"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Brian37]

It is when you institute a 'separate but equal' framework for 'secular unions'.

The *word* isn't that important. What *is* important is the societal and governmental benefits, including things like survivor benefits and tax deductions. Also, the recognition by the government of the bond.

You are kidding yourself...big time. It had everything to do with the word 'marriage'. No way was 'civil unions' enough. You don't know what you are talking about. 

Would you be happier if government got out of the marriage business altogether, leaving that to the religious institutions, and instead have *every* government sanctioned union be a civil union?

Yes.

HA HA HA, hey dumbass, our government ALREADY IS out of the business.

You do know, the difference between mandated and voluntary? You do NOT need a religious person to conduct a marriage ceremony. You can, but you ARE NOT REQUIRED.

I got married by a judge, and specifically requested he not mention God or the bible. The only thing that is required by law is signing a license and getting it notarized by the county/city clerk. You are not even required to have a religious ceremony. 

Fucking boat captains on cruise ships conduct them. If you want a Muslim marriage or Jewish marriage what matters isn't the holy person, but the legal document signed by the witness, confirmed by the clerk. I got married WITHOUT YOUR FUCKING GOD!

Just fucking grow up. Basing your life on antiquity is FUCKING STUPID! If you are going to condemn gays, then you should be consistent and condemn interracial marriage which was ALSO condemned justifying the bible. You have no fucking clue what real oppression is. If you live in Iran or Saudi Arabia, and tried to date outside your religion, you'd get condemned or worse, MURDERED!

Voluntary is NOT A BAN, but the Christian bible IS NOT required by law, nor is a Christian holy person required by law to be legal witness to a marriage. It is why a Christian and Jew can marry. It is why a atheist and Christian can marry. It is why a Muslim and Christian can marry. It is also why non religious DONT need a holy person to marry.

And your hypocrisy and ignorance is ASTOUNDING.... You now want government out of the institution of marriage after tons of posts advocating for only Christian marriage? No, you DO WANT religion involved. Your sect and only when you get to define it.

Make up your fucking mind? Do you want government involved in marriage based on religion, or not? Or is it really you want OUR government to favor your bigotry?

[Amarok]

Oh, so pretend that the word was not redefined. Okay, I'll try that.

It's a good idea. The word 'marriage' is now a *legal* term, not a religious term. And like many other words, there is more than one denotation. Secular marriage is more inclusive.

Yup it is a legal term and religion get no say in it's definition . Now watch Road do something absurd  like compare it to a married bachelor.

[SteveII]

Oh, so pretend that the word was not redefined. Okay, I'll try that.

It's a good idea. The word 'marriage' is now a *legal* term, not a religious term. And like many other words, there is more than one denotation. Secular marriage is more inclusive.

Do you think that polygamy should be legalized?

[robvalue]

Note that no one is forcing churches to perform gay marriages. They can stay in the dark ages as long as they want to. That doesn't mean they get to dictate actual law, though.

[Amarok]

Do you think that polygamy should be legalized?

If it's consensual and between adults why not ? and if this is your sad attempt a slippery slope don't bother it won't work .

[Brian37]

It's a good idea. The word 'marriage' is now a *legal* term, not a religious term. And like many other words, there is more than one denotation. Secular marriage is more inclusive.

Do you think that polygamy should be legalized?

No. But somehow a jackass like you would defend it if it were 1 man and several women, but not one women and several men. CONGRATS, you have the same stupid logic LDS and ISIS have.

[robvalue]

Do you think that polygamy should be legalized?

If it's consensual and between adults why not ? and if this is your sad attempt a slippery slope don't bother it won't work .

The only concern I would have is the complexity of the contract. But otherwise, sure.

[Brian37]

Do you think that polygamy should be legalized?

If it's consensual and between adults why not ? and if this is your sad attempt a slippery slope don't bother it won't work .

I don't because the more people involved the more needless rivalry arises, and it isn't atheist that promote this, but religion.


I agree with consent, but the more people involved psychologically, in a marriage, not merely a one time fling, the more potential for needless conflict and power struggles.

[Amarok]

If it's consensual and between adults why not ? and if this is your sad attempt a slippery slope don't bother it won't work .

The only concern I would have is the complexity of the contract. But otherwise, sure.

While true the legality would be complex so is any legal contract between multiple parties (because that's what modern marriage is )

---

If it's consensual and between adults why not ? and if this is your sad attempt a slippery slope don't bother it won't work .

I don't because the more people involved the more needless rivalry arises, and it isn't atheist that promote this, but religion.


I agree with consent, but the more people involved psychologically, in a marriage, not merely a one time fling, the more potential for needless conflict and power struggles.

I didn't say there would be no issues but all relationships have those .

[Brian37]

The only concern I would have is the complexity of the contract. But otherwise, sure.

While true the legality would be complex so is any legal contract between multiple parties (because that's what modern marriage is )

---

I don't because the more people involved the more needless rivalry arises, and it isn't atheist that promote this, but religion.


I agree with consent, but the more people involved psychologically, in a marriage, not merely a one time fling, the more potential for needless conflict and power struggles.

I didn't say there would be no issues but all relationships have those .

Right, the religious love to see marriage as some magical thing handed down to them by a super hero, but in reality the real history is that it has always been a financial contract promising to support another person. This is where the religious morons claim "marriage is about love". I did not claim it should not be about love. It should be, but love is not a patent owned or invented by one label.

And love is also knowing, that utopias don't exist and sometimes things don't work out, and sometimes letting go is the best love you can give.