And Gay Marriage Has Actually Hurt Humanity In What Way(s)??

That's just it though, there are two different parts to marriage, the legal portion recognized by the government and the totally optional wedding ceremony with vows and having your union recognized by God. As far as I can see extending the legal portion of marriage to gays and lesbians does not in any way affect whether or not heterosexual or homosexual people choose to hold a ceremony with friends and family in the eyes of God. You can still do that whether gays and lesbians can marry or not and you will always be able to do so. Nobody is trying to outlaw religiously based wedding ceremonies or even secular wedding ceremonies.

Which I suppose would be ideal, however the government is not going to be getting out of the marriage business any time soon, lest they want to (*)(*)(*)(*) off many, many married couples countrywide (both heterosexual and homosexual). Since they do not want to get out of the marriage business they must extend equal rights to those who wish to marry the same sex.

 

You forgot the procreation of the man and woman who are getting married. That's the most important part for without that, there is no reason for a commitment and contract. Now I know there are those who say procreation is not a prerequisite to marriage however, in the vast majority of marriages it is EXPECTED and always has been. There is no need to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples that can NEVER procreate with one another. Society has no real need to support that kind of coupling.

The fact that homosexuals exist in such miniscule minorities ought to give some a clue that nature does not recognize their mating habits. Do I really need to tell you that men and women procreating is what keeps humans from becoming extinct?

 

But marriage hasn't been one thing ever.

Arranged marriages are legal in this country....should they be?
Is the marriage of two people at a high mass or under a Chuppah witha Ketubah the same as two people in the front seat of a rented convertible getting married by an Elvis impersonator at drive-thru window?

 

Because if I do not support gay marriage because my religion does not recognize it, could I be forced to perform the ceremony anyway? We know I can't refuse to bake your cake.

My I ask why civil unions were not used in the case of same sex couples?

 

Two parts, one legal and recognized by our government and the religious ceremony. Which came first? Since our government is younger than marriage we know the answer. And the result? The ceremony is now optional and devoid of meaning? This is why marriage should be left alone. When the government gets involved it will take control and destroy what it has control of.

And of course it won't be getting out of marriage it profits from it. And of course to offer equal rights to all those married, married must be redefined. If this is the choice our government takes, then they should also support polygamy if this is about equal rights.

 

In this country I beg to differ. It certainly has been the same as far as who qualifies to get married via the definition of marriage. This is why we are having the dispute now isn't it. The LGBT community is trying to force states to in some cases change constitutions based on marriage equality. For their to be inequality they must first qualify for whatever they are being forbidden to get. For that to happen, we must include same sex marriage which will have to be added to the definition of marriage. Why not civil unions instead of all of this to do and upsetting the Christian community? Was there not an easier way to get all of the legal rights of a married couples through a different type of union?

I will not argue that the ceremony has been cheapened by some and that vows are not respected as they once were by many, but that shouldn't allow for the entire definition to change. Maybe that is the reason for the resistance. Like enough is enough?

 

The only part of marriage the government has control of are the benefits it grants to those who are given that legal certificate that states their union is being recognized by the government. The government has no involvment nor cares what sorts of private ceremonies people hold in their free time. So by all means, have the most traditional marriage of all where a father pays a dowry for his daughter and arranges a marriage for her that will ultimately benefit his family, who cares?

All we want is that since the government has extended it's hands to give benefits to some married couples that they also grant those same benefits other married couples, quite specifically same-sex couples.

Polygamy =/= Same-sex marriage. Polygamy involves multiple spouses whereas same-sex marriage still only involves two people. I see your red herring/straw man and I call you out on it.

If you would like to change the subject to polygamy though I suggest we take it to another forum.

 

Polygamy is very relevant to the gay marriage debate, actually. It brings into question the arguments of people who support gay marriage. If being against gay marriage makes somebody a bigot, then why doesn't being against polygamy make somebody a bigot? Why is gay marriage okay, because it's between consenting adults, but polygamy is somehow wrong?

 

No you cannot be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against your religious beliefs since there is a separation of church and state. I find it amusing though that people are so terrified that this will be happening once SSM is totally legalized. You hear of several unique cases (without hearing the outcome either of course) and suddenly there is this big uproar, "ARGH! Those GAYS are taking over and forcing us to go against our religious beliefs!" *gasp!*

Because Civil Unions do not grant the same benefits as legal marriage does. Did you know that straight people can choose to have Civil Unions too? Most prefer legal marriage. I wonder why since apparently having the government involved in their marriages must be ever so damaging to them...yet they seem to be enjoying the benefits they are granted. Strange.

 

Not really. Polygamy is simply not comparable. Polygamy involves multiple spouses and SSM involves only two people.

Also polygamy is an entirely different and unique argument in itself, you have to address the issue that our marriage laws specifically cover only two people, your spouse and yourself. Second you would have to address how you would go about changing the marriage laws to cover yourself and multiple spouses. There is just so much more involved.

