musik_knut wrote: 

I respect your opinions.  The only thing I take issue with is that this debate always comes around to religion.  (I say that in a broad sense, not in regards to you specifically.)  The rights and responsibilities that I am granted by the fact of my marriage are NOT religious, they are legal.  They are only religious if I choose to make them so.  And I don't.  Our commitiment to each other is based soley on that... our commitiment to each other.

 Xeric wrote: 

Of course religions insist on defining marriage; they have done so for the ages.
Most recently in California, a sizeable majority  defined the parameters at the ballot box...the minority was not content with the will of the majority...and that is not unusual...but The People spoke...and still, some won't hear them. This issue is best left free of Government intrusion...I was fully irritated when some in my Party, The Republican Party, began a conversation on whether marriage should be defined and entered into The Constitution...that would have been met with my endless objections.

I suspect I am in a distinct minority in RP on this matter...I think I can count on one hand, those of  Conservative bend like me...

 musik_knut wrote: 

I see no problem with your loving and respecting your religion.  It's part of you.  That's great.

Our spirtuality, however, is one of our most personal possessions.  It cannot be dictated by others.  It cannot be mandated by our government.  And if a portion of a mainstream church interprets the gospels in a different way than you, or does not reconcile the Old Testament teachings and the New Testament teachings in the same way that you do, and if that community lends its blessing to a union between two loving people, I believe, with all my heart, that it is a good thing.  It does not diminish your belief system.  It does not insult a loving God.  And, (in my opinion) it lifts up all people of faith.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that no one group can impose their belief system on another. 

 musik_knut wrote: 

I disagree.  If one citizen has the right to be married, all should.  While it is a religous institution for many people,  it is still, at its core, a legal union, often but not always performed under religious authority.  My marriage gives me legal rights and priveleges like tax breaks, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.  Not everyone who is married is religious.  I was married by a notary public in a harbor-side park.  Does that make me less married because a religious figurehead didn't "bless" it?  No.  I don't deny any church the right to deny gay marriage under the rules of their denomination.  But our government is not supposed to be involved in religion.  This is not a religious issue, it is a legal one.  We are denying a basic privelege to a large number of our citizens because of religious mores.  So again, I ask those who inject religion into what should be a legal debate, to keep your religion out of our civil liberties.

I do believe, that if your church does not approve of gay marriage because of your laws, you do not have to perform religious ceremonies for gay couples.  But that has nothing to do with the law. 

 musik_knut wrote: 
I'd like to see some evidence that you've actually given it some thought. If two people join in a civil union, call each other husband and/or wife (whatever: I don't know the protocol), have all the rights and responsibilities of a married hetero couple... why is that not a marriage? Again I say you're hung up on semantics for no other reason than to segregate "you" from "them." Your position on this hurts people needlessly and that makes it wrong. Go ahead: call it a marriage and see how free it makes you.

 BillnDollarBaby wrote: 
neither are we.

the law already defined marriage as non-religious. there's no going back on that now.
no reason not to extend it to same-sex marriages.

 musik_knut wrote: 
I agree entirely with your larger point but I think that what I've bolded is, in fact, exactly what the religious seek to do when they say that only their definition of marriage is valid.

Wait.  "Think"?  No, I think I know that.

 Xeric wrote: 

Nor are the BillnDollars.  We were married beside a harbor by a notary public. 

 Beaker wrote: 
I'm totally with you there.  I have never understood "Holiday Christians".  Spirituality is either a part of your daily life or it isn't.  And religion is either a part of your spirituality or it isn't. And the "blessing" upon a union is more in the spirit of the union than it is in who waves their hands over it.

With that said, most weddings like the one you suggest are performed in a church for the purposes of making family members happy.

I liked the approach that Schlabby and Triskele took:  Find a place that feels beautiful to you, and find someone you respect and trust to say words on behalf of your union.    If that's your regular church, then great.  If that's the neighbor's back yard, then great.

Said it before and I'll say it again:  as long as the gubment feels it's their bidness to regulate unions between two people, there are gonna be problems for some.  Marriage is between two people and whatever deity (or not) they find meaningful - it's none of the government's damn business.

 Beanie wrote: 

If over time, all religions come to view marriage as between two people of the same sex, fine. For now, most religions do not. Any 'church', a loosely defined term since a church can be born tomorrrow from the thoughts of like minded individuals who have no historical starting point or gospel, can do as it wishes. It seems that some can not understand how thoughts and opinions can be formed by religious backgrounds and teachings. If I had had the extreme misfortune to be raised by racists, that would likely direct most of my thoughts. Being a Christian does much of my directing...why is that a growing problem?
I am not homophobic...but I would suggest some gays are heterophobic. When the day comes that all must think alike, we will no longer be capable of thinking as individuals. With every turn of the calendar, someone or some group is pushing to have their views AND only their views, accepted by all. I reject that strait jacketing insult to free thought and free speech.

 Xeric wrote: 
Me and Ma ain't married?

 musik_knut wrote: 

OK, so you are in favor of a legally-recognized union for same-sex couples, which confers all the legal rights we now generally associate with a legally-recognized marriage.

And they can refer to each others as 'husbands' or 'wives'.

Um...OK.  I'm not seeing a problem with this.  Sounds good. 

So, with that all straightened out, if a church (a church that might have a different take than yours does on this whole "definition of a sacred union" thing — not that there's a right or wrong answer when it comes to religion) decides to bless this union, you're cool with that too?  Nobody is asking you to bless the union, only to recognize that others hold it as sacred.

 Xeric wrote: 

Let go of your idea of what the word "marriage" means because it's wrong.
That prompted my last sentence...why my definition is wrong is not defined, it is 'factually' determined by someone holding a diffderent definition...that is pretentiously arrogant.

 Beanie wrote: 
Hey, a guy's gotta play to his strengths, honey!   

 Xeric wrote: 
Sometimes, X, you're so cogent it makes me swoon.   

 Beanie wrote: 

I don't care if two people, joined in a recognized Civil Union, call themselves 'married'. I don't want the Government dictating the definition historically defined by religions over the ages...

What some might not understand, perhaps due to preconceived notions, is that because I don't support the notion of marriage between same sex couples, I would also deny them rights, all rights...I would go the extra mile to defend all their rights...

Marriage is not a right...

 Xeric wrote: 
ok, this makes more sense to me than anything else I've heard on the subject. I have more to say, just not right now at this very minute after one after-work spiced rum 'n mexicoke.

back later, because I don't see this issue the way the rest of RPeeps do.

 musik_knut wrote: 
So . . . somebody else wrote the four sentences preceding that one?

 Beanie wrote: 
As am I, because if the answer to that question is "no," then my wife and I are not "married," either. . . .