- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,105
- Reaction score
- 33,447
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What's the difference?
Not in the case of the DOMA, it basically says "no" although hopefully the law suit will change that.
So Article IV no longer applies, and so far the DOMA has been upheld.
This does not apply to "marriage" as no ones rights are being infringed according to the Federal Government.
Not in the case of the DOMA, it basically says "no" although hopefully the law suit will change that.
So Article IV no longer applies, and so far the DOMA has been upheld.
Please explain how I am a "bigot" by pointing out the law as it stands?
My question is: Is there room for compromise in the gay marriage debate? Would it be acceptable to label all marriage (man and woman, or two men, or two women) a civil union for legal purposes. If I'm not mistaken now a couple is married once they sign the marriage certificate, the ceremony is secondary from a legal standpoint. So make all marriages a civil union in the eyes of the government with all the legal rights that go with it. Marriage would be a religious issue.
What's the difference?
The government need not be involved at all. There should be no marriage license or civil union. Things can be handled with separate contract and any "benefit" tax or legal wise from marriage should be removed.
OK this is to all of you as you seem pretty ignorant at this point.
Go back and read my first post in this thread. Then actually follow the arguments.
You people assume way to much for no reason.
I have never seen such ignorance on any board I have ever posted on before. Oh wait, yes I have: the Democrat underground.
Goodbye.
Wouldn't you need some sort of tax and legal title for grouping purposes? That's the only reason I am in favor of the civil union title. Just so there is an appropriate group such as 'Single', "Dependent', 'Civil Union', 'Spouse'.
Personally I don't like civil union but for lack of a better title I am accepting it.
Apparently it doesn't since many people think it's a religious label and that religious doctrine should dictate if our government can recognize someone as "married"."Married" works just fine.
Perhaps a "Conjugate" then?"Civilly Unioned" sorta presumes the two spouses are very very polite to one another, doesn't it?
Apparently it doesn't since many people think it's a religious label and that religious doctrine should dictate if our government can recognize someone as "married".
Perhaps a "Conjugate" then?
Not that I have any room at all to correct anyone's spelling or grammar, but you mis-spelled "sociological".
Just a friendly fyi :2wave:
Normally I would agree here, but now that we have an NFL player named Priest Holmes, designers that put Saint in their marketing names, etc. the rules changed a little.:mrgreen:Would you say "priest", "saint", "baptized", and "sinner" are sociological rather then religious labels as well?
If it is a label housed in religion and given only after taking part in a religious ceremony then I call it a religious label.
Would you say "priest", "saint", "baptized", and "sinner" are sociological rather then religious labels as well?
Apparently it doesn't since many people think it's a religious label and that religious doctrine should dictate if our government can recognize someone as "married".
Perhaps a "Conjugate" then?
Religion is a key agent of socialization, everyone with a high school education knows that, so to pretend that this is news and argue that religion is somehow a stand alone entity is patently dishonest.
All the labels, the place of the wedding, the titles of those involved, etc..those are all drapings, decorations and flavor for the same damn thing Atheists do.
It's different only in superficial appearance.
They want to get married under the law just like heteros? Fine, doesn't hurt anyone else.
Religion is a key agent of socialization, everyone with a high school education knows that, so to pretend that this is news and argue that religion is somehow a stand alone entity is patently dishonest.
All the labels, the place of the wedding, the titles of those involved, etc..those are all drapings, decorations and flavor for the same damn thing Atheists do.
It's different only in superficial appearance.
I really don't see how people can think that the legal version of marriage is still religious in its nature considering that it violates the rules of most religious groups in the US for marriage. People arguing from a religious standpoint are being ridiculous because clearly the legal institution of marriage is secular and the marriage laws would have nothing to do with the marriage in their churches.
there is not one logical, rational or reasonable argument that would deny homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) the right to marry whomever they wanted to marry....
Why in the world would you use a different term when a perfectly good one already exists? Religion doesn't own marriage, it never has and never will, I couldn't care less if it offends the theotards that someone they don't like is using a word they lay claim to, they need to grow the hell up.
Would we have been having this debate a few decades ago when multi-racial marriage became common? Oh, let's call their marriage something different because it might offend the racist religious nutballs!
The whole debate is ludicrous. :roll:
Religion doesn't own marriage, it never has and never will, I couldn't care less if it offends the theotards that someone they don't like is using a word they lay claim to, they need to grow the hell up.
I agree. Like I said before, there is not one logical, rational or reasonable argument that would deny homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) the right to marry whomever they wanted to marry....
This, I am afraid, is an extremely inaccurate statement. Up until quite recently, Religion DID own marriage.