Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
To the religionists on this forum: What about heterosexual atheists that want to get married? Should they also be barred from getting married?

To you, why do you want the government to be involved in marriage?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned


To you, why do you want the government to be involved in marriage?

Nothing wrong with them being involved in civil marriage. They have that right. Religious marriage can be done by religious sects and I am proposing NO restrictions on that.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


This is well known, Mr.Fun. I find it interesting that the statement is even under scrutiny.

Yeah right.

I have never conducted any demographic survey, but I'm not going to assume that children raised by two parents turn out better just for that reason, than children raised by single parents.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Nothing wrong with them being involved in civil marriage. They have that right. Religious marriage can be done by religious sects and I am proposing NO restrictions on that.

The major problem I have with government being invovled in this issue is that by issuing licenses it implicitly has the power to deny licenses. I think the government must stay completely out of the issue as relationships between people are private matters, none of the government's business.

The government may properly define law, rules and regulations concerning property, support, privileges, etc., for people who claim to be married. But the marriage is, in the final analysis, nothing more than a private contract between two people who intend to be married.

Religious and civil ceremonies are just that -- ceremonies. They change nothing about the underlying fundamentals and truly are not required (unless one believes one needs a priest to be validly married) in order for people to be validly married.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


Yeah right.

I have never conducted any demographic survey, but I'm not going to assume that children raised by two parents turn out better just for that reason, than children raised by single parents.

Mr.Fun, your original criticism and my response were to a different point altogether.

As to the single-parent vs. two parents, I think the nation went through this in the famous Murhy Brown flap. The concensus view that emerged was that this nation was committed to families -- both parties.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

In addition to what Ming said, I think that this means you are basically encouraging poorer people to have more kids and richer people to have fewer. That's not a good idea.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
So we gay people are unfit to have children, wezil? All we demand is marriage, and equal rights.

So you want the right to have babies, too?

[Kuciwalker]

I think what Elok says makes a lot of sense. You ARE allowing "gay marriage" as it is meant by it's proponents, but that meaning happens to be "a certain legal contract between two people and the state that grants rights a, b, and c". Because the term "marriage" has historically referred to a religious sacrement, Elok wants to divorce () that term from that contract, and rather call that contract a "civil union".

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned


The major problem I have with government being invovled in this issue is that by issuing licenses it implicitly has the power to deny licenses. I think the government must stay completely out of the issue as relationships between people are private matters, none of the government's business.

Then I'll say the same thing about the church. Maybe civil marriage should be done by a private civil insitution?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
Explain to me Ming why the government should be involved at all in defining who should be married and who should not?

First... whether you like it or not... they are involved. And that's a FACT! Governments (or society, because that's all a government really is) has been involved in marriages for a long time. The box has already been opened. And what I don't like is the fact that some want to take that power away and hand it off to religion.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The power to govern marraige should be governed by religion. That's part of the reason that the Federal Government should recognize Civil Unions. Civil Unions are non-religious. They can and should be initiated by religions when called for by members of that faith. However, Civil Unions should carry the weight of federal benefits, and marraiges should be strictly limited to the religion in which they are performed. If I want to be married, I should have the ability to do that in my faith; the benefits I receive from that marraige should also be given if a person chooses to marry without any faith. It just makes sense.

[Giancarlo]

Civil unions are again inadequate as they do not have the same benefits as marriages do and to deny gays the same benefits because they have to do civil unions is a gross violation of the constitution. There must be gay marriage where it would recognized in every state, not just some.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are such a leftie, Giancarlo

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I agree...but the topic of the thread was to make civil unions the recognized benefitial Federal law...marraige should be relegated to religions and NOT the law...civil unions should be the law for all who wish to bind themselves together in the eyes of the state

though as it stands currently, I completely think my state (MA) is the only one on track...since marraiges are the only way to gain benefits, marraiges should be open to all...right now

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I agree...but the topic of the thread was to make civil unions the recognized benefitial Federal law...marraige should be relegated to religions and NOT the law...civil unions should be the law for all who wish to bind themselves together in the eyes of the state

I actually wouldn't call civil unions inadequate if they carried the same benefits given that heterosexual marriage does. And if they are applied in all states. But they aren't. That's why I demand civil marriage.

Imran: I am a gay rightie.