the conservative case for same sex marriage

[martha]

I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.

And those who still want to be married, but without a church service?

 

[martha]

Abortion is a good example. The country woke up one fine morning in 1973 to find ending the lives of human fetuses was now legal. No public debate, no vote, just POW.

Kind of like those poor white children who were comfortable in their segregated schools, and then POW. One fine morning in 1954 they woke up and they were forced to go to school with black children. No vote, but plenty of public debate. Just POW. And there were PLENTY of religious reasons to keep 'em separated, so don't go there.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

And those who still want to be married, but without a church service?

Then they can just call it marriage, its doing the same thing, so many people just get so upset over the word.

 

[martha]

Then they can just call it marriage, its doing the same thing, so many people just get so upset over the word.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

Heres what I think:
Marriage is a religious ceremony. ..... I believe marriage should be taken out of laws and the governments hands. Instead of marriage, something similar to civil unions should be enacted that gives couples the same benefits of todays marriages. This would include same-sex couples. Then if they want, the unionized couple can go get married wherever it is they worship. I think this would allow a lot more people (including me) to reconcile with their religious beliefs while giving everyone the same rights.

 

[PhilsFan]

I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.

So, you're trying to prevent gays and atheists from being able to marry?

I can't see any other purpose to this other than to discriminate.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

So, you're trying to prevent gays and atheists from being able to marry?

Nope. There's plenty of churchs today that perform marriages for same-sex couples. There's also a church for atheism.

I can't see any other purpose to this other than to discriminate.

Right, thats my intention

 

[Vincent Vega]

A church for atheism? How cool is that?

We are playing semantics so a few conservatives can sleep better.

 

[A_Wanderer]

A church for atheism, WTF!

 

[Vincent Vega]

Do we have a pope?

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

A church for atheism, WTF!

Haha, I was thinking that too.

First Church of Atheism

 

[A_Wanderer]

Reading the FAQ raises an important point

The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform ceremonies previously performed by religious men. When Paul and Jacki were wed, they hired a non-denominational minister to perform the ceremony. They requested that the ceremony be entirely faith neutral, as they were both devout atheists. To their dismay, the ceremony that the minister submitted for their approval was littered with references to, and direct statements about, god. They pulled out a red pen and started editing, paring down the ceremony into a 2 minute long affair.

For the next year, they would laugh about that story, telling their friends about the “non-denominational” minister who read them their vows in a Friar Tuck shirt, complete with collar. While funny, this also says something tragic about the state of our society when it comes to atheists. Non-denominational means generally Christian. For atheists, this is impossible to accept.

So the couple decided to form a society to provide others with what they did not get for their wedding.

 

[martha]

Well, "non-denominational" just means not a part of a Christian denomination. They really didn't think a minister would leave God out of it, did they? They could have gotten a judge to perform the ceremony.

 

[indra]

Here's a link of who can officiate at weddings in the various US states.

From this list it looks like all states except Alabama and Arizona have non-religious options. Some states allow the couple to "self-unite" and other states allow a friend or family member to become certified to officiate at a particular wedding.

 

[martha]

But don't all states have a courthouse option?

 

[indra]

But don't all states have a courthouse option?

Probably. But I assumed an atheistic couple would like to have similar options for their wedding a religious couple (or even a non-religious, but don't-care-who-does-the-officiating-because-they-aren't-going-to-pay-attention-anyway couple) would have. You know, such as having it in a nice park or being able to invite several family and friends to it. Most courthouse weddings are short, simple and small.

 

[martha]

Yes, that's true.

We're not really Christian, but we were married by a Pentecostal minister.

 

[PhilsFan]

I'm not getting married, but if I were, I'm sure there'd be religion involved. I still pretend to be religious. I went to church this morning.

 

[yolland]

Yes, all 50 states have a civil ceremony option, though as indra mentioned some jurisdictions offer only a very formulaic, no-frills one, with no possibility of making it more elaborate to the couple's wishes.

Then they can just call it marriage, its doing the same thing, so many people just get so upset over the word.

Of course it's not "just a word." Why do you think so many social conservatives who never objected to civil marriage before suddenly change their minds when the prospect of extending it to same-sex couples opens up, even though most of them couldn't care less if same-sex couples cohabit and otherwise "do the same thing"? Because they perceive--not incorrectly--that granting official legal recognition of that status would in practice have some effect of extending a social stamp of approval to committed same-sex relationships, even though in principle it would only be the exercise of a right, not a government comment on the social worth of the relationship. That's what the real issue is.

 

[Irvine511]

not a government comment on the social worth of the relationship. That's what the real issue is.

agreed.

could someone explain to me -- there are several people in here who will graciously allow me to be civil unionized -- exactly why perceived equality of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships is a thing to be avoided? why is it necessary to maintain legal and social distinctions between the two?

 

[deep]

i guess this is the defacto gay rights threat

Breaking news: Pentagon eases enforcement of DADT

 

[Irvine511]

not that this is actually news, but it is sort of news:

Ricky Martin: 'I am a fortunate homosexual man' - chicagotribune.com

 

[corianderstem]

Aww, Ricky.

 

[BVS]

So will his audience(if he still has one) sing along if he changes it to 'He Bangs'?

I think it's unfortunate that even pop singers today still have to hide...

 

[Irvine511]

So will his audience(if he still has one) sing along if he changes it to 'He Bangs'?

he just got even hotter.

 

[corianderstem]

I'd listen to that.

However, if that remake would mean the resurgence of William Hung, I am not on board.

Signed,

I own Ricky's greatest hits CD and still love The Cup of Life

 

[Irvine511]

i admit to liking that debut with Xtina. "nobody wants to be lonely" or whatever.

i also love "beautiful" by said Xtina.

 

[Irvine511]

and though this is a serious thread, i have to post this, if nothing else than for martha:

 

[corianderstem]

It's entirely appropriate to post that here, as the gentleman on the right is seriously hot.

 

[Irvine511]

agreed. i'd take him over Ricky.

not that there's anything wrong with Ricky.

 

[martha]

Oh good God. And I mean that literally.


Also, when I saw that, the popcorn did fall right out of my mouth.