Vote Poll Split: A Civil Conversation on Gay Marriage

[Zathras]

Woohoo!  My candidate is in second place right now!!!!

Heh. I was looking at no votes for anyone other than Obama, and I thought "I bet Zathras hasn't voted yet..."

I bash Republicans, too.  But when I say Palin is out of her mind to want a Constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, most people here just say, "yeah, duh!"  So I do that elsewhere.  I don't think the goverment should be involved in marriages, anyway.  I prefer civil contracts, with varrying lengths and options.

[Talia]

a marriage is just a civil contract, really. But the word has more emotional overtones than the tediousness of a "civil contract."

"Hay honey, lets go get civil contracted!"

......

[Zathras]

a marriage is just a civil contract, really. But the word has more emotional overtones than the tediousness of a "civil contract."

"Hay honey, lets go get civil contracted!"

......

Call it a marriage.  I don't want the government calling it a marriage, for anyone.  Marriage has religiosity tied to it.  Save that for the churches, covens and fuzzy wuzzies.

[wintermute]

a marriage is just a civil contract, really. But the word has more emotional overtones than the tediousness of a "civil contract."

"Hay honey, lets go get civil contracted!"

......

Call it a marriage.  I don't want the government calling it a marriage, for anyone.  Marriage has religiosity tied to it.  Save that for the churches, covens and fuzzy wuzzies.

Meh. I think churches should get out of the marriage business. If people want to have a big, elaborate ceremony and a party officiated by someone wearing a big hat, more power to them, but let's not pretend that it's a marriage. Call it a "covenant" or a "bonding ceremony" or a "wedding" instead.

Marriage has always been a secular, government-sponsored contract, and just because a few people have a poor grasp of history is no reason to go around changing perfectly functional definitions.

[Talia]

a marriage is just a civil contract, really. But the word has more emotional overtones than the tediousness of a "civil contract."

"Hay honey, lets go get civil contracted!"

......

Call it a marriage.  I don't want the government calling it a marriage, for anyone.  Marriage has religiosity tied to it.  Save that for the churches, covens and fuzzy wuzzies.

Meh. I think churches should get out of the marriage business. If people want to have a big, elaborate ceremony and a party officiated by someone wearing a big hat, more power to them, but let's not pretend that it's a marriage. Call it a "covenant" or a "bonding ceremony" or a "wedding" instead.

Marriage has always been a secular, government-sponsored contract, and just because a few people have a poor grasp of history is no reason to go around changing perfectly functional definitions.

Yeah, this. Wintermute said it better than I could. The term "marriage" has no religious connotations for me...

as an unrelated aside, I was somewhat amused by this..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/ron-howards-call-for-obam_n_137214.html

[Zathras]

I don't care what it's called, I just want the government to stay away from the religious end of it.  I'll leave the battle for terminology to others.

2 sayings I have heard about this:

Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Can you imagine the boost to the economy?  I mean, a gay wedding would be just fabulous!

[Talia]

I don't care what it's called, I just want the government to stay away from the religious end of it.  I'll leave the battle for terminology to others.

2 sayings I have heard about this:

Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Can you imagine the boost to the economy?  I mean, a gay wedding would be just fabulous!

I'm not sure what your complaint is. It's people's choice to include religion in it or not. The term "marriage" itself is not religious.
The goverment doesn't come in and make anyone get married in front of a priest or anything, that's up to whatever floats their boat...

[Zathras]

I don't care what it's called, I just want the government to stay away from the religious end of it.  I'll leave the battle for terminology to others.

2 sayings I have heard about this:

Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Can you imagine the boost to the economy?  I mean, a gay wedding would be just fabulous!

I'm not sure what your complaint is. It's people's choice to include religion in it or not. The term "marriage" itself is not religious.
The goverment doesn't come in and make anyone get married in front of a priest or anything, that's up to whatever floats their boat...

Let me try to be brief.  The only part of a marriage that the government should be involved in is the contract itself.  Who the contract includes shouldn't matter, as long as the individuals are of legal age and sound mind.

Better?

[Heradel]

Let me try to be brief.  The only part of a marriage that the government should be involved in is the contract itself.  Who the contract includes shouldn't matter, as long as the individuals are of legal age and sound mind.
Better?

Plus, there's the problem of religions that sanction gay marriage. It's unconstitutional (IMO, IANAL) for the government to sanction marriage type A if that only works for some religions' marriages and excludes others'. (There are also religions like the Episcopal/Anglican church that are experiencing schisms over how deal with the raft of issues stemming from current LGBTQ cultural acceptance.

Now, you can use civil unions to give the same rights, but that ignores the societal impacts of allowing gay relationships to be called marriage.  Andrew Sullivan, a conservative (who is gay, married (MA), and Conservative as in small gov't, fed up with the Republican Party, and who really hates the creeping Christianism and anti-intellectualism of the Republicans) talks about how his experiences with letting LGBTQ's marry has led to an assimilation into the culture that wasn't previously happening.

[Heradel]

[...]
Now, you can use civil unions to give the same rights, but that ignores the societal impacts of allowing gay relationships to be called marriage.  Andrew Sullivan, a conservative (who is gay, married (MA), and Conservative as in small gov't, fed up with the Republican Party, and who really hates the creeping Christianism and anti-intellectualism of the Republicans) talks about how his experiences with letting LGBTQ's marry has led to an assimilation into the culture that wasn't previously happening.

