America catches up to the modern world (slowly)

[Thud]

Not allowing a husband to beat his wife is also an intanglement with religion, in this case islam. Should domestic violence be allowed to avoid clashing with some religion's principles too?

At the point where a religion becomes intolerant and invasive to others it should no longer be protected or supported by legislation.

@ Weavling: why attributing marriage to christianity? The concept existed long before anyone even came up with the concept 'christian'.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by Thud
I prefer SF but you can make the final pick on our place, as long as you let me choose the dress...

Of course you can pick it!

I'm ashamed to say I don't even know your measurements.

[Weavling]

Short reply cause Im doing homework.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have attributed it directly to christianity.  But it is still a religeous institution, and should not be redefined.

And relating this to the beating of one's wife is extreme.  Obviously inflicting physical harm warrents legislative restriction.

However, with unions between gay couples, marriage is not the only thing out there.  Marriage has prerequisites: in this case having a man and a woman.  Gay couples just don't meet that, and to deny them the union of marriage because they don't meet that is not an infringement of their rights.  Like the example of Boy and Girl Scouts.  A boy cannot join girl scouts, because he is not a girl, thus he doesn't meet the requirements.  Same with vice versa.  This restriction is not infriging on anyone's rights.

It's possible to have another union, that straight couples don't meet the prerequisites, but legally, the standing will be the same.  Gays can get their equal union, while leaving the definition of marriage alone.

If two gay people want to be together, fine, go for it.  I can't stop them.  Just leave the definition of marriage alone.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

The government has already redefined marriage, its not just a civil union or something sacred anymore.

I suspect gays wouldn't care much for being wed if marriage didn't carry with it some extra bonuses the government hands out... taxes for instance.

Its ironic that people keep saying the government shouldn't be getting involved in marriage and redefining it, when its already been happening for quite some time.
-SW

[Otto]

So after perverting the word 'Gay' homosexuals now want to destroy the institution of Marriage?  What next..?

  Just ignore me, I must be filled with 'Hate'.

[Toad]

I say remove all preference for being "married" from our society. No tax breaks, no entitlement breaks of any kind, no "free" health care for spouse and child.

Then let anyone who wants to get married be married. I sure don't give a fig.

But I bet fewer folks see the need to get married in that event.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Too late, the government already destroyed marriage.

Whats so religious about a man and a women going down to the state marriage performer, obtaining a marriage license and then recieving a marriage certificate?

The religious, or holy, aspect is where?
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Thud
Massachusetts leads the way

.

You're a fudgepacker too Thud? cool! Gay pride man!

[storch]

*sniff* turns up nose, swims away

[SOB]

Originally posted by Toad
I say remove all preference for being "married" from our society. No tax breaks, no entitlement breaks of any kind, no "free" health care for spouse and child.

Then let anyone who wants to get married be married. I sure don't give a fig.

But I bet fewer folks see the need to get married in that event.

Now there's an idea I can get behind...err, so to speak.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Otto
So after perverting the word 'Gay' homosexuals now want to destroy the institution of Marriage?  What next..?
 

According to Divorce Magazine:

State with the lowest divorce rate: (1997) Massachusetts. Rate per 1,000 population:  2.4
Percentage of population that is married:  59% (down from 62% in 1990, 72% in 1970)
Percentage of population that is divorced:  10% (up from 8% in 1990, 6% in 1980)

We're doing a fine job destroying "the instution" even without worrying about homosexuals. In any case, I can't figure out why anyone thinks it's something "we" need to preserve. If you want to get married, do so. If you would rather not, do not. To each his own.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by storch
*sniff* turns up nose, swims away

lol

[Saurdaukar]

Im failing to see how homosexuality = modern.

Call me old fashioned, but I like the plumbing to match up as nature intended.

[Thud]

Homosexuality isn't a modern thing (we could drag in the old greeks and romans and so on) but, accepting it as something that everybody has to decide for him/herselve and not interfere with that decision, is.

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by Thud
Homosexuality isn't a modern thing (we could drag in the old greeks and romans and so on) but, accepting it as something that everybody has to decide for him/herselve and not interfere with that decision, is.

exactly, as it is in most states (without gay marriage) you can do that now.  gays have been having 'weddings' for quite a while, all they have to do is find a church that will do it, or really anybody, it's just a ceremony.  then they get a contract for a domestic partnership.

what a law recognizing gay marriages does is removes the option to not except it as a true marriage from everyone else.

once these marriages are authorized by the state then you can be sued if you refuse to recognize this marriage.

it's not about being tolerant of those involved in immoral behavior, most of us have been doing that for awhile.  it's now going the next step and saying we (as a society) have to give our 'OK' and sign off on the immoral behavior itself.