response 69 of 293:

Dec 8 04:23 UTC 2003

It's been possible to get a completely civil marriage from mayors, ship's
captains, etc., for many many years now.  Marriages with all the same legal
rights, responsibilities, privileges, and the same license as a church
marriage.

response 71 of 293:

Dec 8 05:19 UTC 2003

So if marriage is a religious ceremony, do you think there should be
such a thing as Civil Marriage?

Would you prefer to see the current form civil marriage generalized into
this concept of civil union or would you want to see two separate forms
of civil ceremony maintained, one for marriage and one for unions?

response 73 of 293:

Dec 8 13:57 UTC 2003

marriage still denotes a man and a woman and does not violate any religious
laws even if it is non-religious in function.

Why do the gay members of this society feel the need to have a union between
them be a "marriage"?  Is it not because they want to weaken the bonds, or
expand the borders of what is exceptable to the majority of our citizens?

response 77 of 293:

Dec 8 16:01 UTC 2003

Exactly - a marriage is performed by a myriad of people - clergy, politicians,
judges, sea captains, various m-netters . . .only the clergy make it a
"religious" union.  Other than that, it's all legality.  

response 79 of 293:

Dec 8 16:31 UTC 2003

Re resp:56: You're confused.  Trying to control other people's private
lives doesn't make you communist, it makes you authoritarian.  Communism
is more of an economic philosophy, but when governments implement it
they tend to result to authoritarianism to maintain control.  Hence the
confusion between the two.

Re resp:59: The problem is the studies are being quoted out of context.
 The writer of the article is cherry-picking passages that support his
position, then saying "but see, it's from something by a gay group" to
lend more legitimacy.

Re resp:68: Marriage, as practiced in the U.S., is both a civil and a
religious ceremony.  I'm all for seperating the two, as suggested in
resp:71; perhaps everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) should get
a civil union that carries the secular benefits currently associated
with marriage, and then if they want to have their church "marry them in
the eyes of God" they can go ahead and do so.  I expect to see this
happen in the U.S. about the time pigs fly, however; we seem to be
heading towards *more* ties between church and government lately, not less.

Re resp:73: Actually, I don't know anyone who favors it because they
want to "weaken the bonds" of marriage.  Actually, most people I know
who favor gay marriage favor it because they *want* the strong bond that
marriage represents.  Tell someone you have "a partner", and the
suggestion is that you could seperate at any time.  Tell someone you're
"married", and there's a whole different and entirely more favorable set
of assumptions.

Let me repeat the point again, more clearly:  I know of NO group or
individual who is proposing gay marriage because they deliberately want
to weaken marriage as an institution.  That's not to say there aren't
ulterior motives.  Some people see it as a stepping stone to greater
acceptance of their lifestyle by society.  But destroying the
institution of marriage is *not* one of the motives here.

If you're worried about marriage losing its strength and reputation as
an institution, you might want to start talking to FOX about shows like
"Married by America" and "Joe Millionaire".  I know they generally get a
pass from the right for supporting FOX News, but I think that the FOX
network has done more to weaken marriage than any other institution in
the last couple of years.

Re resp:77: Actually, sea captains cannot legally perform marriages in
the U.S.

response 81 of 293:

Dec 8 17:06 UTC 2003

As I understand things, gays ar looking to marriage for the ancillaries:
next-of-kin, inheritance, joint tax returns.

In the European novels involving a wedding that I've read, two marriage
ceremonies, one civil and one religious, are common.

NB:  polyandry and polygyny have both been practiced, with success.  Marriage
is not necessarily _a_ man and _a_ woman.

response 83 of 293:

Dec 8 17:27 UTC 2003

Re resp:81: Some just want the civil features of marriage, yes.  Those
are the people who fully support civil union laws.  But there are some
people who also want the symbolism of marriage, and they aren't so keen
on the "seperate but equal" arrangement a civil union would represent.

Personally, I'd be happy to see either one succeed.  I think a civil
union  arrangement is more likely, because a lot of people have a
visceral negative reaction to the word "marriage" being attached to
anything but a traditional male/femaile relationship.

response 85 of 293:

Dec 8 17:37 UTC 2003

Bruce, the whole point behind the separation of church and state is that
it doesn't matter if what you do violates religious laws provided you
don't violate civil law. The latter rules for everyone, the former only
for those who wish them (to some extent or another).

Thus, eating pork violates religious rules -- no less than a gay marriage
does. (And yet some people who don't eat pork will eat shrimp, which is
no less an offense.)

Religion does not own a trade-mark on the word "marriage", and as gull
said extending marriage is neither intended to nor does it weaken it.
You don't believe that "infidel" Muslim "marriage" weakens the meaning
of Christian marriage -- do you?

You may also want to look into a book by Boswell about gay marriages
performed in the early years of the Church.

response 87 of 293:

Dec 8 20:44 UTC 2003

  There are a number of smaller Christian churches that have
  elected to perform gay marriages and an even larger number
  that wouldn't perform such a ceremony (yet?) but would stop
  well short of considering it "an abomination."

response 91 of 293:

Dec 8 22:53 UTC 2003

re86: do some research, stink-o.