quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, they just want to be able to be able to say they are married to someone of the same sex? That's it? Please tell me there's more to it than just that.

Why does there need to be any more to it than that?

Are you saying there isn't anything more to it than that? There is more to it than that. Not only do they want the right to marry whomever they want, regardless of gender (provided there is consent), and they want all the civil benefits that go along with that. Without the civil benefits, what does being married do? Nothing outside of a church setting.

Why do you think straight couples want to get married then? Maybe we should just do away with it all together since all anyone wants is the benefits.

There are religious connotations with the institution of marriage. Tazzy pointed out, the Federal Government had "no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony."

Now, if you were to argue that we should take the Civil benefits away from hetero-marriages, that would make it all equal again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are religious connotations with the institution of marriage. Tazzy pointed out, the Federal Government had "no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony."
Now, if you were to argue that we should take the Civil benefits away from hetero-marriages, that would make it all equal again.

Yes there are and a lot of gays are religious and want to get married for the same reason straights want to get married. So what is the difference between the two?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are religious connotations with the institution of marriage. Tazzy pointed out, the Federal Government had "no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony."
Now, if you were to argue that we should take the Civil benefits away from hetero-marriages, that would make it all equal again.

Yes there are and a lot of gays are religious and want to get married for the same reason straights want to get married. So what is the difference between the two?

What's the difference? Is it really right for people to ask the Government to force religions to perform same-sex marriages? That's up to the Church and not the government. So, if religious gays want to get married, petition the Church. If you want to get government to recognize the marriage, you will need to first get a church to perform the rite.

It's entirely possible that a church will perform a same-sex marriage. I haven't done any research into it, so it could be possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are religious connotations with the institution of marriage. Tazzy pointed out, the Federal Government had "no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony."
Now, if you were to argue that we should take the Civil benefits away from hetero-marriages, that would make it all equal again.

Yes there are and a lot of gays are religious and want to get married for the same reason straights want to get married. So what is the difference between the two?

What's the difference? Is it really right for people to ask the Government to force religions to perform same-sex marriages? That's up to the Church and not the government. So, if religious gays want to get married, petition the Church. If you want to get government to recognize the marriage, you will need to first get a church to perform the rite.
It's entirely possible that a church will perform a same-sex marriage. I haven't done any research into it, so it could be possible.

Where did I ever suggest that the government force churches to perform same-sex marriages? There are already several churches that have no problem with it, why would it be necessary. Maybe you should have done the research first because it is not only possible but it is happening. The goverment just doesn't acknowledge it as legally married.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are religious connotations with the institution of marriage. Tazzy pointed out, the Federal Government had "no business granting special privileges to a religious ceremony."
Now, if you were to argue that we should take the Civil benefits away from hetero-marriages, that would make it all equal again.

Yes there are and a lot of gays are religious and want to get married for the same reason straights want to get married. So what is the difference between the two?

What's the difference? Is it really right for people to ask the Government to force religions to perform same-sex marriages? That's up to the Church and not the government. So, if religious gays want to get married, petition the Church. If you want to get government to recognize the marriage, you will need to first get a church to perform the rite.
It's entirely possible that a church will perform a same-sex marriage. I haven't done any research into it, so it could be possible.

Where did I ever suggest that the government force churches to perform same-sex marriages? There are already several churches that have no problem with it, why would it be necessary. Maybe you should have done the research first because it is not only possible but it is happening. The goverment just doesn't acknowledge it as legally married.

I acknowledged I could be wrong on that. Is Government going to come in and force *all* churches to perform them, too?

And, Government acknowledging a same-sex marriage is desirable because... equal access to the benefits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Again, who suggested that the government force churches to perform wedding on anyone?
Marriage between two straights is desirable because it gives benefits. Why don't you have a problem with that?