"It's my birthday, so vote against 'Gay Marriage'"

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, because it always come down to gays being immoral and hating them is part of Christianity so accepting them is infringing on one's religion

It seems to be the word "marriage" that upsets so many opponents of gay marriage. There is a simple solution.

Have the government stop recognizing any marriages at all, and only recognize civil unions. Every couple, gay or straight, would have to go to the courthouse and have a civil union, then they would be a legal couple. If they choose, they can hold any kind of marriage ceremony they want to, so they can have their religious sanctioned marriages. People would be free to have marriage ceremonies, religious or secular, without the civil union, but the government would not recognize it. A marriage could be dissolved by the church or house of worship that performed it, or simply by the couple themselves in some cases. A civil union would have to be dissolved by the government.

In other words, take sanctioning marriage completely out of the governments hands, and have them only sanction civil unions. This way, whichever religion or sect a person belongs to, they can be sure that no one they do not approve of will be married within their church.

We already do something similar in the US by requiring a government issued marriage license. Why not just take it one step further and have the government issue a civil union, a legal contract, between any couple, and leave whether or not to have a ceremony and what kind up to the couple.

_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com

You know, churches don't have to open up public venues. The ones that do sort of set themselves up.

That's more or less the German model, although we still call it marriage. People can only get married at a registrar's office. Priests don't have the legal right to conduct a legally binding union. Many couples have a church wedding in addition to their civil marriage, but that is just a religious ceremony.

You can't marginalize something that only existed in fantasies.

The traditional family definitely did and does exist, but I'm at a loss as to how you could possibly marginalise it? Unless your belief is that if it's not actively being promoted, then it's being marginalised, which is silly.

I define "traditional marriage" as simply a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of the family structure that follows said union. There's nothing fictional or fantastic about it.

By "marginalize" I mean the destructive effects that often befall the participants within an individual family structure. Sure, children often do just fine in split families--but not always, and they frequently do suffer when parents split. I think opening the the definition of marriage to include other kinds of couples minimizes the positive effects of solid traditional marriages. If you're really going to go there, then you have to at least reconsider the legality of plural marriage, as an example.

Now, as has been suggested, you can do away with marriage entirely if you want to be equitable in the shadow of immorality (i.e. give immorality even par with morality). I expect the end result to be more harm than good, though.

What evidence do you have that 'gay marriage' is harmful to children?