California and Mob Rule

[Ming]

To be clear, I meant that marriage would not have any legal implications in of itself; that it would not be a legal contract. The only legal contracts would be the 'civil unions' or whatever name was chosen. Of course getting married would in almost all cases be done hand-in-hand with said union, so the idea centers around de-emphasizing the marriage ceremony to a religious ritual only.

I disagree... why should gays and non religious people have to settle for "civil unions". Marriage is an important institution... Marriage means something to people... Why should ONLY religious people get to use the term marriage. Marriage is not just some silly religious ritual.

If the religions don't like the fact that gays and non religious people can get married... they can always come up with their own silly name... like sacrament.

I see no reason why everybody should bow to the needs of one religion or another. Hell, they can't even agree.

[Ben Kenobi]

To be clear, I meant that marriage would not have any legal implications in of itself; that it would not be a legal contract.

Religious people don't get married because of the legal contract, they marry for the same reason they get baptised or participate in any of the other sacraments. If they love someone, they want to make a public declaration of their love, and their commitment to each other, just as baptism is a public declaration of their faith.

The only legal contracts would be the 'civil unions' or whatever name was chosen. Of course getting married would in almost all cases be done hand-in-hand with said union, so the idea centers around de-emphasizing the marriage ceremony to a religious ritual only.

If people would honestly prefer turning their marriages into the same thing as getting their driver's license renewed, more power to them. As for 'demphasising the religious ritual', it would have precisely the opposite effect. People would be far more likely to put off and not get their 'civil union' altogether, and just have the wedding with the ceremony. That 'piece of paper' will no longer represent their marriage.

I can see the churches issuing 'marriage' certificates without the legal force, which is fine by me. They would be recognised as married by the community, and everyone else would no longer be considered married.

I'm sure a gay couple would be able to find a church willing to marry them somewhere, so discrimination shouldn't be an issue. And if they're upset that their church won't let them marry... why the hell would they want to be a part of that following?

Exactly, however, given my experience, significant pressure will be placed on any organisation that chooses not to marry gay people, once gay people realise that most people just don't see a 'civil union' paper as having any significance whatsoever.

The funniest part will be gay people arguing they are truly married over couples that they call 'shacking up' who have decided to get married.

[Ben Kenobi]

I disagree... why should gays and non religious people have to settle for "civil unions".

They don't. Just find a unitarian or an episcopalian church. I'm sure they would accommodate you without all the nasty bits of faith and membership.

Marriage is an important institution... Marriage means something to people... Why should ONLY religious people get to use the term marriage. Marriage is not just some silly religious ritual.

It's a sacrament. It would be like asking, why isn't baptism available to non-religious people?

If the religions don't like the fact that gays and non religious people can get married... they can always come up with their own silly name... like sacrament.

Or holy matrimony? Oh, rest assured Ming. I'd rather see that gay people are treated equally bad before the law as everyone else, and have them continue to whine and complain to private organisations that have freedom of assembly.

Again, just go to an episcopalian or a unitarian church, and they will be more then happy to marry you.

I see no reason why everybody should bow to the needs of one religion or another. Hell, they can't even agree.

I see no reason why people should be supporting marriages other then their own. Why should the state grant marriage benefits?

[Asher]

It is up here in Canada, if you are of a particular sort of religion.

No it is not, you pathological liar.

[Ming]

They don't. Just find a unitarian or an episcopalian church. I'm sure they would accommodate you without all the nasty bits of faith and membership.

Again... no need for any stinkin' religion. You keep thinking religions have a monopoly on marriage. THEY DON'T!

It's a sacrament. It would be like asking, why isn't baptism available to non-religious people?

It's only a sacrament to you. Many other religions don't consider it a sacrament. So your baptism line is just irrelevent. Your above argument would mean that unless a religion considered it a sacrament, they couldn't do marriages either... Pure BS.

Or holy matrimony?

Great... you can call it holy matrimony, and everybody else can call it a marriage.

Again, just go to an episcopalian or a unitarian church, and they will be more then happy to marry you.

