Pope Says Gay Marriage Poses A Threat To 'Justice And Peace' In World Day Of Peace 2013 Address

[dogtowner]

They would be wrong about the first part, but correct about the second, at least partly.
Why not just have "civil unions" with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage? Just call it something else besides marriage. It would be so simple. Gays could have a wedding, call each other "my wife" and "my husband", they could have a "honeymoon", they could even use the term "marriage". It just wouldn't be called that officially. What is the big deal?

because its not justified.

 

[Openmind]

because its not justified.

Why not? Because you say so?

 

[dogtowner]

Why not? Because you say so?

in the context of what purpose the treatment afforded marriage was given, you explain how so many besides just me are incorrect.

 

[Openmind]

in the context of what purpose the treatment afforded marriage was given, you explain how so many besides just me are incorrect.

And that group is shrinking every year!

That certainly doesn't prove that you (and the shrinking minority of social dinosaurs) are correct!



Gay Marriage Support: 51 Percent Of Americans Are In Favor Of Marriage Equality, Poll Shows
The Huffington Post | By Sara Gates
Posted: 11/14/2012 1:07 pm EST Updated: 11/14/2012 1:07 pm EST

 

[PLC1]

because its not justified.

Calling gay marriage by another name is not justified?
Is calling it "marriage" justified?

or did you mean that equal rights for people who are gay is not justified?

 

[dogtowner]

And that group is shrinking every year!

That certainly doesn't prove that you (and the shrinking minority of social dinosaurs) are correct!



Gay Marriage Support: 51 Percent Of Americans Are In Favor Of Marriage Equality, Poll Shows
The Huffington Post | By Sara Gates
Posted: 11/14/2012 1:07 pm EST Updated: 11/14/2012 1:07 pm EST

how did I know you would ignore the point ?

 

[Cruella]

So, all that really has to be done is to add "civil union certificate" to the definition of marriage certificates, and gays can go ahead and have any wedding ceremony that they want to have, just as straights do now.

Ah, and there is the tricky part. Any wedding ceremony? What if they want to be married in the church and the clergy doesn't want to perform the ceremony? This is where religious people will seperate from "civil unions", as most feel that the "marriage ceremony" is in fact a religious right before God. Where does the government come in? .....you know they will.

 

[Openmind]

Ah, and there is the tricky part. Any wedding ceremony? What if they want to be married in the church and the clergy doesn't want to perform the ceremony? This is where religious people will seperate from "civil unions", as most feel that the "marriage ceremony" is in fact a religious right before God. Where does the government come in? .....you know they will.

Smple. . . They go to another church and find a pastor, priest, minister who believes that "all men are created equal" and that the human rights come from God, not from the government!

There are already plenty of those enlightened religious people around.

And who wants to be married by ministers stuck in the 19th century, anyway?

 

[PLC1]

Smple. . . They go to another church and find a pastor, priest, minister who believes that "all men are created equal" and that the human rights come from God, not from the government!

There are already plenty of those enlightened religious people around.

And who wants to be married by ministers stuck in the 19th century, anyway?

Exactly.
Churches choose who they will marry as it is. Why would that change? If the church is against homosexual unions, then the couple should find another church. It's all about individual choices.

 

[GenSeneca]

They are gong to ask for the marriage certificate.

Giving gays the same special benefits as straights, by calling it something other than marriage, doesn't address the fact that government is doing something it has no business doing. It would be better if the State had no control over the issue of marriage, gay or straight. If the state wants to be an impartial records keeper, fine, all for that, but it has no business deciding who can marry whom (and thereby receive special benefits not available to single individuals) through the issuance of marriage certificates.

If you must obtain government permission before performing an action, then the action is not a Right but a legal privilege. We do not need permission to exercise a Right. So if anyone really believes that marriage is a Right and that such a right should be available to every single individual, then the argument should be to return marriage to it's status as a Right by eliminating government control over the issue.

 

[PLC1]

Giving gays the same special benefits as straights, by calling it something other than marriage, doesn't address the fact that government is doing something it has no business doing. It would be better if the State had no control over the issue of marriage, gay or straight. If the state wants to be an impartial records keeper, fine, all for that, but it has no business deciding who can marry whom (and thereby receive special benefits not available to single individuals) through the issuance of marriage certificates.

If you must obtain government permission before performing an action, then the action is not a Right but a legal privilege. We do not need permission to exercise a Right. So if anyone really believes that marriage is a Right and that such a right should be available to every single individual, then the argument should be to return marriage to it's status as a Right by eliminating government control over the issue.

Eliminating government from the issue would be preferable, but is not likely to ever happen.

 

[Openmind]

Giving gays the same special benefits as straights, by calling it something other than marriage, doesn't address the fact that government is doing something it has no business doing. It would be better if the State had no control over the issue of marriage, gay or straight. If the state wants to be an impartial records keeper, fine, all for that, but it has no business deciding who can marry whom (and thereby receive special benefits not available to single individuals) through the issuance of marriage certificates.

If you must obtain government permission before performing an action, then the action is not a Right but a legal privilege. We do not need permission to exercise a Right. So if anyone really believes that marriage is a Right and that such a right should be available to every single individual, then the argument should be to return marriage to it's status as a Right by eliminating government control over the issue.

So. . .because women had to obtain the "government permission" to be allowed to vote, you consider that women's vote is not a RIGHT?
Or because interracial couples had to obtain the "government permission" to be allowed to marry, you consider that it interracial marriage is not a "right?"
Or because the end of slavery had to wait for the "government permission" to allow some individuals, based on the color of their skin, to be FREE, freedom is not a right?

Would you like me to go on?

Although. . .I do agree with one part of your comments: It would be better for government to get totally out of the "marriage" business, but that would also mean getting rid of all the "marriage tax benefits" for EVERYONE, gay and straight.

Although I've been married 41 years, I would actually be okay with that, IF it makes every couple EQUAL.

 

[dogtowner]

Eliminating government from the issue would be preferable, but is not likely to ever happen.

impossible.
people demanded government get involved as an arbitrator of disputes related to property. as it aided driving the populace to productive ends they were happy to oblige and even encourage.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The church discriminated against black people at one time

It invested heavily in their kidnap and enslavement

Now it is homosexuals they turn their 'love' to

Yes, a shining beacon of hope the church

Full of vicious right wing dickheads

What will the pope do if the RC church comes out against transvestism?

Or pedophilia

Or national socialism

 

[steveox]

This is Right

THIS IS WRONG!