I forgot to define Christianism.

[Windup]

I forgot to define Christianism.
 

I am having one of those experiences where I want to walk up to all non-Americans and shout: WE AREN'T ALL LIKE THIS!! 

[stePH]

2 sayings I have heard about [gay marriage]:

Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Can you imagine the boost to the economy?  I mean, a gay wedding would be just fabulous!

Ha!    Did anybody else ever see Wedding Wars?  Where all the gays went on strike because a guy marrying a Senator's daughter supported an amendment to ban gay marriage?  John Stamos played the guy's gay brother who started the strike.

[note: This almost went into the voting thread, but the board advised me that a new post had been made while I was typing.]

[Heradel]

[...]
[note: This almost went into the voting thread, but the board advised me that a new post had been made while I was typing.]

Er, it was posted there. For the record, I deleted it because you'd posted this here, and it saved me a split and merge.

[stePH]

[...]
[note: This almost went into the voting thread, but the board advised me that a new post had been made while I was typing.]

Er, it was posted there. For the record, I deleted it because you'd posted this here, and it saved me a split and merge.

  D'oh!  I could have sworn I aborted the post from the other thread and posted it here.

[Zathras]

Wait!  Someone has to pick the other side here!

I don't wanna get whacked with the chair this time.   

[Heradel]

Wait!  Someone has to pick the other side here!

I don't wanna get whacked with the chair this time.   

It's been a while since someone picked the other side. The last few LGBTQ Marriage threads have ended in a chorus, not a cacophony.

[Zathras]

Wait!  Someone has to pick the other side here!

I don't wanna get whacked with the chair this time.   

It's been a while since someone picked the other side. The last few LGBTQ Marriage threads have ended in a chorus, not a cacophony.

Ack.  Everytime I think I can just muddle along and not have to go back and read old threads, someone else links to them.  I'm not complaining about reading them, I just have to resist the urge to resurrect them.  I definately don't want to incur the wrath of N_sh!  Once was enough   

Seriously, though, I wouldn't have brought this subject up had I known how thoroughly it had been covered already.

[Heradel]

Seriously, though, I wouldn't have brought this subject up had I known how thoroughly it had been covered already.

Uh, that has never stopped anyone before, and it shouldn't. Things being discussed in the past do not mean that they can't be discussed again. People come and go (for example, Mr. Tweedy hasn't posted in a few months, though his profile says he's still lurking), and subjects have not had their lives counted out in tablespoons.

[Russell Nash]

Seriously, though, I wouldn't have brought this subject up had I known how thoroughly it had been covered already.

Uh, that has never stopped anyone before, and it shouldn't. Things being discussed in the past do not mean that they can't be discussed again. People come and go (for example, Mr. Tweedy hasn't posted in a few months, though his profile says he's still lurking), and subjects have not had their lives counted out in tablespoons.

As soon as you mention a fighter from the other side, you guarantee an attack.

[Russell Nash]

as an unrelated aside, I was somewhat amused by this..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/ron-howards-call-for-obam_n_137214.html

I thought Andy Griffith was dead.  Oops

[wintermute]

I don't care what it's called, I just want the government to stay away from the religious end of it.  I'll leave the battle for terminology to others.

2 sayings I have heard about this:

Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Can you imagine the boost to the economy?  I mean, a gay wedding would be just fabulous!

I'm not sure what your complaint is. It's people's choice to include religion in it or not. The term "marriage" itself is not religious.
The goverment doesn't come in and make anyone get married in front of a priest or anything, that's up to whatever floats their boat...

Let me try to be brief.  The only part of a marriage that the government should be involved in is the contract itself.  Who the contract includes shouldn't matter, as long as the individuals are of legal age and sound mind.

Better?

So.... we have no points of disagreement at all?

Well, apart from the disturbing stereotyping in the catchphrases you recycled, of course.

[Zathras]

So.... we have no points of disagreement at all?

Well, apart from the disturbing stereotyping in the catchphrases you recycled, of course.

I don't feel bad at all for stereotyping married people as miserable!

[stePH]

So.... we have no points of disagreement at all?

Well, apart from the disturbing stereotyping in the catchphrases you recycled, of course.

I don't feel bad at all for stereotyping married people as miserable!

Q: What's the difference between a wedding and a funeral?

A: At a wedding, you get to see your own flowers.

 

[Zathras]

Q: What's the difference between a wedding and a funeral?

A: At a wedding, you get to see your own flowers.

 

You know what I want them to say at my funeral?

LOOK!  HE'S STILL BREATHING!

Of course, knowing my friends, all that will get me is a headshot...

[Windup]

Marriage has always been a secular, government-sponsored contract, and just because a few people have a poor grasp of history is no reason to go around changing perfectly functional definitions.

Hmmm.... There being general agreement on the main points in question, looks like we'll have to beat the details to death.  I'll start:

"Always" is a really long time.  I'm thinking people were getting "married" long before the secular world-view that made involvement of a diety or his/her/its representative unnecessary took root.  Sure, marriages in the Roman world (and more civilized states in the Mediterranean basin) had a legal contract aspect, at least among the upper classes with enough property to worry about.  But I believe that a priest of some sort was involved in the marriage ceremonies. 

Fast-forwarding a bit, I think the priest was an essential participant in Medieval Europe as well, was he not?