Religious marriage, will be the same as it has always been, no religion will be forced to marry same-sex couples in thier religious ceremonies or even in their places of worship.

No one complained all these year that a perfectly common word 'marriage' was used in association with legal codes, not even given the fact that our government state clearly that it cannot establishment of a national religion NOR give preference by to one religion over another.

Now they crawl out of their wooden pews and claim foul. It's a common word for a common practice that does not necessarily have anything whatever to do with religion.

It seems that MsHarmony would agree with you, and if it were (a) practical to achieve in (b) a reasonable time frame (c) everywhere in the US, and (d) in a way that didn't allow any bigotry to slip into the changes, I would find this to be the 'best solution'.

Religious gays could even form their own churches and get married in their churches. And Religious anti-gay people could just tell themselves that 'they aren't really married before God, because that isn't a real church' or something.

The religious link to marriage has also been common.
What has changed is the percentage of people in western societies who express a lack of belief in deity.

I think this would be great. Let's get terminology that (some feel) has intrinsic religious significance completely out of our codes.

The job of the secretary is reasonable. The job of the lobbyist - to make this switch in every law in every part of this country - is for all practical purposes impossible, in 2012. Its not just because our government is slow and naturally resists much change, its also because fundamentalist bigotry in some parts of the country would prevent this from happening.

The same straw-man argument is being used.

People of faith aren't anti-gay people.
People of faith are anti-sin.
The behavior defined as being sin is what people of faith are opposed to.
One's feelings may not be chosen, but one's behavior is chosen.

Dodo, please read what I actually write without projecting meaning that isn't there. In that sentence I was referring to religious anti-gay people, and saying that they say whatever they wanted in their churches. When you list two adjectives sequentially before a noun, the two adjectives can work independently: "the big red apple" says nothing about implied correlations between color and size.

Elsewhere I have commented on the relationship between being religious and being anti-gay - maybe you'd like to respond to one of those comments, rather than distorting the meaning of this one?

Of course not all religious people are so anti-gay that they would claim all gay marriages invalid by definition, but some are. There are many kinds of self described 'people of faith', and some are definitely 'anti-gay'.

I don't view myself as "good" or "right" or "special" or "saved" or anything like that just because I happened to be born with an attraction to the opposite sex. I don't feel that I had anything to do with it at all...I just came out of my Mother's womb this way! It was all "set" inside of me...And I can't manufacture (or create) an attraction to other women that just isn't "there."...I feel that gay people are born with an attraction to their same sex. (Just as I was born with "seeds" inside of me that led me to be attracted to the opposite sex when I reached puberty.)...When I decided to have kids I prepared myself for having a child who might be gay. This happens in all families. (Even in hard-core fundamentalist families.)...I would never want to be part of a religion that persecutes men and women for preferences and tendencies they were born with...No way!

The thing is, many non religious straight couples get married. With what you're saying, you have an aversion to that, too.

SEXUAL FAITHFULNESS Is an expection of MARRIAGE

as

ADULTERY is grounds for divorce

whereas HETEROSEXUAL SEX is an absolute necessity to human existence, a stand on heterosexual faithfulness is inevitable


wheras HOMOSEXUAL SEX is not a necessity to our existence and doesnt HAVE to even happen for us to survive, taking a legal stand on HOMOSEXUAL faithfulness is not necessary nor inevitable

take the sexual EXPECTATION out of it and everything else should be equal


those who oppose are wanting to FORCE government to support homosexual sex by actually having a contract by which homosexual FAITHFULNESS is required,,,,


there is no reason or validation


that has nothing to do with 'rights',,,,

what is a reasonable time frame?

why the double standard?

same sex marriage isnt happening ALL OVER AMERICA , and the time frame may or not be considered 'reasonable'
\

adding civil union as another type of consentual contract with different DETAILS from marriage is not hard


its kind of how easy it is to define DIVORCE compared to the different DETAILS of DISSOLUTION,, Im sure legal minds wouldnt have extreme difficulty with it,,,

no aversion, those that dont wish religion to be involved also would have the option of CIVIL UNION

which would go back to the GOVERNMENT approval and benefits they seek

Ah, so you only one people to get married if they're going to further our existence by having sex to have babies? What about those who choose to have sex for pleasure instead? Does that go against what you want?

What does being faithful have to do with gender? Why do you think homosexual couples should not be faithful to each other, yet heterosexual couples should?

Except what I'm talking about is what is happening now. Straight couples who are not religious are able to get married. You want to ban the from being able to do that because they're not religious?

The survival of the human race doesn't depend on marital faithfulness. It depends on sexual reproduction which can (and does) take place outside of marriage.

thats not what I said

in fact, what I Said was civil unions would not factor in SEX at all,, because (as you said) some people wont be having babies and some people MAY not even have sex,, so why consider it?

however, MARRIAGE already considers sex because grounds for ending marriage have to do with SEXUAL INFIDELITY


civil union would let a sister marry a brother, because even though incest can create ill children, we dont consider children with anyone else who may not even 'want children'


I think civil union would be the least discriminatory thing we can do, besides allowing ALL ADULTS to marry and have to be sexually faithful to each other, regardless of relation, being that not everyone who marries will have children anyway,,,,

According to what legal document?

Sorry, you're just not making much sense to me.

I think expecting sexual fidelity is, by extension, expecting sex

MANDATING that sex, even , between two people


I dont think there is any reason for government to get into such MANDATING of a sexual activity that has NO SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE, can NEVER HAVE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE

I do think government stepping in on the subject of the very sexual activity that CREATES CITIZENS in the first place to EXPECT at the least fidelity within that sexual relationship,, makes much more sense and has much more reason (children) than stepping in to start EXPECTING a certain behavior from those participating in homosexual sex,,,,



remove the sex, and we have no issues

heterosexual sex is MANDATORY, some regulation and encouragement on the topic is responsible for the government and an attempt at securing our FAMILIES and children (Which come from heterosexual sex)

homosexual sex is not MANDATORY, regulating it or encouraging it is irresponsible for government to do and secures NOTHING for families or children (ie ,,society)

The above-quoted statement doesn't make sense to me.

nope, heterosexuals should be able to marry with an EXPECTATION of sex and fidelity, or have a civil union that takes no consideration of the chosen sexual relationship


siblings, barred from marrying and therefore being expected to have sex, should be able to enter into civil unions

family members in general should be able to enter into civil unions

anyone taking care of or sharing a life with ANYONE should be able to enter into civil unions

homosexuals shouldnt be the only ones given the privilege of being equal to married couples in the attached 'rights'

and if promotion of sex is no part of marriage, incest should no longer be barred between consenting adults who wish to marry either

,,but im not wishing any of that on future generations (aunt mommy, or uncle daddy, or grandpa dad,,,,how terribly confusing and selfish and unfair....)

I do however, not want to be seen as wishing to hog the 'rights' (none of which have anything to do with sex either) for me and other citizens engaging in heterosexual unions,,,,


so, lets share those RIGHTS with civil unions that do not require a consideration, support , or encouragement of SEXUAL ACTIVITY