Quote:Where? As with my response to The Eleventh Doctor I can find none. As I see it the word "marriage" is what seems to put the Christians on edge. So to compromise why not give it to them. Go get married in the church of your choice. If you want the benefits of cohabitation then apply for a civil union with the government. The left screams loudly about a separation of church and state so again I ask why is getting married a governmental benefit?
That's more-or-less the way that I view it. I personally have no problem calling a civil union a "marriage", however there should be some compromise. However, the left seems to think that "compromise" means that the right has to concede to the left's point of view. The same the other way around. The right thinks that "compromise" means that the left accept the right's point of view. Neither side is entirely correct and neither side will give up their respective positions.
Why should there be a compromise?
Separate but equal has never worked. The only thing I think that should be conceded to Republicans is that churches should not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay weddings. That's up to the individual churches. I don't see a problem with that. Why is my friends wedding 'destroying the sanctity of marriage' while Newt's third marriage isn't? Or how about those vegas weddings where they've known someone for four hours?
Quote:Why should there be a compromise?
Separate but equal has never worked. The only thing I think that should be conceded to Republicans is that churches should not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay weddings. That's up to the individual churches. I don't see a problem with that. Why is my friends wedding 'destroying the sanctity of marriage' while Newt's third marriage isn't? Or how about those vegas weddings where they've known someone for four hours?
And there is the perfect example of my above post. It simply "can't" be called a "civil union", it "must" be called a "marriage".
Quote:And there is the perfect example of my above post. It simply "can't" be called a "civil union", it "must" be called a "marriage".
Well, why do you get the term marriage?
How would you feel it if the solution were to call church weddings a "religious union" and everybody else has a marriage?
Quote:Well, why do you get the term marriage?
How would you feel it if the solution were to call church weddings a "religious union" and everybody else has a marriage?
Me personally, I really could care less. My marriage/"civil union"/"religious union" has been going on for many years, and I'll personally call it what ever I choose to (my marriage). I am a "traditional" kind of guy and we got married in a "traditional way".
Again, it reinforces the fact that the far left will not accept an easy resolution of the issue. It MUST be called a "marriage" at all costs. Any "compromise" MUST come from the right.
I would argue further, but I feel it's not worth my time.
Quote:Why should there be a compromise?
Separate but equal has never worked. The only thing I think that should be conceded to Republicans is that churches should not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay weddings. That's up to the individual churches. I don't see a problem with that. Why is my friends wedding 'destroying the sanctity of marriage' while Newt's third marriage isn't? Or how about those vegas weddings where they've known someone for four hours?
If sexual orientation is passed as a protected discriminatory class churches will not be able to refuse homosexual weddings based on religious belief just like they can't refuse minority weddings based on religious belief.
The only way to fix it is to take away the governments role in marriage, meaning consenting adults are free to partner with whom they chose and private individuals are free to either participate or refuse service (bakeries , photographers, churches ect...) in the laws eyes it should all be the same.
Quote:Me personally, I really could care less. My marriage/"civil union"/"religious union" has been going on for many years, and I'll personally call it what ever I choose to (my marriage). I am a "traditional" kind of guy and we got married in a "traditional way".
Again, it reinforces the fact that the far left will not accept an easy resolution of the issue. It MUST be called a "marriage" at all costs. Any "compromise" MUST come from the right.
It's not the left, it's the people wanting to be married that insist it be called a marriage. Why should they accept anything less?
Quote:Why should there be a compromise?
Separate but equal has never worked. The only thing I think that should be conceded to Republicans is that churches should not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay weddings. That's up to the individual churches. I don't see a problem with that. Why is my friends wedding 'destroying the sanctity of marriage' while Newt's third marriage isn't? Or how about those vegas weddings where they've known someone for four hours?
If sexual orientation is passed as a protected discriminatory class churches will not be able to refuse homosexual weddings based on religious belief just like they can't refuse minority weddings based on religious belief.
The only way to fix it is to take away the governments role in marriage, meaning consenting adults are free to partner with whom they chose and private individuals are free to either participate or refuse service (bakeries , photographers, churches ect...) in the laws eyes it should all be the same.
Quote:It's not the left, it's the people wanting to be married that insist it be called a marriage. Why should they accept anything less?
And here you open up the "box of worms". This kind of brings back memories of what the definition of "is" is.
For me, I really don't care. Call it a "marriage" if you want. It just doesn't matter to me.
Quote:And here you open up the "box of worms". This kind of brings back memories of what the definition of "is" is.
For me, I really don't care. Call it a "marriage" if you want. It just doesn't matter to me.
Then argument is settled.