I have no issue with polygamy myself, but I am already aware of the issues in legalizing it that it would cause. You're looking at a huge government overhaul in laws that are directed specifically at married couples.

So by all means, start a thread on polygamy and we may discuss it if you wish, but for the time being in this thread I would like to stick to discussing same-sex marriage and the issues surrounding it.

 

So you realize you have lost the debate and are now backing down to the procreation argument? So sad.

Even the judges in the Utah ruling on SSM have made several comments that procreation is totally irrelevant to marriage. You really just don't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

What is the point of this statement? That you fear teh gays are gonna take over and we'll stop procreating? That at 7 billion people you somehow fear extinction? Amusing.

By the way, did you know gay couples do in fact procreate and raise children?

 

Why...because you 'say so?'...get a grip.

Show me the ruling, especially where it says procreation is 'irrelevant'....

There is no good reason for homosexuals to be granted a marriage license when same-sex couples cannot procreate with one another.

 

I agree they provide the legal benefits. And I agree you should be extended the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

I also agree polygamy is not the same as same sex marriage but neither of them are the same as a heterosexual marriage either. A definition change is a definition change.

 

I am not as confident as you on not being forced to perform the ceremonies.

Why aren't you fighting for civil unions to have the same benefits as marriage? Would that not be equal? Or why not create a new union for those wanting the legal benefits our government has provided married couples?

 

I am extremely confident that religious entities will not be legally forced to perform marriage ceremonies. Not to mention I have a strong notion that most gays and lesbians are either neutral to religion or strongly dislike, possibly even hate religion, because of the years of persecution many religious communities have put them through.

But I also know that there are some religious communities that fully support and will even perform marriage ceremonies for gay men and women. So this shouldn't be a real problem.

Why would I fight for Civil Unions to have the same benefits of marriage when some people who choose to have civil unions chose that option because they did not want to choose to have a marriage license?

It sounds to me like you don't fully understand the purpose of and the differences between civil unions and legal marriages and why some people might prefer one over the other.

Here is some information. http://www.illinoiscivilunions.com/...ple-want-a-civil-union-instead-of-a-marriage/

 

Then you must be for eliminating marriage for couples who are infertile, geriatric or paralyzed, since those couples can not procreate with one another then.

Procreation is completely irrelevant to who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

Because separate but equal is inherently UNEQUAL and was ruled unconstitutional many decades ago. Marriage will be just fine for same sex couples.

 

I'm sorry, but I sincerely don't understand what this uproar over definition changes are. It makes no sense to me. Language evolves frequently over time. Why is it only now an issue?

http://litreactor.com/columns/etymological-evolution-12-words-altered-by-historical-misuse

 

I'd say get a grip to you too with 17 states and counting legalizing gay marriage and laughing the 'procreation argument' right out of court.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogscrimecourts/57340626-71/marriage-state-sex-court.html.csp

Just because they cannot Biologically procreate with one another does not mean they do not acquire families together much in the same way an infertile couple would, adoption, surrogacy, or with lesbians the use of a sperm bank and natural birth.

 

Your link said that civil unions had the same 650 benefits of marriage. The only difference I saw mentioned was what to call it. So again, why did the LGBT community to achieve the same benefits as marriage need to attack marriage itself? Why couldn't a civil union or as I mentioned earlier, a new union created for same sex marriage?

 

The only reason you can claim to be treated unequal is by changing the definition of marriage into something that will include same sex relationships.

 

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law, not 650.

Perhaps you mean to say that Civil Unions only provide 650 out of the 1,138 granted by marriage?

Not every state even allows same-sex partners to be granted a civil union and even so that doesn't change the fact that marriage still carries with it a whole host of many more legal benefits.

Also, how are they attacking marriage? You keep stating that the LGBT community is attacking marriage, all I have ever seen is that they would like to be included in it with their chosen life partners.

 

There is no uproar. This began by me saying at the point marriage had to be redefined to include same sex couples when it was previously defined as one man and one woman, this movement lost my support.

Whether you want to admit it or not, overwhelmingly in this country it is a ceremony performed in a church with a man of God performing the ceremony. To some people marriage is a religious ceremony that should be protected from Government intrusion. When this movement found opposition from the communities, instead of seeking an alternate path to their goal the LGBT community chose to attack the institution of marriage and those that still respect what it means.

You don't have to agree with me here. I am simply letting you know how this movement has taken an original supporter and turned them.

 

Nope. Same sex couples are denied the right to marry the spouse of their choice for the arbitrary reason of gender.

 

From your own link.

"It’s estimated that Illinois provides 650 separate benefits of marriage. The Civil Union Act gives civil union partners these same 650 benefits. Who would’ve thought marriage had so many benefits?"

Did you read the link you provided me? It was that link that discussed how the Illinois civil union law provided same sex couple with the same exact benefits as a "spouse".

I know not all state offer civil unions. There is your fight. Why don't they?

 

Separate but equal is unconstitutional