Gallup: Record number of people (including Republicans) now support Same-Sex Marriage

HIM said:

It is life. To take it is to kill or murder. That is no an opinion. That is an objective fact.

Click to expand...

No, that's an opinion, and one based on incorrect facts.

"Murder," you see, is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

If abortion is murder, then so is capital punishment.

But this is off-topic, except that abortion and same sex marriage are similar in that neither your nor anyone else's opinion on the matter will ever become "objective fact." You simply do not have that authority... and you never will.

No disrespect but what others ask in this respect we hold to no regard.

Click to expand...

None taken.

And no disrespect, but the feeling is quite mutual.

What benefits the whole is all that matters. All of the things mentioned cause problems in this respect.

Click to expand...

The guiding philosophy of our country disagrees... the whole is not "all" that matters. The rights of the individual are of the highest importance in American society. The system exists to serve the people... not vice versa.

Of course you disagree; no disrespect, but...

Freth said:

The "right side of history" tends to change over time. What was wrong yesterday is "right" today. What is "right" today will be wrong tomorrow. These things work themselves out eventually. Maybe sooner than you think. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

I'm counting on it.

Half this country fought a bloody Civil War to free the slaves, because the other half fought to keep them.
Women were arrested for attempting to vote. Now they are government leaders.
Dr. King and Mr. X, among others, marched in the streets for rights that Americans turned dogs and firehoses on them to make sure they never got.
Richard and Mildred Loving were sentenced forgetting married after a judge invoked both God and Virginia law to tell them they couldn't.

It may very well be that at some point in the future, these "right"s will once again be considered wrong.

...but it hasn't happened yet.

HIM said:

The individual's rights stop when they do things that cause harm to themselves and others in respect to the whole.

Click to expand...

This is true up to a point. Alcohol is legal; public intoxication is not.
Gambling is legal, but regulated.
Sex is legal in many interesting styles and techniques; consent is required for all of them.

The rights of the individual vs the individual's responsibility to society as a whole is a careful legal and ethical balancing act -- the whole is not all that matters.

DamianWarS said:

I think you get my point that the government should get out of the business of defining marriage and leave that for others to define. Their focus should be the legal reasons behind a union.

Click to expand...

And how can address the legal reasons for something they can't even define?

DamianWarS said:

I'm not quite sure your question and it may be better to rephrase it.

Click to expand...

You're suggesting that the government focus only on the legal reasons for marriage... But what is "marriage"?

You want to leave it in the hands of religious institutions, but those institutions will have different definitions. Whose opinion should the government deal with if they don't have one of their own?

...and if they have one of their own, why do they need to defer to anyone else's?

If the government issues civil unions as the legal contract between two people that gives them the same rights as "marriage" then marriage itself can be freely defined outside of the government by more subjective authorities that is not legally binding alone and rather acts in conjunction with a civil union like faith-based or perhaps other bodies that may be there to capture the values of niche groups.

Click to expand...

But why should the government make things more complicated when they can just call it a "marriage" themselves?

Why should an institution which considers itself an authority (the government) defer to anyone and his cousin who suddenly feels that they're a better one?

In this way a gay couple can have a civil union and ordained marriage in X denomination. a, b, or c denominations legally must recognize the civil union but do not have to recognize the marriage from X church since it is not consistent with their beleif system.

Click to expand...

Except as it is, no denomination is required to recognize a marriage. Two Atheists (of any gender) can go to a judge, justice of the peace, town mayor, etc... And get married without any denomination of any religion sticking its nose in their lives. Why change it?

Or in another example two sisters may seek a civil union that is not based on a romantic/sexual relationship that gives them all the rights as any other couple so they may adopt and parent a child in joint custody as two moms without being gay or sexually/romantically involved but seek the protection and rights of a union. Just two sisters who want to live together and raise a child together but do not seek a marriage relationship so don't "get married".

Click to expand...

Why can't they just adopt as they are?

A marriage would confer no benefits on the sisters that they don't already have as a result of their blood relation.

What do they, we, or society in general gain by adding this extra step?[/quote]

hislegacy said:

The vast majority of Greeks embraced pederasty as a cultural norm.

Do you feel they were on the right side?

Click to expand...

I would not. And I would say they wouldn't either.

The Greeks today do not embrace it. It would seem they changed their minds without notifying you.

DamianWarS said:

They don't defer, they just stop defining it and define exactly what they already do, a legal contract between two consenting adults.

Click to expand...

If they don't define it, someone else will. Who?

Just stop calling it a marriage and call it a civil union.

Click to expand...

Why? What does the government or anyone else gain by doing this?

Again they don't defer they stop defining it and using the term civil union instead.

Click to expand...

Again, why do it this way?

There is conflict and controversy in the term that used to be defined through religious systems. So the government should just drop it and use civil unions instead.

Click to expand...

Why should they? The government should be resolving conflicts, not running away from them.

If another body wishes to issue a ordained union under their system they may do so and call it what they wish but alone it would have no legal authority itself and would only work inconjuction with a legal civil union. If the term they use is married then so be it but the government should top using the term.

Click to expand...

Fine then.

I'm a body -- in fact (true story!) I'm an ordained minister who has performed 2 wedding ceremonies (and one vow renewal).

I have not yet had the honor of performing a same-sex wedding ceremony, but if asked, not only would I gladly accept, but I would waive my standard fee for my services (which, by the way, comes to exactly $1 plus expenses)

My weddings are every bit as valid and recognized as one performed in any church, courthouse, synagogue, mosque, drive-through Vegas chapel, Temple of Aphrodite... whatever.

Therefore, by the power vested in me as an institution unto myself, I hereby recognize any and all "civil unions" sanctioned by the government to be... marriages, in every sense of the word.

Furthermore, let it be known that on this day, June 12, 2021, I grant full permission to absolutely ANYONE to invoke my authority as an institution to declare their own "civil union" to be a marriage.

And just like that, we're back where we started.

The sisters don't get married. They get a civil union. Their rights in this relationship allows each to have full custody to a child or matters of joint finances, tax breaks, health issues or death and any other rights afforded to a "married" couple without being married.

Click to expand...

All of which they either already have by being related, or would indicate anyway by naming one another as the beneficiary on their relevant legal documents... just as they would with a spouse.

I'm not aware of all the legal overlap sisters can currently have with marriage but that was merely an example and you are free to replace 2 sisters with 2 consenting friends who do not have a sexual/romantic relationship but seek a legal union.

Click to expand...

A legal union without sex or romance? That's marriage after a few years.