They can have civil unions. Maybe.

You, nor the liberal ilk, can force churches to marry people. Separation of church and state remember?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

They do think they own the word marriage. Obviously they believe this, because they are busy being the arbiter of who can and cannot get married. Because such divisiveness and double standardization are not the function of the government, I propose we let the religious personages of the world keep their word 'marriage' and allow government to discard it in favor of the superior Civil Union, a title with no religious connotations whatsoever.

Otherwise, the religious people of the nation are liable to get confused, forget to separate church and state, amd accidentally discriminate against a class of people.

---

Quote:

---

The reason we have all this controversy over marriage is because marriage has been around for a long, long time. And it is a religious word.

The Christians (of which I am one) and other Monotheists believe that by re-defining 'marriage' you are soiling a religious precept that they were raised to believe was morally correct. They don't want government messing with their marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Because such divisiveness and double standardization are not the function of the government, I propose we let the religious personages of the world keep their word 'marriage' and allow government to discard it in favor of the superior Civil Union, a title with no religious connotations whatsoever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
But (and here I may be playing devil's advocate a little bit), why should the government change to accommodate people who have a problem separating church and state?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Should the government really pander to them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Should the government really pander to them?

---

It's not about pandering to religious bigots, it's about finding the most effective and elegant solution to the problem. Besides, it's not just religious people who are against gay marriage.

------------------------------

What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?

---

Quote:

---

I don't see it being necessarily elegant, considering that non-religious, heterosexual married couples are not necessarily going to be thrilled to have the word marriage taken away from them to be given to the religious only.

---

Quote:

---

In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognised as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.
The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies in the Americas or elsewhere, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Common law marriages were abolished in England and Wales by the Marriage Act 1753. The Act required marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England – unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Ireland after the Act of Union 1800, but the requirement for a valid marriage to be performed by a Church of England priest created special problems in predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland. The law did not provide an exception.

---

Quote:

---

So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---

Quote:

---

we can wait for a couple more decades for enough bigots to die off from old age so that the people who are "liberal" on this are in the majority (after all, society progresses one funeral at a time).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---

Yeah. I would really love to see a more thorough discussion about this particular aspect of the problem.

Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,

why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,

why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Banning gays from getting married IS treating them special - in a negative way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
I hope this wasn't directed at me (amongst others), but it probably was.

---

Quote:

---

However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No more than banning marriage between very close relatives, or polygamy. Say what you want, but merely asking that marriage be defined as 1 man + 1 woman is not, by any stretch of the imagination hateful , mean or discriminatory.

---

Quote:

---

However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.

---

Quote:

---

To the real discussion at hand, I still think the state should only allow civil unions (call them common-law marriages, then, or whatever) between any two consenting people not too closely related and old enough, just clearly distinguish the line between church and state on this issue, because in a lot of people's mind it's quite muddled

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Taken from the Wikipedia page on "Common-Law Marriage".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Some thoughts concerning marriage as a legal contract, not primarily a religious one... Look how recently the connection was even made legally necessary, between the legal and the religious aspect. That's hardly going back to the roots of the institution itself. Shows clearly that marriage is not by definition a religious institution.

Quote:

---

In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognised as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.
The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies in the Americas or elsewhere, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Common law marriages were abolished in England and Wales by the Marriage Act 1753. The Act required marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England – unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Ireland after the Act of Union 1800, but the requirement for a valid marriage to be performed by a Church of England priest created special problems in predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland. The law did not provide an exception.

---

And even then it created problems to make that connection between church and state.

---