question about same sex marriage

[bobhawg]

Without debating the issue in general, I first would like to say, Humans from the beginning I think, tended to pair off with a mate and as mankind developed it was made official by such as the chief of an American Indian Tribe or the medicine man whomever had the authority to authorize the marriage, or ministers or mayors or city officials etc. all had the legal ability to pronounce two humans married.

But now, open same sex marriage seems to be a trend that I do not see changing. But I do have a question now:

If marriage is to be between either traditional male/female or same sex is it not time possibly to just do away with formal marriage and allow any two that choose to be married do so on their own? Why does it have to be official and the government be involved at all? After all, the marriage license was more of a tax and record keeping deal than any moral approval anyway. So I wonder if it is time to do away with civil marriage and allow churches to decide their own terms for religious marriage.

 

[japierce]

The word "marriage" means different things to different people. The religious ceremony should be protected and respected in the way the "Church" sees fit. The civil union and rights granted should be available to any two people that so choose to unite. Had the homosexual community elected to phrase their request as an equal expansion of civil unions, this wouldn't be issue. I think far more people would be in favor of granting these rights if phrased differently. "Gay marriage" makes some envision drag shows in the fellowship hall, as opposed to the more reasonable reality.

That said, the need for legal unions would be important in terms of current systems and processes.

 

[PeteJC]

Average people are good with granting civil unions with all the benefits and obligationsof marriage. Activists want gay marriage to deliver a point.

 

[japierce]

I disagree...at the present civil unions aren't on par with marriage, if they were in terms of legality and rights granted there would be no real issue. No question there are some who feel the way you describe, but the overwhelming majority are more concerned with the rights granted and the recognition of their bond as being legitimate and respected.

 

[PeteJC]

Which civil unions? I said civil unions that give the same benefits and priv of marriage but not called marriage. All the activist I have heard demand "marriage" or nothing.

 

[longtimereb]

I am not for it at all. Just aint right. Say want you want to. It just aint right.

 

[rzrbk7777]

What's next, fathers and daughters, sons and moms, siblings, people and pets, etc? Where do we draw the line? And before you libs say that aint happening, bear in mind that same sex unions were thought of the same way until just a few years ago.

This isn't about rights, it is about moving the line of normalcy and once it is moved it will only move farther and never back.

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by rzrbk7777:

What's next, fathers and daughters, sons and moms, siblings, people and pets, etc? Where do we draw the line? And before you libs say that aint happening, bear in mind that same sex unions were thought of the same way until just a few years ago.

This isn't about rights, it is about moving the line of normalcy and once it is moved it will only move farther and never back.

Liberals called me a bigot for being against same sex marriages...

I replied that I was in favor of interspecies sex! They said I was perverted etc. etc. I said, "Why should a man be allowed to marry the object of his affections?"

They said, "because it's against the law for one reason!!!!!"

I called them bigots and told them that it wasn't so long ago that gay sex was against the law!!! They shut up..


But, I see no way... if same sex passes, that you can deny polygamists the right to legally marry.... And from there, who knows...

 

[rzrbk7777]

I can't stress enough that I personally don't give a flip what two consenting adults do with each other behind closed doors. Absolutely none of my business.

That said, when folks want to open their private lives into the public forums and begin to TELL me I have to condone it, teach my kids to accept it as normal, and applaud it as wonderful and right, they have encroached on my rights. And there is the real issue. It's not about the right to go about your personal business as you please and be left alone, it's about activists forcing their beliefs on everybody else in a loud and blatant manner and making it politically incorrect to disagree with them. At that point, they are MAKING their personal lives my business and forcing me to either surrender or protest as they submit their will on me. I am not gonna be bullied and they are not going to make me feel bad about it. If they don't want my opinion they shouldn't force me into the debate.

 

[Wapiti Hawg]

Originally posted by rzrbk7777:

I can't stress enough that I personally don't give a flip what two consenting adults do with each other behind closed doors. Absolutely none of my business.

That said, when folks want to open their private lives into the public forums and begin to TELL me I have to condone it, teach my kids to accept it as normal, and applaud it as wonderful and right, they have encroached on my rights. And there is the real issue. It's not about the right to go about your personal business as you please and be left alone, it's about activists forcing their beliefs on everybody else in a loud and blatant manner and making it politically incorrect to disagree with them. At that point, they are MAKING their personal lives my business and forcing me to either surrender or protest as they submit their will on me. I am not gonna be bullied and they are not going to make me feel bad about it. If they don't want my opinion they shouldn't force me into the debate.

Well said.