Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by gameplayerabm

With civil unions, all of the legal benefits are present, and the church definition of "marriage" is not changed. Why does a gay couple feel the need to be religiously married? The two are close to being mutually exclusive.

Because it would still not be equality.

A comparison could be made to blacks and the usage of buses. A few decades ago, blacks were allowed to use buses, although they not allowed to travel in the front rows.

Basicly same rights, but if you go into detail you'll find out that it's still not equality.

Originally Posted by ZeRoNiTe

If a tradition is "changed" it is no longer tradition. Tradition is something that stays the way it is.

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.
- Hannah Arendt

1. Appeal to Tradition -> Fallacy.
2. Every tradition has a beginning. Traditions become what they are by common pratice, not because it was a default behavior at the beginning. Traditions are to be maintained, but not to be made a rule.
3. Whatever behavior is first seen today, could be a tradition in 50 years.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Then you would find a Christian church that will marry two gays.

How does it work in the US?
In Germany you have to get married in a registry office and later on you can marry in a church. Although not all couples choose to marry in a church afterwards.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Spider149

well, what if god doesn't bless this union?

Too bad. Freedom of religon means any relligon quite able to deny you it's blessing if they want to.

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

A comparison could be made to blacks and the usage of buses. A few decades, blacks were allowed to use buses, although they not allowed to travel in the front rows.
.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh, sorry, I just find this funny. Comparing Gay Rights ti Civil Rights is like comparing "evil Americans" to Nazi Germany. Apples and Oranges. Acually, it is more like Apples and Shoes.

Marriae is in no way, shape, or form a right. It is not a right. It is not a right. I can't say this enough, it is not a right. It is a RELIGOUS PRACTICE. When someone says "I'm going to a wedding." I bet you don't think of a courthouse, do you? You probaly think of a Church, or, at best, a chapel.

Legally, gays should have all the same rights as straights. Civil unions would allow this. You would have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS. Straights would have to get a civil union to be legally recognized as well, so it wouldn't be seperate but equal. And gays could even get a marriage if they could find a Church to do it. But any way you slice it, the term "marriage" should be left for religon to deal with.

[Mr. Pedantic]

So, if you had no holy place that would bless your marriage/union/whatever, then you would just have to settle for a civil union.

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh, sorry, I just find this funny. Comparing Gay Rights ti Civil Rights is like comparing "evil Americans" to Nazi Germany. Apples and Oranges. Acually, it is more like Apples and Shoes.

Gay Rights are not Civil Rights?

Discrimation is discrimation.

dis‧crim‧i‧na‧tion [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Marriae is in no way, shape, or form a right. It is not a right. It is not a right. I can't say this enough, it is not a right. It is a RELIGOUS PRACTICE. When someone says "I'm going to a wedding." I bet you don't think of a courthouse, do you? You probaly think of a Church, or, at best, a chapel.

Why are atheists allowed marry?
It doesn't matter what one thinks when someone says this or that.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Legally, gays should have all the same rights as straights. Civil unions would allow this. You would have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS. Straights would have to get a civil union to be legally recognized as well, so it wouldn't be seperate but equal. And gays could even get a marriage if they could find a Church to do it. But any way you slice it, the term "marriage" should be left for religon to deal with.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Spider149

So, if you had no holy place that would bless your marriage/union/whatever, then you would just have to settle for a civil union.

Yes. But both gays and straights would have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS when it comes to civil unions! Marriage should be controlled by religious groups.

And atheists wouldn't have their marriage recognized by the Chruch either, so they couldn't get "married" in the same sense as two straight religous peoples. But they could still get a Civil Union that would unite them as a couple in the eyes of the law.


Explain to me why this is insulting. What is the difference, to gays or atheists or whatever, between a Civil Union and a marriage. For fucks sake, you could even refer to yourselves as married if you wanted to, no one could stop you from doing that. The only difference is that legally you would be considered a United Couple or some such thing, instead of a married couple. It is really just a matter of words, words that religions find very important.

Note that even the Catholic Church doesn't have anything against Gays getting a civil union. The Catholic church preaches equality for homosexuals. They just want to keep the Sacrament of marriage a religious thing. They find it insulting that that people want the government to interfere in their religion. Separation of Church and State also means the government has to respect churches. They can't take a religious ceremony and suit it to their needs.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Why are atheists allowed marry?

A lot of churches do marriages as a commercial service, rather than a religious one. as such, they marry atheists as well.
Alternatively, one partner could be atheist and the other christian. Then, the union includes a christian, so that counts as well.
Also, it is very difficult to prove that somebody is christian or not without a direct confessional statement - a lot of atheists know a lot about Christianity and a lot of Christians know relatively little.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Spider149

A lot of churches do marriages as a commercial service, rather than a religious one. as such, they marry atheists as well.
Alternatively, one partner could be atheist and the other christian. Then, the union includes a christian, so that counts as well.
Also, it is very difficult to prove that somebody is christian or not without a direct confessional statement - a lot of atheists know a lot about Christianity and a lot of Christians know relatively little.

The Catholic Church only marries an atheist with a Catholic if they get a letter from their local Bishop, I believe. I don't know about other religions or churches. But whatever they choose is their choice. If they want to marry atheists then go for it. If they want to marry homosexuals go for it. I'm just saying that the term marriage should be theirs, and civil unions should be the law's form of union. Both gays and straights would have to receive a civil union to be recognized by the law as legally united. Then you would find a Church to marry you if you want, and if they want to. If not you are still united and still get whatever legal benefits or obligations come with it.

[Sedistix]

Comparing the rights of homosexuals to marry with "ridding back of the bus", or "Der Fuhrer". lol…

That’s sad, and it’s also desperation at it’s finest…

Remember the law that states the longer a message board thread gets, the probability of eventually mentioning Hitler grows exponentially? Well with out fail, it gets proven routinely, and this is no exception.

To quote a religious figure - It's not fascism. Nor is it fanaticism. Its simply right from wrong. Black and white. Good and evil. You're going to hell, and you must repent. We simply can't let such flagrant disrespect for the 'law' of 'God Almighty' go unpunished. They're sinners. Plain and simple. They can't be allowed to marry.

The above quote is the only argument i've seen that makes any sense. This is the churches deal, they dislike qeers, so they will fight it. Anything else, is just a subsection of the above. You can say it disgusts you, but all your doing is repeating what the church instilled and or taught upon you. It's not a personal issue to anyone other then those denied it.

Originally Posted by Sedistix

Does that mean I’m against them getting married? No, it does not. Marriage is a creation tied to religion, and I hope they pass this amendment not because I sympathize with homosexuals, or believe they deserve equal rights. No, I hope they pass this amendment so it can exist as an affront to the religious establishment.

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by Sedistix

Remember the law that states the longer a message board thread gets, the probability of eventually mentioning Hitler grows exponentially? Well with out fail, it gets proven routinely, and this is no exception.

Huh? Hitler? Wha??

"Godwin's law" states the following:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.


What does Hitler have to do with blacks? That's pretty far fetched, is it not?






Anyway, I guess all arguments have been stated. Any further debate is pointless. From what I see, certain arguments get ignored and then "omg lolz teh marriage is holy" is repeated constantly.

[CKY2K]

Yea, the whole argument is just revolving around in a big circle... And the constant comparisons to Hitler are just getting pathetic...I think Nazis are brought up in almost every debate topic on FileFront...