re: So, tell me again how owning guns reduces gun violence...

<blockquote><b>Quoting Saffy Sly:</b>" I don't fully understand. The term "marriage" is simply an evolved form of the Sanskrit word "marya". It's been in use far longer than Christianity has been a prevalent religion."</blockquote>




I'm not debating that.

I think that we are keeping this debate alive, in a stalemate, because no one is willing to bend.

I don't care what it's called....as long as it offers equal protection under the law.

The word, "marriage" has become redundant, because it's become the focus.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Stfu Shirley:</b>" I'm married, so I am well aware of all of that legal stuff. But there are some religions that don't ... [snip!] ... that don't oppose gay marriage. So...just because your religion does*, then nobody else should be able to use the term?"</blockquote>




You are missing the point. I mean, REALLY missing it.

I think we can both agree that you are never going to please everyone. It's a statistical impossibility. People MUST compromise.

However, what I am suggesting is reasonable and would, or at least should, satisfy more people.

There is a way to handle this debate without trampling on most people's ideals.

Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:"You are missing the point. I mean, REALLY missing it. ."

I guess so, because you aren't making a lick of sense to me.
Are you saying that marriage should only be handled within a church and that the government should only offer civil unions?

Maybe that's not what you're saying. Maybe I'm just being really slow.
But if that IS what you're saying, my next question would be, do you know anything at all about the history of the world and mankind?

<blockquote><b>Quoting Stfu Shirley:</b>" I guess so, because you aren't making a lick of sense to me. Are you saying that marriage should only ... [snip!] ... that IS what you're saying, my next question would be, do you know anything at all about the history of the world and mankind?"</blockquote>




Yes, that is what I am suggesting and your question is far too broad to answer.

We are looking to grant a group of people their "civil rights".

This IS the a viable option, IMO.

I'm seeing this as a huge compromise and it seems like your heels are dug in...over A WORD. Seems silly to me.

I'm confused here because I'm already in a civil union (legal defacto) but am looking to get married in a traditional Norse ceremony overseen by a celebrant ... therefore a legal marriage. Should I not be able to have that ceremony because it won't be in a Christian church? Also should I not be able to call my SO my husband?

Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Stfu Shirley:</b>" I guess so, because you aren't making a ... [snip!] ... option, IMO. I'm seeing this as a huge compromise and it seems like your heels are dug in...over A WORD. Seems silly to me."

My FIL and his (female) partner have a civil union. It does not give them the full range of legal rights and obligations that marriage does. It's not the same thing. That's what they wanted, though. So if two people prefer to have a marriage, what should that have to do with religion?

Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Stfu Shirley:</b>" So you think that nobody should be allowed ... [snip!] ... the compromise. Neither side wants to compromise. Government WANTS us fighting about this...or it would already be settled."

You say "The problem, as I see it is NOT going to remedy if we keep going and arguing pointless points (as a society, I mean). " - and yet I think that is exactly what you are doing. Why are you spending a ton of time trying to explain why a non religious person or a gay person is somehow not entitled to the word marriage? It IS used as a legal term & has been since the foundation of this country and well before that. If you want a special name for religious people to have to somehow make their marriage more special, then come up with one. You don't just get to call jurisdiction on a term.

And you do have to file for a marriage license here, but after that, the person who performs your ceremony, religious or otherwise has to be recognized as legally allowed to do so & does file the paperwork. There is no need to create a new need to have two separate services in order to try to avoid "letting" gay people get married & call it marriage - it seems like a ridiclous amount of run around for absolutely no good reason.

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" You say "The problem, as I see it is NOT going to remedy if we keep going and arguing pointless points ... [snip!] ... gay people get married & call it marriage - it seems like a ridiclous amount of run around for absolutely no good reason."</blockquote>




There IS a "good reason ", to me.

Marriage is already defined. I'm just looking at another way to make more* people happy by granted a legal status (civil union) that offers the same rights as another legal status (marriage) does.

When I get into a gay marriage debate, inevitably many people will bring up these special rights that "married" people have, that gay couples cannot, because of their unmarried status.

All I'm saying is that there is a compromise here.

A "civil" union could/should/would offer those same legal rights to everyone. If the term of 'marriage" is the problem, then grant everyone "civil unions", offering the same legal protections to all.

Make MY marriage a civil union. Make a gay marriage a civil union.

