The Glade 4.0

I hope you are aware that marriage predates all established religions. Many of these marriages were polygamous as well. Religions kind of hijacked marriages.

Marriage is not, and likely never was a holy union. Abrahamic cultures have always treated marriage as a property contract. The tradition goes back further. You can see a similar approach to marriage among ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman societies.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Just tossing this here to let folks make their own conclusion of your statement.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are conflicting ideas as to the extent of what "no law respecting an establishment of religion" breaks down to, considering this country was founded in a time that a certain religious mindset was prevelant here. Like it or not, our laws are based somewhat in religion. So "seperate" in the sense of the First Amendment isn't the same idea as "seperate" means in what I believe your context is.

At least in my opinion- the religious aspect of marrige is the sole dominion of the faith that performs the ceremony. Therefore, in my opinion again, the government needs to look at this as a legal contract between two people, and the government has no legal standing to restrict a contract between two adults. On the flip side, the first lawsuit by a same sex couple of a church that doesn't wish to perform a marrige for them should be laughed out of court and admonished by the gay community.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I'm Rori and I endorse this Message

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You've got no argument from me on this.

Regarding the bolded statement:
Yes, this is a slippery slope. Hannibal is correct though in that we started off on the wrong foot by not having a complete separation. The best outcome for all of this would be to let people marry themselves under their religion without want or need for government approval. Unfortunately this isn't the country we live in. Government already oversees all marriages, and they have an obligation to make sure any services offered to its citizens are equal and without discrimination. Of course, this could bring us back to my first post regarding the description of the word.

My apologies to you both for the ninja edit

I'm glad we can agree, Lenas

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Good, lets fasttrack this mother trucker to the Supreme Court and call it the "sit down and shut the f up about it" act of 2011.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Eventually, yes. Plus which, it would only be fair for the Amerindians, don't you think?

That's because your heart, it bleeds.

_________________

I forgive you.

States have been able to define marriage on their own for 230+ years. Why do we need to stop now?

Does it bother you that millions of Californians had their voice overturned by one appointed man?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

States never should have had control, but that's my point. I already acknowledge that isn't going to change. Because that isn't going to change, the government's new goal should become complete equality and zero tolerance for discrimination against its citizens.

Also the country we live in is one of our making. If people from both sides if this issued lobbied their congresssitters we could make it happen.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I disagree.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I've addressed how I feel about majority rule in prior postings toward gay marriage:

It's unfortunate that you don't feel government should protect the equality of its citizens.

They should be free to engange in whatever contract they want to. I should be free to say that two men does not a marriage make.

If the government is going to change it should be so we can both can be true.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

We are the government. It can be done if we apply ourselves.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You CAN say that two men does not a marriage make, and in your circle it would be true. Your dogma does not allow equality across all peoples, and that's okay. This is why we have separation.

I'll let you in on something. I'd vote for an equal partner amendment if it included ironclad protections for the free associations of individuals and organizations in respect of such items. Without it it's just the matter of a tyranny of the minority (one judge) and my right to do so is diminished.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

How exactly are you afraid of having your rights diminished? I'm not sure I grasp what you're losing here.

If it's not tyranny of the majority then it's tyranny of the minority... this is how living in a society and not the woods works.

What makes a gay couple worse to raise a child than anyone else? A couple who cannot afford a child? Or is a gay couple raising a child worse than a drug abusing home? I am absolutely positive that a gay couple raising a child is so much worse than the woman in Florida who drowned her children in the bath tub...

Is a gay couple incapable of loving a child like a straight couple?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Christians are terrified that gays will get married in churches against the will of the people who go to that church. It might be a reasonable fear, if you overlook the fact that nobody wants to have their wedding performed by some prick who's going to piss all over your ceremony because he has a bug up his *** about your partner.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Well they don't get upset about getting married by some guy who sticks his anointed dick into an 8 year old boy?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Only posting this because the girl is hot.

And this is why I stopped getting into these debates. I'm either scared of something or I support pedophiles.

I wish I was cool as everyone else.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

To the best of my knowledge no pastor of my church has done that and if he did we'd toss him out on his ear. You don't know him and I resent the implication of his character.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"