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

[Amarok]

Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

Ok, RR. I'll ask this question specifically of you since I've never seen you answer it when I ask it generally. Would you consider a change to civil unions as the only legal form of marriage-like status? If you want all the legal rights and responsibilities of "marriage" you have to have a civil union (automatically granted to all who are married when the law takes affect), removing all legal power from a church marriage. In short, get a civil union for all the legal stuff, a church marriage for the "in the eyes of gawd" stuff and let people choose if they want one, the other or both. Because as long as a secular government has the power to marry people, denying them the right to marry whomever they choose is a violation of their rights.

---

I think that you are trying to equivocate here. This is not about who one is attracted to.  I’m not saying that a person attracted to the same sex is any less human nor undeserving of basic human rights and dignity. As you said, it is about a definition of marriage.  And that we disagree, doesn’t give one liberty to make up lies about another.

You go on and one about the changing definition of marriage. What about the changes that allowed secular institutions to perform marriages. What about the changes for age of consent. These were changes to the definition of marriage. After all, 12-14 year old girls used to be married off to middle-aged men all the fucking time. For fuck's sake you all sound like allowing someone else to take part is somehow depriving you.

As i said Roads argument leads to dangerous conclusions

[Ravenshire]

Ok, RR. I'll ask this question specifically of you since I've never seen you answer it when I ask it generally. Would you consider a change to civil unions as the only legal form of marriage-like status? If you want all the legal rights and responsibilities of "marriage" you have to have a civil union (automatically granted to all who are married when the law takes affect), removing all legal power from a church marriage. In short, get a civil union for all the legal stuff, a church marriage for the "in the eyes of gawd" stuff and let people choose if they want one, the other or both. Because as long as a secular government has the power to marry people, denying them the right to marry whomever they choose is a violation of their rights.

Ah, of course. I forgot about that phrase. That could be the "new" version I referred to in my PS. CUs could have all the legal power, and marriage could just be ceremonial. I see no problem with that, in theory.

I don't know if it's still the practice in Germany, but when my brother was married in 1980 he and his wife had two ceremonies. One, a legal ceremony, attended only by immediate family with a small dinner at his in-law's home afterwards. The other, a religious only affair that involved a cathedral, hundreds of people and a wedding party that lasted until almost dawn. I believe either one was optional, but I may be wrong on the legal one.

[robvalue]

Well, I think the only essential parts are the verbal consent given to the party qualified to issue marriages, and the signing of the legal document. Everything else is ceremony. That's England though, so I couldn't be sure about Germany or other countries. In less secular places I would bet a religious ceremony is not optional.

[Ravenshire]

Well, I think the only essential parts are the verbal consent given to the party qualified to issue marriages, and the signing of the legal document. Everything else is ceremony. That's England though, so I couldn't be sure about Germany or other countries. In less secular places I would bet a religious ceremony is not optional.

It sounds like England handles it much the same way we do. Not surprising since most of our laws were originally taken from English common law. Here in the states, that secular, legally binding document isn't legally binding until signed by the person doing the ceremony. That can be a judge, some local shaman, or in some jurisdictions it can be the county clerk that performs the ceremony and signs the paper. Is that about how it's done there?

I'd be down for civil unions as long as the power to seal that secular document is stripped from the local witch doctors.

Having written that out, the irony of "they're changing the meaning!!!" really hit home. RR, Stevie and the lot are bitching and moaning over a change to the the secular meaning of the term marriage. Nobody is going to force one of their holy sorcerers to marry a gay couple. But, it's like the Supreme Court murdered their puppies.

[robvalue]

Yup, in England the qualified marriage giver must also sign the document along with the participants and some witnesses. You could have a full church wedding and not be legally married, if this part isn't done. Or you can just do the legal bit and go home.

I realized what is going on here, I think. RR and people like him don't want to be associated with gays through the word marriage. They want it clear that "their" marriage is different.

(PS: Technically no one has to be gay though, two straight people of the same gender could marry, as far as I know.)

[Cecelia]

Yup, in England the qualified marriage giver must also sign the document along with the participants and some witnesses. You could have a full church wedding and not be legally married, if this part isn't done. Or you can just do the legal bit and go home.

I realized what is going on here, I think. RR and people like him don't want to be associated with gays through the word marriage. They want it clear that "their" marriage is different.

In which case I say we let them create their own word.  Like Christian-Union.  They can have Christian unions, and everyone else can have marriage.  That way, we're not associated with them.

[Ravenshire]

Yup, in England the qualified marriage giver must also sign the document along with the participants and some witnesses. You could have a full church wedding and not be legally married, if this part isn't done. Or you can just do the legal bit and go home.

I realized what is going on here, I think. RR and people like him don't want to be associated with gays through the word marriage. They want it clear that "their" marriage is different.

(PS: Technically no one has to be gay though, two straight people of the same gender could marry, as far as I know.)

There was actually a terrible Adam Sandler movie based on that rather clever premise. "I now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry." "Two straight, single Brooklyn firefighters pretend to be a gay couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits." From IMDB.

[robvalue]

Yup, in England the qualified marriage giver must also sign the document along with the participants and some witnesses. You could have a full church wedding and not be legally married, if this part isn't done. Or you can just do the legal bit and go home.

I realized what is going on here, I think. RR and people like him don't want to be associated with gays through the word marriage. They want it clear that "their" marriage is different.

In which case I say we let them create their own word.  Like Christian-Union.  They can have Christian unions, and everyone else can have marriage.  That way, we're not associated with them.

Lol sure, fair enough! Nothing stopping them doing that.

I'd love to know in what way a same-sex marriage is actually different. "Marriage is all about differing genitalia" doesn't exactly hold much water. Seriously, that's the focal point? Not, like... the relationship between the people, or anything?

[Ravenshire]

Yup, in England the qualified marriage giver must also sign the document along with the participants and some witnesses. You could have a full church wedding and not be legally married, if this part isn't done. Or you can just do the legal bit and go home.

I realized what is going on here, I think. RR and people like him don't want to be associated with gays through the word marriage. They want it clear that "their" marriage is different.

In which case I say we let them create their own word.  Like Christian-Union.  They can have Christian unions, and everyone else can have marriage.  That way, we're not associated with them.

Nah. They don't need to make up a new one. Let them keep the one they've already got. Holy matrimony. As long as it's not legally binding through their parish wizard, I'm good with it.

---

In which case I say we let them create their own word.  Like Christian-Union.  They can have Christian unions, and everyone else can have marriage.  That way, we're not associated with them.

Lol sure, fair enough! Nothing stopping them doing that.

I'd love to know in what way a same-sex marriage is actually different. "Marriage is all about differing genitalia" doesn't exactly hold much water. Seriously, that's the focal point? Not, like... the relationship between the people, or anything?

I've always wondered about the rare few people who actually carry both sets of genitalia. Do they get a pass and can marry anybody or are they stuck in some religious loophole that prevents them from marrying anyone?!?

I think we're gonna need someone who speaks in tongues to sort this one out for us.

[robvalue]

I imagine the priest doing a quick "lift and check" before saying whatever magic words God considers sufficient.

---

PS: I realized the irony of all this. When a religious person says they are married (in a secular country), they will generally want to imply that this includes the secular legal status.