By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fillet on 23 April 2013
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
RCTjunkie said:
dsgrue3 said:

Provide a compelling argument for disallowing gays to marry without using the terms "The Bible", "I feel", or "Jesus" and I'll entertain it. Otherwise you're simply using religious rhetoric to promote your own bigotry.

1. Making the assumption that I'm a bigot or that I don't even want to allow gays to marry shows how quickly you jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think anyone should get married, at least in the state level. It's technically a religous term and interferes with the Seperation of Church and State. I propose civil unions for any 2 adults that want to be together and they all get the same benefits. If they want to call it a "marriage," they can go to a church that will "wed" them.

Lol wow. It's a bit late to say "I don't think marriage should be a state issue", it has been for hundreds of years. Laws don't simply go away because you are opposed to them.

Marriage is not a religious term. At one time it was, but since being recognized by law clearly it is not simply a religious matter.

It's pretty clear you are avoiding discussing your position rationally and are instead proposing hypotheticals which are impossible.


Incorrect.

Marriage is an entirely religous affair. In the real world more often than not people getting married aren't religious or even believe in god. That is wrong and something that should be corrected at law level. For those people they should be allowed to have a civil ceremony or equivalent of marriage that gives all the same benefits and legal status minus the religous part.

It's blatently obvious that the problem lies with the state here and that both same sex couples - and the people protesting are in the right. It's simply the politicians in all countries don't have the balls to risk their re-election by making drastic changes to law that would prohibit people who admit to not believing in god from getting married and only allowing them civil partnerships - which would be identical to marriage in legal terms.

This may be an impossible and idealistic direction to take things but that's the way it is. There's nothing wrong with proposing a hypothetical solution, even if it will never happen. The whole reason that it is a problem is because no governement would be willing to make it happen.

There is no other just solution that will honour religion and treat same sex couples with fairness that they deserve.