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.

response 93 of 293:

Dec 9 00:02 UTC 2003

What seems to be happening here is a case of "you have to do what I 
believe is right, because if you believe differently than me you are 
WRONG and will GO TO HELL."  I got way too much of this attitude when I 
went to school in Malaysia, and please excuse my language, but I showed 
them that I wasn't swallowing any of the shit they tried to feed me.

response 95 of 293:

Dec 9 03:33 UTC 2003

In addition, Reform Judaism and some Conservative Rabbis will perform gay
marriage ceremonies. Again, due to the law, they can only issue religous,
but not legal, certificates.

I'm also not sure you understood my example regarding "infidel Muslim
marriage".  If the term "marriage" can be applied to "infidels" without
weakening the institution, why would applying it to a loving Christian
couple (who happened to be gay) weaken it?

Furthermore, if either of these can be said to weaken the institution, then
it must be pretty weak on its own merits.  I don't believe it is. Do you?

response 97 of 293:

Dec 9 08:36 UTC 2003

#86 is a PERFECT example of why one should NEVER trust a conservative:
they expect you to do what they want, because if you don't, you're
gonna be subject to hellfire and damnation in their eyes, whether or
not this is actually going to happen when you die. But, of course, it
is ok for them to do whatever the hell they want, because the end
justifies the means.

Once again, conservatism shows it's Ultimate Power: The power to
disgust and horrify anyone with a brain.

response 99 of 293:

Dec 9 18:51 UTC 2003

Depends on your POV. In the uk, divorcees getting married in church is
not allowed. So civil marriage is the way to go; OTOH, many people
choose to marry in registry offices anyway.