Even if it's more complicated to do this, sometimes compromise must be reached in order to appease the most people possible. I feel that this could be THAT compromise.

I think if you are saying, "just call it all marriage and that's that" is not a compromise at all. Instead, I think it's a call to disenfranchise a group of people (man/woman marriage advocates).

Are gays fighting for the right to use the word marriage or are they fighting for the legal rights that come BECAUSE of marriage? It should be the latter, IMO. Government can be neutral and still grant those rights.

Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" You say "The problem, as I see it is NOT ... [snip!] ... rights that come BECAUSE of marriage? It should be the latter, IMO. Government can be neutral and still grant those rights."

I don't see how it needs compromise. The fact is separate but equal never means equal - it means discrimination. This isn't about digging in my heels over a word, it is about standing up to blatant bigotry. The arguments you are using in regard to changing terminology are the same ones that were used to defend Jim Crow Laws in the South, that you can somehow NOT allow someone something YOU are entitled to & that isn't blatant discrimination.. There should be NO need to "appease" the masses. The Supreme Court should have already handled this & made it legal long ago. The reality is that we do NOT live in a true Democracy. Our government is set up to be a Constitutional Republic & most people so poorly understand politics to even realize that. Again - NOT a democracy. Why are we not a democracy? To try to avoid situations like this where the majority are not in a position to be allowed to oppress a minority simply because they can through the power of a majority vote. I find the fact that we allow this to be a public vote issue a total joke. So 10% of the population is stuck waiting on the other 90% to give a smurf about an issue that doesn't seem to benefit them in any way. That 90% is continuing to be allowed to deny those people equal rights & access to a legal & public institution.

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" I don't see how it needs compromise. The fact is separate but equal never means equal - it means discrimination. ... [snip!] ... way. That 90% is continuing to be allowed to deny those people equal rights & access to a legal & public institution."</blockquote>



I feel similarly about "equal treatment" for working people. The fact that it is legal to tax people differently to the degree that we do is just wrong. It is another example of the "tyranny of the voting majority."
Why so many people vote to shift tax burden to those who earn a lot so they don't have their own taxes raised and can get benefits is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" I don't see how it needs compromise. The fact is separate but equal never means equal - it means discrimination. ... [snip!] ... way. That 90% is continuing to be allowed to deny those people equal rights & access to a legal & public institution."</blockquote>




I'm not suggesting anything "separate but equal". I suggested civil unions for ALL, gay or straight. That puts everyone in the same boat.

Aside from that, nothing is equal when there are large groups of people who contribute, financially to another group of people, who don't contribute, financially.

A large voting block voted a government into office that takes more from some and hands it over to those who have less.

Or, are we only talking about "equality" when it comes to what fits your ideals and/or agenda?

I see now. You want GOVERNMENT to be the "great equalizer", but don't kid yourself, we are no longer a constitutional republic. This administration and even some before it, have failed to uphold the constitution many, many times.

Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" I don't see how it needs compromise. The ... [snip!] ... constitutional republic. This administration and even some before it, have failed to uphold the constitution many, many times."

I am not going to get into every OTHER law out there & whether or not it's fair. This was a thread on guns for pete's sake & we've already derailed to gay marriage. Not only that, this is a civil rights issue - where a certain group of people are being denied the same rights others have. Like I said in another thread about comparing gay rights & gun rights - I don't see a comparison unless you are going to say gays shouldn't have guns. There are civil liberties issues, and then civil rights issues. Taxation issues/class systems is yet another topic entirely. If you want to start a thread I am more than happy to discuss taxation policy with you.

The fact is that we already have everything in place to handle gay marriage if we just simply state it as a legally binding marital contract between 2 consenting adults. It needs no tweaking other than that. All of our current systems in regard to insurance, medical decisions, inheritance & divorce courts would be seamless as we have already established those rules/rights/limitations, etc.

I am not content either to say we don't live in a Constitution republic, because we do. Most decisions are not put a majority vote. They are either voted on by our elected officials or ruled over by the courts. As such, it is operates very much the way it was set up to be. This, to me should be court ruling, like Roe V Wade as it is one about personal freedoms/rights, not a majority rules issue.

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" I am not going to get into every OTHER law out there & whether or not it's fair. This was a thread ... [snip!] ... This, to me should be court ruling, like Roe V Wade as it is one about personal freedoms/rights, not a majority rules issue."</blockquote>




Civil unions for all. Done.