And again.. why should that be needed?

I see no reason why people should be supporting marriages other then their own. Why should the state grant marriage benefits?

They already do grant benefits, deal with it... I don't see any reason why just religions should be supporting marriages. They don't have a monopoly on marriages, and fortunately, they never have, and never will.

[MrFun]

BK is willfully ignorant about secular marriages administered by justices of peace.

[Ming]

BK is wilfully ignorant about most things...

[MrFun]

[Dr Strangelove]

They don't. Just find a unitarian or an episcopalian church. I'm sure they would accommodate you without all the nasty bits of faith and membership.

No, actually they won't. In most states it's illegal to marry someone who hasn't got a civil license.

I see no reason why people should be supporting marriages other then their own. Why should the state grant marriage benefits?

The state doesn't. However being married means that my wife can benefit from my social security and insurance plans when I die. Are you against life insurance, 401K's, Roth plans and social security insurance? Maybe you'd like to throw my widow penniless out into the cold? Oh! Oh! I know! Let's reinvoke the ancient laws and ban women from property ownership!

Furthermore the issuance of a state license helps prevent fraud and forced marriages.
Are you in favor of fraud and forced marriages?

[KrazyHorse]

By God, you're right.



MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR INANIMATE OBJECTS!

I see no reason that discriminating between humans and non-humans is wrong or illegal.

[Dinner]

Romans and Greeks both had gay marriages and for most of human existence plural marriage was the norm not the exception. Just as it was perfectly normal and acceptable for a married guy to bang all of his slave girls in the ancient world.

[Ben Kenobi]

No it is not, you pathological liar.

Oh, do I need to quote about honour killings because a daugher has dishonoured her family? They have happened here in BC.

[Drake Tungsten]

Romans and Greeks both had gay marriages

Wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again... no need for any stinkin' religion. You keep thinking religions have a monopoly on marriage. THEY DON'T!

We aren't arguing what is, I'm arguing what would happen with Tehban's proposal.

You'd be able to get a civil union same as you do with a marriage license, it would be just like getting your driver's license renewed. What's the issue?

It's only a sacrament to you. Many other religions don't consider it a sacrament.

And some religions stone people for being baptised. What's your point?

So your baptism line is just irrelevent. Your above argument would mean that unless a religion considered it a sacrament, they couldn't do marriages either... Pure BS.

They could do marriage just fine. They could have whatever marriage they wanted. It just wouldn't be recognised by anyone outside of their church. That's the side benefit. The muslims could have all their polygamy, the hindus could have their child brides, etc, etc, etc.

And again.. why should that be needed?

If you have a desire to get married, and all, why is that an issue? You could get a civil union from the government, but if you want something more then that, why not go to one of those churches?

They already do grant benefits, deal with it... I don't see any reason why just religions should be supporting marriages.

It's a religious concept, like baptism.

They don't have a monopoly on marriages, and fortunately, they never have, and never will.

Well I still think Theban's proposal is very sensible, and it makes much more sense then the status quo.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, actually they won't. In most states it's illegal to marry someone who hasn't got a civil license.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about those who already have a civil license, who want something more. Ming was arguing that certain people would be deprived of a wedding ceremony, and I was arguing that there are indeed churches that would cater to them.

The state doesn't. However being married means that my wife can benefit from my social security and insurance plans when I die. Are you against life insurance, 401K's, Roth plans and social security insurance? Maybe you'd like to throw my widow penniless out into the cold? Oh! Oh! I know! Let's reinvoke the ancient laws and ban women from property ownership!

Considering that my mother is a damn widow, yeah I can see you playing the widow card.

I'm not going to dignify the rest with a response.

Furthermore the issuance of a state license helps prevent fraud and forced marriages.
Are you in favor of fraud and forced marriages?

When it conducts 'marriages' I believe to be fraudulent, then it has lost it's purpose. When the state issues benefits to polygamous marriage, which I also believe to be fraudulent, then what's the purpose of having a check against fraud, when fraud is the name of the game?