Gay Marriage

[Kinokokao]

Alright. XD I've been trying to spark a good debate for a while now and so far we've all generally agreed.
Let's see if we can't start something serious.

My position is that legally consenting adults have the right to union regardless of gender/sex.
I do recognize that individual religious organizations have the right to perform such unions -- and in the same breath they have the right to refuse them.
All the couple needs is a legally binding marriage contract from the county.

[Kaining]

[Archaic Sage]

I do not agree with gay marriage.

However, I do agree with the principles behind gay marriage and I believe that they should be entitled to the right to have those benefits, but it should just be called a Civil Union.

Marriage is something that's derived from religion, and if the religious heathen don't want gay people marrying, that's all good. Just allow them the right to do it, and give it a different name. Easy way around it.

[Kinokokao]

Kaining -
Not a flame war, just a healthy debate.

@Civil Union/Pac

Is it fair to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens by giving them a second-class union?
I've never understood Archaic's view -- that they have the right to a union but not a marriage. Legally a marriage is not based on any religious ceremony. It is a legal, binding contract authorized and recognized by the government.
If you want to declare ALL couples can get civil unions, but only those who find a willing minister/priest/whatever can get an actual marriage -- fine, that's fair. But several, liberal religions are perfectly happy to perform marriages between gay couples.

I have to ask, why would you deny couples a marriage if the priest and church and willing to grant it?

How fair is it that I, an atheist, can marry but a devout Christian gay could not?

[Archaic Sage]

[Maxine MagicFox]

[Pyrosmurfy]

[Kaining]

[Kinokokao]

[Maxine MagicFox]

@flame war: my experiences have been the same as Kaining's. I promise, I will NEVER act like that (or, at least, will do my best not to, and please correct me if you feel I am acting this way) and I would like to hope that my mods don't, either. I try to never open my mouth without saying something that is genuinely based on fact and/or stated that I have no clue and hope that someone will correct me. That being said, I love debates. I'm not necessarily good at it, but it is very fun to argue opinions back and forth with someone that is intelligent.

I do not feel that government needs to have any sort of connection with marriage. Honestly, it burns me how much they have their grubby little hands in the sanction of religion. But there are things that I do like such as after a certain period of being together in one house the government says "legally married". I approve of there being BOTH a government recognition and then there being a marriage on the religious level. This way, for gays and other couples, they can still have certain rights: the ability to have say-so of what happens to their loved one in a medical emergency, for example. It burns me how much they screw gays and lesbians over in this aspect.

However, I still think there needs to be the recognition of marriage itself. Marriage should still continue to be a religious sanction that everyone can participate in. It binds couples in more ways than one, by saying they are together forever (they cannot cheat), that there are duties that both sides need to recognize about each other, and that, more than anything, they are connected not only here on the earthly realm, but also in the spiritual realm as well.

[Pyrosmurfy]

[Archaic Sage]

[Kinokokao]

[Zai]

Yeah... I'm not going to post a whole lot, as I don't feel like debating this right now.

But...while marriage did start as a religious thing (at least, I'm pretty sure it did), it does not have to necessarily be religious in this day and age. When people get married, there is a legal contract that is made. Many religious people also believe that there is then a contract of sorts that exists between them and their God. For those who are not religious, it's just the legal contract that counts.

Also. To further "prove" how marriage is not entirely religious now, there is a license to be able to legally be the person who marries the couple, as in, the one who enables the two to get married, and is the one who says all the stuff about how you should love each other and all that. It's not a license to have a third person join the marriage. <.< You can have an atheist be the one who presides over the ceremony, or have a priest, rabbi, whatever.

Buh buh buh. Yeah. Now I'll post a slightly relevant video of a song performed by Roy Zimmerman, who makes fun of those who don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to be married or have (adopt) children.

[spoiler][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM[/youtube][/spoiler]

[Archaic Sage]

The difference is, marriage by the very word has a religious meaning and therefore the religious right who deny the rights of homosexual marriage will never allow such a unity to exist. Change the name, remove the problem.