After reading all the below give and take in

[Scott S]

regards to the uproar over the passage of RFRA, I have decided to throw out a general query in what I assume in my ignorance of the minutia and technical aspects of the law which is a lame attempt to say I am not a lawyer, btw.

But what if our Government simply recused itself from the marriage business altogether and instead recognized a legal union as been between two adults of sound mind that grants the same rights an privledges?

This way you can not have a religious objection to serve anyone, on a personal side note when I become a business owner I will require one thing, the fair trade of resources or in other words if you got the money you got my whatever I am selling.

That would be silly right?

Oh, thanks in advance if you choose to respond, oops got to run Penny has two strikes and this is a hilarious episode I am a Big Bang Theory Fan.

 

[tt68]

I have thought this for years...

I am a conservative Christian and I think only thing Christians should be concerned about in regards to marriage is the commitment made by the couple to God. The legal side of things has nothing to do with religion anymore. Christians shouldn't want the government meddling in one of our sacred rites. They don't meddle in any of our other rites? So why this one?

With that said, I don't think this is going to happen.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The problem is this...

Marriage isn't, and never has been, a purely religious rite. It's important to religion, sure, but it's always been a civil relationship. When you start talking about getting the government out of the marriage business and into "civil unions," what you're really saying is you don't like the idea of same-sex couples using the word "marriage," because limiting the use of the word to a religious context is the only practical effect of such a change.

 

[tt68]

You are correct, in our country, it hasn't been...

I guess my point is, Christians get up in arms about "marriage" being between a man and a woman because God defined it that way. But my point is...what did God define to be between a man and a woman? Marriage, as it currently is defined by the state? No, I don't think so. I think it was a religious activity first and then, because religion has always been so closely tied to government, it became government sanctioned.

I have no problem with a same-sex couple calling their relationship a marriage as defined by the state. Just like I don't have a problem with two atheists or even "barely religious" Christians calling their relationship marriage. I know they don't view their marriage like I view mine (a commitment between the two of us and God) and that is what matters to me, not what the state says my marriage is (a legal contract between the two of us and the state).

Now, when you start looking at the sociological impact and importance marriage has on our society then I am well outside my comfort zone of having an opinion. Should the state encourage people to enter into these long term contracts with each other?

 

[GOIU]

why is that a problem?

I thought the purpose of gay marriage was so they had the same rights wrt their spouse that man and woman couples get, why does it matter what you call it?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Then why restrict it?

I thought freedom was supposed to be the default position.

 

[tt68]

restrict what?

I am saying the legal contract, called marriage, should be open to anyone. However, religions like Christianity, should define the rite of marriage for themselves. And concern themselves primarily with that instead of the legal status that accompanies it.

Your hostility in this thread is the very reason many Christians are deeply concerned about laws like RFRA. A pastor friend of mine, who I would call a moderate, told me he didn't care about RFRA laws until he saw the reaction over the last week.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Scott S]

Thank you for your response.

So the answer is no.

As to the following assertion on your part:

what you're really saying is you don't like the idea of same-sex couples using the word "marriage, nope YOU HAVE SAID THIS, nice leap there! Ever jumped a shark??

But if that is all you got from MY question that is on you I would thank you not to not assume if you want to know ask.

I personally could care less what anyone calls anything, the key word is personally however until I am elected dictator for life, I still live in a society that attempts too accommodate as broad a range of diverse opinions as possible.


I am a liberty first live and let live kind of guy. I just think I will never see the end of this nonsense in my life time AND the stupid stubbornness of BOTH sides drives me up the wall.

Just to be clear I do not object to the use of the word I am just going to keep saying it so you don't forget, I JUST KNOW THAT IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN THERE SHALL ALWAYS BE A SEGMENT OF SOCIETY THAT REJECTS THIS AND IT WILL GO ON AND ON AND ON, trying to cut them off at the pass or I suppose you could say at the knees so they all may grumble but maybe we can move beyond.

Anyway have a great day.

PS I personally vote for marriage being defined as between two consenting adults and be done with it. No pets or any other nonsense either, vbg, just two legal adults and not three, does that clarify?



This post was edited on 4/1 8:05 AM by Scott S

 

[Scott S]

Well at least I am not completely out on a limb

all by myself, and my premise is just what you said "The legal side of things has nothing to do with religion anymore" and codify it into law somehow, I guess I am to much of a simpleton, vvbg.

Oh I guess I should say I have no idea what I am, I use some terms as convenient labels, at its core I believe in a higher power but have little use for the institutions of religion which I view as cultural artifacts for self selection of like minded individuals which leads to group think and I have always had issues with silliness/stupid, for example when sin was replaced by transgressions (United Methodist - pretty much eat and sing, vbg) I vaguely remember the discussion why and it sounded to a little kid that the adults had collectively lost their minds.

Thanks.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Religious people are so obsessed with what other people do with. . .

Their private parts, it's disturbing.

 

[dugger1973]

What some people do with their

private parts is disturbing.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Then don't do it with yours. . .

And stay out of other people's bedrooms.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What hostility?

Your claims in this post are fine. They are exactly what marriage equality advocates want. I was responding the earlier idea that there should be no civil marriages.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Topic view alert?

I was criticizing one very specific claim - the idea that government should simply stop recognizing marriages and only recognize civil unions. That's - to steal a complaint from COH - an emotional response to an issue that would have exactly zero legal effect whatsoever. It's based entirely on an argument about who "owns" a particular word. That is the only thing I was criticizing.

 

[meridian]

It seems that dugger is

more interested in doing with others' private parts.

 

[Scott S]

Well there is no emotion on my part to asking the

question which I am not sure how you got to a claim it was a question but I may have mis-typed something to point you in that direction your response seems emotional but since we aren't in front of each other I could be all wet, now to the next part EXACTLY ZERO LEGAL EFFECT WHATSOEVER, I don't pretend to understand why but that was more to the essence of the question. If it has no legal effect then it would be a pointless exercise and I avoid pointless exercises.

As to ownership of words I find that interesting in light of previous conversations/threads were the definition is being changed/challenged/discussed by whomever and do they own those words i.e. the use of the word thug?? I am tweaking you a bit but that seems a bit to me inconsistent but we are all human which means I ain't perfect, thanks for your time.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I didn't really follow all of that.

I seem to have offended you somehow, but I think you're reading what I was trying to say wrong if that's the case.

Marriage is important to the Christian religion. But it's also a civil relationship. Marriage existed in ancient Rome and Greece, China, Egypt, well, just about everywhere. Some scientists think marriage is a cultural universal that naturally pops up everywhere. Christians don't own the word, and never have.

goat