- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,852
- Reaction score
- 30,122
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I'm split on this one, one part of me says it'll happen when Obama is in office and only if he's in office but the other is saying it may never get legalized nationally in the US because i have a gut feeling that in 2016 RP's might get in and will do everything to make sure they get in.
It's already a secular contract as is. There is nothing religious about the civil marriage contract.
Even those clergy that perform the wedding must sign the marriage license, the contract. And they have to be registered with the state to show they actually can sign the contract legally.
Religion does not own the word marriage.
Perhaps, but marriage has always been a religious term. Now, how different religions treat marriage greatly differs, but it's still a religious term.
IMO, the best solution is Federal and State civil unions with people defining marriage however they want. Want to get "married" on the beach to your same sex partner? Sure! Want an uber-religious marriage ceremony in a huge church? Sure! People should be free to have whatever ceremony they want.
Marriage hasn't always been a "religious" term. Several religions stay out of marriage completely.
And there have been many people who married without any religion. Pretty sure we have had secular people available to marry people since the beginning of this country. The word "marriage" comes from a french word meaning simply "to take a husband or wife". It happened to evolve during a time when the government of most English speaking areas were controlled by religions, but that doesn't mean that religions own the word marriage. It would have come about without religions being in charge, because the concept of marriage existed for a long time without religion.
I consider it a huge waste of money to change the name of the civil contract just because religion wrongly believes they own a term/word, because they don't own it.
While some religions do stay out, marriage has historically been a religious term. The pagan hand "marriages" (which FYI were open to same sex too!) were in the context of their religious beliefs. Marriage today is a secular contract, but the term itself has been religious.
I actually was going back well before established governments.
Do you consider it a waste of money to get a compromise that reduces the level of government in our lives and gets people equal rights?
This simply isn't true. Even the Christian religion didn't care that much for who got married nor were they really involved up until around the 10th Century. Clergy may have blessed weddings or marriages of people, but they really weren't religious in nature. The community simply held a celebration or even just recognized the couple as "married". In many places in the past, marriage only required a couple to live as and/or state they were married. It didn't require a ceremony or religious approval (although family approval was usually required).
And it didn't involve religion in many places in the past. Most civilizations just required the family to approve and the couple to live as a married couple.
Yes, because we will allow same sex couples to marry long before we change the word marriage to something else. And it is not worth the money because it opens up for any group (particularly religious groups) to claim they own some word or term or phrase because it was used by religions or controlled by religions in the past and they don't want the meaning to change. It is stupid. We can all share the term. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Why you mixing up relatively recent common law marriages with ancient practices?
I'm not arguing that marriage today is NOT a secular contract. It is. I'm just saying that marriage has been a religious concept for a long time. Sure there are plenty of instances where it may have not always been, but for the last 1,000 years, marriage has been a religious term.
But the rituals practiced were often religious in context. The first well documented "marriages" of pagan handfasting were in the context of their spiritual beliefs.
Alright, between an ugly culture war and my way, which would you rather have?
The ugly culture war that really won't be that ugly at all in all reality. Big deal if some are upset by the change. They will get over it quickly and soon realize that it really wasn't a big deal.
Something tells me that won't be the case. At least in parts of this country. There are still places in America that give people huge amounts of crap for interracial dating. Liberty Universe banned it for a while.
I think this is going to be way more dicey then you think.
And what happened despite all the protests and debating on interracial marriage after the Loving decision in 1967? We didn't see a large breakdown of society. Those who didn't like the decision grumbled and went back to teaching their children about how wrong it was but they couldn't do anything about it. They continued their lives.
Public places can't ban any type of relationships that are legal. Private schools can and will ban any relationships they don't like. Changing the name of marriage to something else won't prevent any private school from banning same sex relationships. Nor will it prevent those places that don't approve of same sex relationships in large numbers from giving same sex couples huge amounts of crap.
It'll never happen. The minute the SC declares same sex marriage constitutional, it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun. Even some of the Democrats will be shocked over the pandemonium this will cause.
Apples & Oranges. Show me where science proves that EVERY homosexual on this planet was born gay. Blacks and Women had a legit argument. Homosexuals, don't.yeah just like equal rights for minorities lead to equal rights for horses and voting rights for woman lead to voting rights for dogs
these types of illogical inane strawman failed years ago and they fail today too.
It'll never happen. The minute the SC declares same sex marriage constitutional, it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun. Even some of the Democrats will be shocked over the pandemonium this will cause.
That would be awesome!
Its a shame, sad and IMO pathetic that AMERICA inst leading the way on a equality/rights issue like this.
Apples & Oranges. Show me where science proves that EVERY homosexual on this planet was born gay. Blacks and Women had a legit argument. Homosexuals, don't.
Same-sex marriage has been legal here and in many countries for almost a decade now and nothing has happened except gays can marry.
Well, your fine country has led the way on a lot of great and principled ideas. So you get a pass for this one.
Same-couples have been getting married despite the law, as well as DOMA. The thing that has happened is disregard for the law. I guess that's business as usual for Democrats. It certainly explains your sympathizing for criminals & terrorists.Same-sex marriage has been legal here and in many countries for almost a decade now and nothing has happened except gays can marry.
Especially when there aren't any facts!shhhhhhh dont go using facts
indeed this certainly doesnt take away all of the great accomplishments and freedoms we have I just find it surprising that this is one of the things we are behind on. Just shocking we werent among the first.
and on a funny side note but also kind of serious why are we still fighting the metric system lol
Same-couples have been getting married despite the law, as well as DOMA. The thing that has happened is disregard for the law. I guess that's business as usual for Democrats. It certainly explains your sympathizing for criminals & terrorists.
Especially when there aren't any facts!
Up here, it's finally taken hold, after decades....but old habits die hard; they say that Canada is the only country in the world in which we say a river is a mile wide and ten metres deep.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?