
![]() |

Drejk wrote:Lack of option: I support removal of legal privilages and obligations of marriage and replacing them with ability to designating one or more close persons that get certain (but not all) rights currently possessed by spouses..
Then make your own damn poll.
.
Someone always needs to show off how "above the rest" they are....you can never make a comprehensive enough poll to cover all the options for the socio-elite. That said I am picking that I support 2 people joining in a legally binding partnership in any fashion whether it is called a civil union or a marriage, and whether or not the 2 people are family, lovers, BFFs, etc....so yes I also support Gay Marriage.

The NPC |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

The NPC wrote:*Curious* What is this for?.
*Curious* Why do you want to know?
Because this is a hornets' nest that s/he seems to be poking and I want to know that i'm not going to get stung before I answer either way.
If I recall correctly you get notified when someone favorites something that you posted. So they end up knowing who favorited what.

Jason J. Mitchell |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Crimson Jester wrote:In my opinion neither option works.Please elaborate?
Marriam-Webster: An act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
Here is the rub though, many churches support either same-sex unions or non-traditional unions. By default if the Government would stay out of something I feel they have no place in it would in fact by de facto create more same-sex unions.
Now some people argue what about my marriage at the justice of the peace, or judge or dollar store rental certificate minister? What of it. You have a civil-union, which is how most people have eloped for a long time. The Government has a right to regulate that. In fact they have. In a state by state basis.
Because it is not spelled out in the Constitution as a right of the Federal Government to regulate it is held a something regulated by the people and the state. Which is why I do not have an issue with Prop 8 in California nor any issue with the states that have approved it.
So while the Church I belong to would never allow it, nor should it have to; others do and should be allowed to. The Federal Government has no say.
Oh and it is Matthew 19:4-6 not Leviticus. I am not Jewish, nor specifically a Levite. I eat Bacon and shrimp. While I don't exactly approve of witches I don't throw any stones at our good friend who are wiccan.
As with most things I think it is more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Plus as I said before in other threads If I were dictator I would piss everyone off.
I post this with my real name, because if you are going to post something likely to set off a flame war you should have the guts not to hide behind anonymity.

Hitdice |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Grand Magus wrote:The NPC wrote:*Curious* What is this for?.
*Curious* Why do you want to know?
Because this is a hornets' nest that s/he seems to be poking and I want to know that i'm not going to get stung before I answer either way.
If I recall correctly you get notified when someone favorites something that you posted. So they end up knowing who favorited what.
Thing is, not only do I support gay marriage, I don't really care who knows that I do. I don't see my support of gay equality as a liability or anything to be ashamed of. I don't care who knows which option I favorited. Spoiler Alert: I support gay marriage.

![]() |

If its purely a religious ceremony then neither states nor feds should get involved rights?
Only for the civil union portion and that is the only part that you should be taxed on. The Fed should also not have anything to do with that as it was not a right given to them in the Constitution.

Hitdice |

meatrace wrote:If its purely a religious ceremony then neither states nor feds should get involved rights?Only for the civil union portion and that is the only part that you should be taxed on. The Fed should also not have anything to do with that as it was not a right given to them in the Constitution.
It varies state to state so I could be wrong, but so far as I know there isn't a civil union portion, there are just state issued marriage licenses. The only way in which the Feds could get involved would be under the Full faith and Credit clause, or if a case was appealed to Scotus.

The NPC |

The NPC wrote:Thing is, not only do I support gay marriage, I don't really care who knows that I do. I don't see my support of gay equality as a liability or anything to be ashamed of. I don't care who knows which option I favorited. Spoiler Alert: I support gay marriage.Grand Magus wrote:
*Curious* Why do you want to know?
Because this is a hornets' nest that s/he seems to be poking and I want to know that i'm not going to get stung before I answer either way.
If I recall correctly you get notified when someone favorites something that you posted. So they end up knowing who favorited what.
And that is you. I'm just curious what the OP's intent in this is. For I all I know it could be to stir the pot and cause the reaction that has already occurred. Perhaps as a social experiment.

