I've never really made the distinction between "marriage" as the govnermnet uses is and "marriage" in a religious contect.

I think the government should promote 'marraige' or civil unions, both for heterosexuals and for homosexuals.

I'd be OK with calling it a civil union for government purposes and marriage for religious pruposes if the word 'marriage' is really that important to religious people.

I'm only for the govnernment recognizing same-sex unions. I am for allowing churches to choose for themselves.

Is that forcing my gay beliefs on others?

This post was edited on 6/23/14 at 9:25 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Vols&Shaft83

Throbbing Member

Member since Dec 2012

69939 posts

Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:26 am to boosiebadazz

quote:
Is that forcing my gay beliefs on others?

Stop sticking your gay beliefs up my arse, God Damnit

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by kingbob

Sorrento, LA

Member since Nov 2010

67213 posts

Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:29 am to boosiebadazz

quote:
if the word 'marriage' is really that important to religious people.

It absolutely is. Take a poll of Americans. If you poll them on whether or not they support gay marriage, you get about a 50/50 split. If you poll them on civil unions, you get 75/25 in favor with the 25 opposing it because they believe there's too much of a capacity for fraud (see "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"). This entire debate is over two things: benefits and semantics. The gay community wants the benefits, the religious community refuses to redefine a word. If the government just changed the "word" they use to refer to marriage so that the word "marriage" doesn't have to be redefined to include "a man and a man" or a "woman and a woman", you get a compromise that everyone can live with.

4 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board