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

[Amarok]

I don’t think that the state should encourage adultery. Do you?

I also think that divorce is far too easy, often to the detriment of children

And their you go comparing gay marriage to adultery and no divorce is good enough as is .

[polymath257]

OK, so do you think that the government should make adultery illegal?

Do you think that it should make divorce impossible?

Do you think it should enact laws that are founded in your religious beliefs?

Or, do you think that religion should keep its rules to itself and let the *secular* society determine what is legal and illegal?

Remember, NOBODY is asking for your church to sanctify the secular marriages performed by the state. The two are separate issues and should be separate issues.

I don’t think that the state should encourage adultery. Do you?

I also think that divorce is far too easy, often to the detriment of children.

I don't think either one is something that should be legislated. For example, I don't think there should be *criminal* penalties for adultery. If three people find they want to be in a relationship together, I do not have a problem with that. The problem with adultery isn't the sex, it is the violation of a trust.

And no, I don't think it is too easy to divorce. Even for the children.

[SteveII]

OK, so your basic position is that governments have to use *your* definition of marriage? And if they don't, then they shouldn't use the word at all?

Just to be clear, there would NOT be a 'marriage license', but rather a 'license of civil union' for even heterosexual couples?

If you mean by *your* definition of marriage as the one that is older than history itself, yes.

I'm fine with civil union licenses.

[polymath257]

So, once again, if the government stopped calling *anything* marriage and instead started calling it 'civil unions' and allowed gays to be in such, you would have no issue with that?

That would be excellent. But you are missing the point that the LGBT goal was to redefine marriage. The civil union thing was not good enough.

It was not enough if straights still were able to marry, no. What is enough is equality.

[Amarok]

That would be excellent. But you are missing the point that the LGBT goal was to redefine marriage. The civil union thing was not good enough.

Yup and they won and the worlds better for it i know that gets your panties in a bunch but we don't care .

[polymath257]

OK, so your basic position is that governments have to use *your* definition of marriage? And if they don't, then they shouldn't use the word at all?

Just to be clear, there would NOT be a 'marriage license', but rather a 'license of civil union' for even heterosexual couples?

If you mean by *your* definition of marriage as the one that is older than history itself, yes.

I'm fine with civil union licenses.

OK, so every time you hear the word 'marriage' in a *secular* context, just think of it as being 'civil union'. because that's what it is.

[Amarok]

If you mean by *your* definition of marriage as the one that is older than history itself, yes.

I'm fine with civil union licenses.

Once again argument from antiquity

[SteveII]

If you mean by *your* definition of marriage as the one that is older than history itself, yes.

I'm fine with civil union licenses.

OK, so every time you hear the word 'marriage' in a *secular* context, just think of it as being 'civil union'. because that's what it is.

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

[Amarok]

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

Once again big freaking deal

---

To which the answer is... I'm not sure what you are talking about.   Do you mean "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Once again trying to shove your religion into the framework of a country that is secular .

[polymath257]

OK, so every time you hear the word 'marriage' in a *secular* context, just think of it as being 'civil union'. because that's what it is.

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.