Ambrosia Slaad |

meatrace wrote:Crimson Jester wrote:In my opinion neither option works.Please elaborate?** spoiler omitted **
As with most things I think it is more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Plus as I said before in other threads If I were dictator I would piss everyone off.I post this with my real name, because if you are going to post something likely to set off a flame war you should have the guts not to hide behind anonymity.
So then if I and my female partner got married in a Unitarian Church, you would support our religious & civil union's full recognition in all 50 states and territories?

GM the DM |

I support gay marriage. However, you cannot give marriage rights to homosexuals until you restore marriage rights to polygamists.
Once you restore the marriage rights of people who have had them stripped away in the past, then you can have a rational discussion about granting them to a segment of society that has not traditionally had them (in most societies).

Talonhawke |

Talonhawke wrote:I don't care one way or another I just want the decision to be made by the people voting and not those pandering for reelection.Nice try, but the majority doesn't get to vote to strip minority rights.
You know I hear this alot but for some reason most of the time it only applies when your in favor of the minority.
If the majority wanted to ban all guns would you stand up for the gun carrying minority?
If the majority wanted to ban christians from professing their views in public would you stand up for them?
If the majority wanted the rich to pay 90% in taxes would you tell them they can't strip the rights of those people.
If you won't stand up for the rights of the guy you don't support then why should they want to stand up for your?
EDIT: I do honestly want your opinon on thes bugley most of the time when I ask people who support the minorty rights issue they would be fine if any of these becamae a targeted minority.

![]() |

Jason J. Mitchell wrote:So then if I and my female partner got married in a Unitarian Church, you would support our religious & civil union's full recognition in all 50 states and territories?meatrace wrote:Crimson Jester wrote:In my opinion neither option works.Please elaborate?** spoiler omitted **
As with most things I think it is more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Plus as I said before in other threads If I were dictator I would piss everyone off.I post this with my real name, because if you are going to post something likely to set off a flame war you should have the guts not to hide behind anonymity.
I don't see where I would have a say in it one way or another. Whether I agreed or not.
PS your one of the ones whose opinions matter to me.

Stebehil |

Are church marriages legally binding in the US? In Germany, they are only ceremonial. The legal process at your local government is legally binding only, and has been since the 1870ies, furthering the separation of church and state. Gay marriages are legal here, btw, but don´t grant you the same rights as a traditional marriage, e.g. with taxation. (To think that homosexuality has been a crime until the 1970ies over here, "upsetting the civil order" - society has evolved quite a bit.) Only a very liberal pastor would have a gay marriage in his church, and might face some trouble with his superiors. The catholic church won´t touch it with a 10-foot-pole, of course, but then, they can´t be so "liberal" to have female priests, or married priests for that matter.

Ambrosia Slaad |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:Jason J. Mitchell wrote:So then if I and my female partner got married in a Unitarian Church, you would support our religious & civil union's full recognition in all 50 states and territories?meatrace wrote:Crimson Jester wrote:In my opinion neither option works.Please elaborate?** spoiler omitted **
As with most things I think it is more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Plus as I said before in other threads If I were dictator I would piss everyone off.I post this with my real name, because if you are going to post something likely to set off a flame war you should have the guts not to hide behind anonymity.
I don't see where I would have a say in it one way or another. Whether I agreed or not.
PS your one of the ones whose opinions matter to me.
Same-sex marriage in a Unitarian ceremony would meet both of your requirements: 1) a religious (Christian even) ceremony, and 2) government recognition of the union. Yet your Catholic union is recognized and backed under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, and mine wouldn't be. Mine could be stripped away by voters after the fact, and even the civil portion is blocked in most states.
There is no "gay marriage." There is just marriage... two consenting adults who wish to share their love with each other for the rest of their lives. And a couple shouldn't be denied that expression and recognition of their love just because they happen to be of the same sex.

bugleyman |

You know I hear this alot but for some reason most of the time it only applies when your in favor of the minority.If the majority wanted to ban all guns would you stand up for the gun carrying minority?
If the majority wanted to ban christians from professing their views in public would you stand up for them?
If the majority wanted the rich to pay 90% in taxes would you tell them they can't strip the rights of those people.
If you won't stand up for the rights of the guy you don't support then why should they want to stand up for your?
EDIT: I do honestly want your opinon on thes bugley most of the time when I ask people who support the minorty rights issue they would be fine if any of these becamae a targeted minority.
1. Yes.
2. Absolutely. IMO this is by far the most clear-cut case.3. Very questionable comparison. Not paying taxes isn't a right, but I suppose my answer would depend on what everyone else is paying.

Talonhawke |

Good enough then I don't have a position on this issue like I said. And I wouldn't want it voted down without good reason. But I also don't want issues like this to regardless of what is voted not actually matter since some federal judge might just say nope its not right. Its a state issue not a federal one an thats where it needs to stay.

![]() |

Crimson Jester wrote:Ambrosia Slaad wrote:Jason J. Mitchell wrote:So then if I and my female partner got married in a Unitarian Church, you would support our religious & civil union's full recognition in all 50 states and territories?meatrace wrote:Crimson Jester wrote:In my opinion neither option works.Please elaborate?** spoiler omitted **
As with most things I think it is more complex than a simple yes or no answer. Plus as I said before in other threads If I were dictator I would piss everyone off.I post this with my real name, because if you are going to post something likely to set off a flame war you should have the guts not to hide behind anonymity.
I don't see where I would have a say in it one way or another. Whether I agreed or not.
PS your one of the ones whose opinions matter to me.
Same-sex marriage in a Unitarian ceremony would meet both of your requirements: 1) a religious (Christian even) ceremony, and 2) government recognition of the union. Yet your Catholic union is recognized and backed under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, and mine wouldn't be. Mine could be stripped away by voters after the fact, and even the civil portion is blocked in most states.
There is no "gay marriage." There is just marriage... two consenting adults who wish to share their love with each other for the rest of their lives. And a couple shouldn't be denied that expression and recognition of their love just because they happen to be of the same sex.
Please re-read what I have wrote.
Essentially it is the same as what Stebehil has pointed out is the norm in modern Germany. With one Caveat I feel the "ceremonial" aspect is the more important one.
Think for a moment of what it would mean if the supreme court ruled as I have suggested and then go ahead and add in article IV. You could have no rights stripped from you, nor should you feel the fear of having it done so.
I also feel that marriage is more than just about love. It is about respect, dignity and duty. if more people did their duty to themselves, their neighbors and their spouses, we would have a much lower divorce rate and not be having this discussion.
I deeply respect you, I just disagree with some fine points on some issues.

Ambrosia Slaad |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Please re-read what I have wrote.
Essentially it is the same as what Stebehil has pointed out is the norm in modern Germany. With one Caveat I feel the "ceremonial" aspect is the more important one.
Think for a moment of what it would mean if the supreme court ruled as I have suggested and then go ahead and add in article IV. You could have no rights stripped from you, nor should you feel the fear of having it done so.
Do you honestly believe the Supremes are going to change the definition of marriage -- splitting it into civil and religious components -- for everyone in the U.S.? It ain't happening. Ain't. Happening. The existing language in nearly all the states refers to the union, whether performed religiously or securely, as marriage. Religious and "traditionally" married folk don't get to exclusively own the term, especially when other religions have no problem performing and recognizing same-sex marriage.
I also feel that marriage is more than just about love. It is about respect, dignity and duty. if more people did their duty to themselves, their neighbors and their spouses, we would have a much lower divorce rate and not be having this discussion.
Did anything I ever said or implied indicate that those other components aren't important? The core, the foundation, is still Love. Same-sex couples would just like to have the same opportunities to build a lasting relationship that contributes positively to their communities and provides a nurturing home to raise the next generation.
I deeply respect you, I just disagree with some fine points on some issues.
I'd like to believe that, but you throwing out Matthew 19:4-6 suggests you don't. Why does your interpretation of the KJV Bible trump the Torah, the Quran, or other translations of the Bible? Same sex Love is Love; it isn't a sin. I don't care whether Catholics recognize my union in their religious observances. But you aren't allowed to use your religious beliefs to stop me from having a Unitarian marriage or a secular union in front of the justice of the peace, any more than you are allowed a say in a Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist marriage.

The 8th Dwarf |

Yes I support gay & lesbian marriage.
As in my country the religious side of things is also ceremonial and not legaly binding. I would have a quibble if faiths were forced to open ceremonies to people that didn't meet the requirements of thier faiths. I disagree with faith based exclusiveness but I also aknoweldge their right to hold their beliefs and in the long run it is their loss of cool and wonderful people to their faith.

Samnell |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Are church marriages legally binding in the US? In Germany, they are only ceremonial.
Technically, no but really yes. While one need not go to a church or involve a religious professional to be married, said officials are normally empowered to sign off on the state-issued marriage license to certify that a wedding did in fact take place and the couple isn't married until they do. But the state, generally speaking, only issues licenses to couples who meet the approval of fundamentalist Christians.
It would be nice if we had a system like they do in France, or apparently Germany, where the church wedding is a meaningless ceremony and you're really married the moment a civil servant signs the papers. But we don't have that, which helps encourage people to think their holy books have something to say about what people who disagree with their religion's doctrines can and can't do with a marriage.
If we started allowing that kind of thing to take place, religious freedom might ensue. Then who knows what would happen next? Divorced people might remarry! There might be interfaith couples! And interracial couples! Who would want to live in that world?
Besides me.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There is no "gay marriage." There is just marriage... two consenting adults who wish to share their love with each other for the rest of their lives. And a couple shouldn't be denied that expression and recognition of their love just because they happen to be of the same sex.
I'd make that 'two (or more)' and add that a married union should have conveyed upon it a limited set of benefits and considerations by the state (tax and inheritance based) in recognition of the positive effect on society of the formation of these unions. The religious side (if any) should be solely up to the partners, as religion is a purely personal matter, not something to be regulated at the level of a nation state.
I do think the poll is worthless though because of the selection bias. Asking a subset of the population whose primary hobby involves putting themselves in the minds of others and understanding how they feel is going to have a different view than society as a whole.

Drejk |

Note that aside of Tensor who voted on both, no one else picked no. Is this a matter of (a) specific subset of population on message board (b) specific subset of forumites that looked into this thread and decided to vote or [unlikely but still possible] (c) fear of presenting unpopular option.
Someone always needs to show off how "above the rest" they are....you can never make a comprehensive enough poll to cover all the options for the socio-elite.
It's not about showing off as "above the rest". This about "none of the above" option that should be included into any fair poll.
Why there should be such options? Shouldn't those who can't answer the matter with either answer not involve themselves in the poll?
Yes they should answer. Polls like this are to determine percentages of certain views amongst the sample population. To make them more accurate there should be a way of determining number of people who present stance that none of the options available suits to make the picture more complete.
BTW: I might speak today with a friend who just made her master degree about internet questionnaires/polls about this. Or might not. We'll see.
Well, because of lack of option more suitable to my stance I'll add my vote to yes as I will do if ever a referendum about this happen here in Poland (I doubt it could get anytime soon, unless there would happen some EU legislation forcing this) - it's not supporting as much as finding no reason to oppose.. I reserve myself the right to change my stance on the matter in some completely inconceivable circumstances I can't imagine now (like appearance of reliable study showing that gay parents are detrimental to children development).

Stebehil |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

It would be nice if we had a system like they do in France, or apparently Germany, where the church wedding is a meaningless ceremony and you're really married the moment a civil servant signs the papers. But we don't have that, which helps encourage people to think their holy books have something to say about what people who disagree with their religion's doctrines can and can't do with a marriage.
Meaningless? Not legally binding is probably more appropriate. Folks who marry in church surely don´t think its meaningless. I think you even need to be married by law before you can have a church ceremony these days, but I might be mistaken.
The separation of the state from the church is a foundation of modern-day Germany, which leads to church ceremonies that are not legally binding. Granted, this separation is not strictly observed to the least detail - you will find a crucifix on the walls of public school rooms in Bavaria, for example - but religion is pretty much a private matter as long as no conflicts with the laws arise. I think this separation is a good thing, as religion sometimes has - lets say, quaint views about how the world should look like.

thejeff |
It's really not all that different in the US, though the emphasis may be different.
It's not like you need a church ceremony to be married and it's not like having a church ceremony makes you married if you don't also do the civil paperwork. The only real difference is that religious officials are, by default, allowed to officiate.