The future of marriage

By degrees, yes. But NOTHING would change the meaning of marriage more than to open up the concept to include "same-sex marriages." I'm saying the law need not differentiate along those lines if civil unions were the standard for granting equal rights and protection under the law. Nosy's proposal is brilliant for letting the churches decide who they want to sanction as being "married." It takes "same-sex marriage" off the table for legislative purposes, and gets it the hell out of my face. Isn't that what we have churches for? To deal with the moralistic aspects of society? If they are the morality cops, as they claim to be, then let them earn their keep.”Hoot

What wrong with: "You two guys. You two girls. You can go ahead and get civilly united"?No need to mock what the chuches should do.

What the churches choose to do is irrelevant to what the government does. They can prostrate themselves in front of a sculpture of a torture victim on a plank of wood, for all I care.Either way, you said earlier that the disintegration of marriage is worse than terrorism. Now you say that you'd rather tear down the institution of marriage than say, "homosexuals can get married."So... can we assume that your stance is, "homosexuals are worse than something that's worse than terrorism?"

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

The churches already decide that, and would continue to do so if homosexuals were simply allowed to get married. For instance, if a straight atheist couple gets married by a judge, no church has to recognize it.So if this is your reason for opposing same-sex marriage, then hey. Problem solved. In fact, problem never existed. Guess what? It won't be in your face. They get married, they hold a party where people give them three gravy boats and a couple blenders, and it never involves you in any way.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

ROTFLMAO.The Churches already have the right to decide who is or is not married. They already have that. No one is proposing taking that right away from them.Look, if some church full of bigots does not want to recognize same-sex marriages as valid, they are free to do so. If homosexuals were allowed to marry, the churches could still continue to show their asses by denying it is a valid marriage.NO ONE cares whether a church recognizes a marriage as valid except the member of that church.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

What wrong with: "You two guys. You two girls. You can go ahead and get civilly united"?

---

What is wrong with it is that "seperate but equal" is rarely equal. What was wrong with separate schools for whites and for blacks? Well, one of the things wrong was that black schools were crummy.It is the same as that would happen with civil unions vs. marriage. Eventually, someone will decide that people who are only civilly united don't need, say, the alimony rights that someone in a "real" marriage would have. Someone might decide that "real" marriage needs to be strengthened, making divorce harder than it would be to dissolve a civil union for another.So there is the real prossibility that gays will get stuck with a social institution that still does not give them the same rights and obligations as a heterosexual couple would enjoy. I will even say that it is probable that inequalities will creep in.Only by giving gay couples the exact same options as heterosexual couples can you maintain protections for the equality of gays.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

I don't understand this. Are you under the impression that you have the right/ability to force a church to recognize your marriage?You don't. So why would homosexuals suddenly be able to? Having a marriage license from the government doesn't mean that churches have to recognize it. For interracial or interreligious marriages, a lot of churches don't. The only thing that "forces" them to is the fact that they look like asshats to a lot of people when they say "I don't care what the government says; you're not married in the eyes of God" like they have the authority to speak for him or something.So I don't understand your point. The government doesn't regulate what marriages churches have to accept now. Why would they suddenly be able to?

Don't know how you could object to Nosy's propsal with an attitude like than. In his proposal EVERYBODY is equal in civil matters where the govenment should be involved, and EVEYBODY is equally free to go get "married" in any church or frog museum they choose.

Who says they do, or should? Frog, are you paying attention?

Which is a fine proposal. If you want to work toward that, fine, I'll sign the petition myself.But that is not on the radar here. No one is suggesting such a thing in this country, and there is no organized movement to implement such a thing. It will take much, much time to get such a proposal organized as a movement much less fight against the ultra-traditionalists who will insist that the state continue to entangle itself in religious institutions.In the meantime, right now, as we speak, homosexual couples do not have the same rights to join in the same legally binding contractual relationship that heterosexual couples can. Until that far off promised day arrives, when we will finally have achieved our secular utopia and workers' paradise and Jesus comes back and gives all the good boys and girls icecream, we need to do something right now to maintain and protect the rights of all adults to enter into a mutually consensual, legally binding contractual relationship on an equal basis.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Exactly. And if homosexuals were allow to be civilly united they would be equal under the law with heterosexuals. Given Nosy's proposal, why would the law even care what churches validate as "marriage"?

Here is the deal.Right now there are over 1000 Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations that are based on the word Marriage.So here is jar's proposal.Let same-sex couples get married. Then the Churches can call their ceremony Theological-Union.That way everyone has what they want, Churches can recognize or ignore any Theological-Unions and keep their nose out of Marriage.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe you should call it "jar's anti-Nosy proposal."

Heck, I'll refine Jar's proposal a little. How about lopping off the last part, and making it "Let same-sex couples get married."Then the churches can do whatever pleases them. But honestly, they're irrelevant.Oh shit, suddenly it's my old proposal. I guess that means Hoot Mon will change the subject.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

The law in this country doesn't care what churches validate as "marriage." Never has, never will. If you want to go the St. Looney up the Cream Bun and Jam church and have them solemnize your marriage to your Aunt George, his pet squirrel and the Astrodome, the law won't give one whit, as long as you don't appear to be a threat to yourself or others.However, if you then try to file a joint tax return listing all three of your "spouses," the law will have something to say about it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat