Skyrad 0 #1 April 9, 2009 So I'm wondering what part religion has upon ones thoughts or belief on Gay marriage and civil unions? To be honest I still am not sure where exactly I stand on Gay marriage, but support Civil unions.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
J_Cook 0 #2 April 9, 2009 You left out the option of "I support gay marriage and not civil unions". Civil unions can be seen as another form of discrimination. Most people I know that support gay marriage do not support civil unions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #3 April 9, 2009 It only really matters to the people involved. It's entirely up to them but they should have exactly the same Rights as the rest of us. Partners or Married - makes no difference to me. If gay folks offend you - then that's your problem not theirs - so get over your sleves. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #4 April 9, 2009 QuoteYou left out the option of "I support gay marriage and not civil unions". Civil unions can be seen as another form of discrimination. Most people I know that support gay marriage do not support civil unions. Good point, unfortunatly unable to edit now.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 April 9, 2009 Why should the 'straights' be the only ones to experience the joys of divorce? Let 'em marry. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #6 April 9, 2009 I support Civil unions for EVERYONE as the legal, civil device that conveys community property, partner benefits, etc, etc. THEN if you want a RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE go to the religion of your choice. Governments should issues CIVIL UNION licenses, religious institutions Marrige Certificates. Everyone has the same civil rights, and the religions can impose the rules they want on there sacred institution of marriage as they define it.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #7 April 9, 2009 I've never cared."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #8 April 9, 2009 On the docket today: Illegal Heterosexual Marriage Legal Gay Marriage Comming to terms with legal abortion Legal Drugs Pirating as an accepted form of business. anyone easily being allowed to rent guns and go ape shit.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 April 9, 2009 QuoteYou left out the option of "I support gay marriage and not civil unions". Civil unions can be seen as another form of discrimination. Most people I know that support gay marriage do not support civil unions. I'm the opposite - I think that the term "marriage" should be completely eliminated from the government. Leave that term to religions and private issues and everybody can then butt out of it. Let straight, gay and "etc" only contract to civil unions. Government should only recognize these civil unions (with a very shortened list of benefits). leave the rest to private contracts leave the 'marriage' bit out of government completely don't tax the individuals jointly, don't, don't, don't. Citizens are individuals, not couples, why mix it? apply benefits for children, only to people with children. (do it directly, not inferred) etc etc etc with that foundation - treat everybody the same, and use the same semantics also ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #10 April 9, 2009 QuoteA Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage? When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred. Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. The authors — one of whom voted for and one against Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether. Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union — anything, really, other than marriage. For people who feel the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they wanted. Religions would lose nothing of their role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that they find in keeping with their tenets. And for nonbelievers and those who find the word marriage less important, the civil-union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states and in federal law for married couples. "While new terminology for all may at first seem awkward — mostly in greeting-card shops — [it] dovetails with the court's important responsibility to reaffirm the unfettered freedom of all faiths to extend the nomenclature of marriage as their traditions allow," wrote Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer. Kmiec voted for Prop 8 because of his belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church and his notion of religious liberty but has since said he thinks the courts should not allow one group of Californians to marry while denying the privilege to others. The rest of the article is here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html I sort of like this idea of leaving "marriage" to the religions, with no legal recognition. It would be fine with me if my "marriage" was turned into a "civil union" or whatever; it wouldn't change anything. But somehow I doubt it would satisfy the same-sex marriage opponents. I think that for most of them, their agenda is beyond simply keeping same-sex couples from using the word "marriage." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #11 April 9, 2009 QuoteOn the docket today: Illegal Heterosexual Marriage Legal Gay Marriage Comming to terms with legal abortion Legal Drugs Pirating as an accepted form of business. anyone easily being allowed to rent guns and go ape shit. huh?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #12 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou left out the option of "I support gay marriage and not civil unions". Civil unions can be seen as another form of discrimination. Most people I know that support gay marriage do not support civil unions. I'm the opposite - I think that the term "marriage" should be completely eliminated from the government. Leave that term to religions and private issues and everybody can then butt out of it. Let straight, gay and "etc" only contract to civil unions. Government should only recognize these civil unions (with a very shortened list of benefits). leave the rest to private contracts leave the 'marriage' bit out of government completely don't tax the individuals jointly, don't, don't, don't. Citizens are individuals, not couples, why mix it? apply benefits for children, only to people with children. (do it directly, not inferred) etc etc etc with that foundation - treat everybody the same, and use the same semantics also Agree. Either give everyone the same treatment or remove the perks one group gets versus the other. It's best to get government and religion fully separated now as these people are coming. And before you say that's just sick an unnatural (like I did) remember back to your first reaction when you first heard of homosexulaity. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7283494&page=1Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #13 April 9, 2009 Quotehuh? exactly.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #14 April 9, 2009 LOL When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #15 April 9, 2009 I don't think the government should be involved in marriages or civil unions."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #16 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou left out the option of "I support gay marriage and not civil unions". Civil unions can be seen as another form of discrimination. Most people I know that support gay marriage do not support civil unions. I'm the opposite - I think that the term "marriage" should be completely eliminated from the government. Leave that term to religions and private issues and everybody can then butt out of it. Let straight, gay and "etc" only contract to civil unions. Government should only recognize these civil unions (with a very shortened list of benefits). leave the rest to private contracts leave the 'marriage' bit out of government completely don't tax the individuals jointly, don't, don't, don't. Citizens are individuals, not couples, why mix it? apply benefits for children, only to people with children. (do it directly, not inferred) etc etc etc with that foundation - treat everybody the same, and use the same semantics also The more I think about it the more I like your idea.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #17 April 9, 2009 Quoteleave the 'marriage' bit out of government completely Immigration is the benefit where it is hard to see how to completely get government out of the marriage business. Most people are against completely open borders but are in favor of allowing bona fide spouses of citizens to immigrate. And they probably split re allowing civil union partners to immigrate."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #18 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteleave the 'marriage' bit out of government completely Immigration is the benefit where it is hard to see how to completely get government out of the marriage business. Most people are against completely open borders but are in favor of allowing bona fide spouses of citizens to immigrate. And they probably split re allowing civil union partners to immigrate. But the idea is that civil unions _would_ have the legal rights/benefits (including immigration) that marriage now has, and that marriage would no longer have those rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #19 April 9, 2009 QuoteBut the idea is that civil unions _would_ have the legal rights/benefits (including immigration) that marriage now has, and that marriage would no longer have those rights. Well, rehmwa said "apply benefits for children, only to people with children" This might be a fair standard to apply in tax matters but requiring a couple to first have children before they can be together might be considered quite unfair in immigration matters."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #20 April 9, 2009 QuoteBut the idea is that civil unions _would_ have the legal rights/benefits (including immigration) that marriage now has, and that marriage would no longer have those rights. Civil union in which country?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #21 April 9, 2009 >Most people are against completely open borders but are in favor of >allowing bona fide spouses of citizens to immigrate. Right. So now you allow people with bona fide civil unions to emigrate. Anyone can get married to anyone for any length of time; it's just a religious ceremony. However, you need the civil union to get the federal benefits. This really isn't much different from what happens now. You go to town hall to get a 'marriage license' and it's not valid until the minister/justice of the peace/priest signs it. Do exactly the same thing, just make it valid as soon as both people sign it in town hall. Then you have the civil union. Then go to a church if you like, or a synagogue, or your friend's house for a reception, or go on your honeymoon if you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #22 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut the idea is that civil unions _would_ have the legal rights/benefits (including immigration) that marriage now has, and that marriage would no longer have those rights. Civil union in which country? I was referring to the U.S., but I don't know how the switch would translate to other countries. Actually, it's really just a big stupid complicated idea. Makes a lot more sense to simply allow same-sex marriage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #23 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut the idea is that civil unions _would_ have the legal rights/benefits (including immigration) that marriage now has, and that marriage would no longer have those rights. Civil union in which country? I was referring to the U.S., but I don't know how the switch would translate to other countries. I was thinking that you'd have to recognize overseas "marriages" as civil unions for immigration purposes. Either that or force the rest of the world to move to our civil union model--if they refuse to do it, we could just nuke 'em.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 April 9, 2009 QuoteWell, rehmwa said "apply benefits for children, only to people with children" This might be a fair standard to apply in tax matters but requiring a couple to first have children before they can be together might be considered quite unfair in immigration matters. huh? I mean this as a parallel thought. Don't give the benefits a person would get for having children, unless they actually-have-a-child in otherwords, some of the marriage tax benefits are intended to 'encourage' people to marry in order to make children I have no idea what you inferred as far as preferred immigration status? I said the list of benefits accruing to a "civil union" should be extremely short - not totally limited. This one seems a legitimate candidate to retain...... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #25 April 9, 2009 Why should there be any tax benefits for married people or people with children?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
