male-she

[Tclosetgirl (imported)]

Marriage is a religious institution, it was defined in the bible 2000 + years ago.

If you want to enter into a religious institution, then you gotta play by their rules.

Personally I think ALL marriage should be banned.

It would save the courts and a lot of people a lot of money.

[jemagirl (imported)]

Marriage is a religious institution, it was defined in the bible 2000 + years ago.

If you want to enter into a religious institution, then you gotta play by their rules.

Personally I think ALL marriage should be banned.

It would save the courts and a lot of people a lot of money.

If marriage is just about religion then Government shouldn't even be in the marriage business to begin with, but they are, and that's the problem.

I hear religious conservatives jumping up and down about big Government attacking them on issues like prayer in school and putting the Ten Commandments in Courts and other public buildings, but they seem happy enough to jump in bed with Government if the Government will write laws like DOMA. They want it both ways yes they want separation of Church and State when the State gets in their way, but they don't worry to much about that separation when they are worried about my gender and the gender of my partner. Sorry, but I am not buying it.

[BossTamsin (imported)]

If marriage is just about religion then Government shouldn't even be in the marriage business to begin with, but they are, and that's the problem.

I hear religious conservatives jumping up and down about big Government attacking them on issues like prayer in school and putting the Ten Commandments in Courts and other public buildings, but they seem happy enough to jump in bed with Government if the Government will write laws like DOMA. They want it both ways yes they want separation of Church and State when the State gets in their way, but they don't worry to much about that separation when they are worried about my gender and the gender of my partner. Sorry, but I am not buying it.

I agree 100%. If marriage is a religious institution, then government should have no involvement one way or another at any level. That means no laws for or against, no tax exemptions, no say regarding benefits, estates, rights, or any of that. Either it's legal, or it's religious. Pick one.

I've always been a supporter of same-sex marriages, and am proud to live in a country where they are completely legal. Of course, somehow same-sex marriages were legal several months (maybe a year) before same-sex divorces, but that's a whole nother ball of wax.

[Sillycone (imported)]

Is marriage a religious institution? The idea of marriage goes way back into prehistory, maybe starting as a way of uniting different tribes with a legal contract. It's a puzzle as to where and when marriage started because it doesn't strike me as very natural for two humans to bond for life.

We need to define what marriage is. I would say it's a legal contact to share and care for one another. Gender obviously is irrelevant for that, but it's going to take time for society to accept it. I too am proud to live in a country where same sex marriages are legal, I'm not too proud of much else of the British culture but the open-minded and tolerance are our greatest qualities.

What's religion got to do with it? I am not religious so I don't see why that should be used as an argument. Use logic and commonsense to create laws that are fair and sensible, not some quotes from another (and far more sexist and prejudiced) age. Religion is always a dangerous subject to touch on, but if I keep getting it forced on me then I cannot stay silent. As an atheist, I never tell others how they should or shouldn't live their lives but I get shot down and assumed to be evil because of my beliefs. The state should handle every aspect of law, arrived at through debate and discussion.

[Tclosetgirl (imported)]

Is marriage a religious institution?

What's religion got to do with it? I am not religious so I don't see why that should be used as an argument. Use logic and common sense to create laws that are fair and sensible, not some quotes from another (and far more sexist and prejudiced) age. Religion is always a dangerous subject to touch on, but if I keep getting it forced on me then I cannot stay silent. As an atheist, I never tell others how they should or shouldn't live their lives but I get shot down and assumed to be evil because of my beliefs. The state should handle every aspect of law, arrived at through debate and discussion.

In any civilized society when you put people in charge of other people corruption runs rampid, it's just a fact proven through out history.

Look at the UN, the US, the UK......

No government does anything fair or sensible anymore, only what is good for corporations or greedy people - everyone has special interests...

Now you want those same people in charge of your personal life with a spouse?

As an American, most of us don't trust our government anymore, you can clearly see why with the illegal wiretaps etc (They do it anyway and have been for many years as does the UK gov).

