Yeah that I get behind. Governments need to get out of the marriage business. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

I think if this sign Idea did happen, It would be looked back upon as yet another black spot in Americas history.

This is not about gays it is about people who do not tolerate religous beliefs.  Communists control religion that is why i hate them.  I hate anyone who does not tolerate religous beliefs. 

Not the holocaust!! the discrimnation of the 30's.  Jews were economically and socially boycotted.  Just as prop 8 supporters are being boycotted.  This professors ideas are taking it further

As you know Mafoo it is rare that we agree on something so cherish this moment lol...

You are correct, your idea will dispose of a lot of problems that exist today.

Besides what kind of stupid shop owner will throw away custom by refusing to serve gay people? Do these people not care about money, the shop or the quality of their lives? Whether the objection is religious or not, it does not make sense.

I feel even nerdier than normal asking you this highwaystar, but is your av a picture of Data with an emotion chip, or of Lore impersonating Data?

Yeah, I know you probably have no idea.

Holy Shit!! Gay people play video games!! Who woulda thought? Is your favourite game Singstar Queen?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The problem is prejudice and discrimination. You don't fight prejudice with prejudice. I don't know what country you all are from but in my country anyone can make a contract with anyone for any reason, after that it's just semantics. Marriage is a particular type of contract in a secular legal sense, with certain legally prescribed rights for both parties and certain legal restrictions (like you can contract marriage with more than one person at a time where I live). You might get rid of the term marriage by changing the law, but you can never get rid of legal rights and protections when it comes to interpersonal contracts.

It's totally naive to think that the government (aka the legal system) could get out of contractual relationships, including the one we call marriage. Because contractual relationships mean nothing if there aren't legal underpinnings to bind people to the contract and have enforceable consequences for breaches of contract. If you wanna live free of the strictures of contracts then don't enter into a legal arrangement and just live free and easy. Though even there our laws recognise the status of long term marriage-like relationships even if they have not been set in contract as giving certain rights to each person if/when the relationship ends. I.e. each person is entitled to half of the house, and you'll have to come to an arrangement over who gets the 360 and who gets the PS3, because no one is allowed to take the lot and leave the other person with nothing.

When it comes to the morality of these relationships there is certainly a line over which government should not cross.

Your posts are growing increasingly paranoid and ridiculous. There is not and will never be a government mandate for that.. it was simply a suggestion by one person.. and because one person makes this suggestion, you feel as if Christians who support bigotry are being targeted in the same way as Jews were during the Nazi regime... this kind of suggestion is not only intellectually lazy but trivializes the holocaust as well.

@ Binary. most people here are arguing not that governments should get out of contractual relationships, but that contractual relationships as a government institution, should be seperete from marriage, which would then be a religious ceremony.

So people would get civil unions (or whatever you call it) to be legaly recognized by government. And then anyone who wanted could go for a religious ceremony known as marriage, that wouldn't have any legal meaning.

Again, I really don't see marriage ceasing to be the standard anytime soon, but it would be a nice thought.