We've got a gov that will tell you how to live your life, one that will make a crime fit you vs actually following evidence (See the news daily on this)....

Granted the license is required for marriage, then the gov says who gets married and who does not....

I am not for same sex marriages but I'm also not against any legal union that would give the same benefits and rights.

If we were to allow same sex marriage then I would want the right to put my girlfriend (if I had one) on my medical and give her the rights that any married couple would enjoy then same sex or not......

(I'm just making a logical argument here as to why they don't do it)...

What they should do is say "Whoever you trust, you can give benefits and rights to" - period........

[Sillycone (imported)]

In any civilized society when you put people in charge of other people corruption runs rampid, it's just a fact proven through out history.

Look at the UN, the US, the UK......

No government does anything fair or sensible anymore, only what is good for corporations or greedy people - everyone has special interests...

But then who will make the laws? Otherwise it's anarchy. A true democracy should make laws, but for now the best we have is a psuedo-democracy. On the whole, I trust the British government because for the most part it's composed of dedicated politicians who genuinely mean well. Through public debates and voting the system is gradually tweaked and improved and freedom of speech is vital. People will always have their own special interests, the Church is no different but with an open system where everyone is accountable hopefully corruption is kept to a minimum.

Marriage is just another type of contract between two people. It can affect inheritance, rights to a home, and immigration. My wife is Ethiopian and we could only be together through marriage. If I had been a lesbian it would have been impossible. That's not right, there should be no distiction, my genitals should not determine my rights. There have been cases of gay couples, together for years and after one has died all the possessions have gone to his next of kin.

[plix (imported)]

I do not necessarily support same-sex marriage due to my preference for tradition. And traditionally speaking marriage has always been between a man and a woman. But I don't have any issues with civil union type systems, and I am in such a union myself.

The only problem we have with this is the potential for the separate and therefore unequal argument to come up. Unfortunately in this society we seem to have this mentality that if two things are different, one must be superior and the other inferior. This is one of the mentalities in today's society that upsets me the most. I fail to see the logic in that if two things are different, one must be superior to the other. I certainly believe it is possible for two things to be different and also fully equal.

So if we look at civil unions (in California we call them domestic partnerships) as inferior to marriage, they will certainly turn out that way. But if we can accept that they can be equal, then they can be. It's all going to depend on how we look at it.

As for racially segregated schools in case someone wants to bring that up, black schools were not inferior to white schools just because they were separate. They were inferior because of the way we viewed and treated (and still view and treat) blacks in society. Not that I support segregation, but I am simply pointing out that the schools were not unequal because they were separate. Our attitude toward the particular group is what made their schools inferior.

One option to solve the potential inferiority that our attitude toward gays would cause for civil unions would be to make civil unions be the only option for both opposite and same sex couples and leave marriage to religion with no governmental benefits coming from it.

[gpb3aol (imported)]

One option to solve the potential inferiority that our attitude toward gays would cause for civil unions would be to make civil unions be the only option for both opposite and same sex couples and leave marriage to religion with no governmental benefits coming from it.

The above is the only part of your post I agree with. Government controlled married is unequal to government controlled domestic partnerships. Just look at your federal tax form. Marriage should be a religions thing not a government process for controlling people.

Pauline.

[Lesley (imported)]

What about the little children, i.e. offspring of a union between man and woman. Surely there needs to be some ground rules in a partnership like this, if only for the protection of children. Unfortunately, many conventional marriages have children who are grossly abused.

which begs the question of communal upbringing, something that I as a kid new I would not like.

[jemagirl (imported)]

If we were to allow same sex marriage then I would want the right to put my girlfriend (if I had one) on my medical and give her the rights that any married couple would enjoy then same sex or not......

Lots of people actually do marry their girlfriends and they and they are allowed to do this for no other reason that the fact that they have penises.

I don't know why we call our genitalia private parts when the government seems so interested in them. Personally I don't think it is up to the government to decided what parts my partner should have. We are all about equality in this country, but apparently with many unfortunate provisos.