AliGator wrote: 

Why is the term important to me? Because my religion is important to me. If that is a foreign concept to you and others, fine. And because my religion is important to me, its teachings are, too. I wasn't as religious as I am now until I was an 18 year old scared stiff kid hoping to stay alive in Nam...ok?

 AliGator wrote: 

 musik_knut wrote: 
Again, dude, that is your line, not mine.  And religion's stance on the matter, in general. 

Open thine eyes, brother.

 Beaker wrote: 
I make no bones about being a PK. It doesn't define me, but it did shape me.

I'm really interested in hearing my dad's opinion. Because, you know, he believes in evolution and that whole pro-choice thing, and all that librul stuff.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Ok, then parenthood is not a right, yet people become parents all the time. I'm just saying, it's taken for granted in our society. We are free to marry who we want, unless we're gay, in which case, sorry, no dice.

 Xeric wrote: 

It seems a good number would dictate, even demand, that religions broaden their definitions...that's not granting religious freedoms and freedoms of religions...

In June, I will be attending a  wedding to be held on a golf course...to me, the venue is insignificant...so if anyone might think I'm such a strict ass on the topic and that only a Church may serve as the cite for a wedding, they would be wrong.
So, I am to mind my own business? In other words, suppress my thoughts on this matter? Sorry, but if that's the sentiment behind that statement, it quite simply and defiantly, won't happen. Ever. Of course, that seems to be part of the thrust by the  majority in here...accept one definition...think alike...walk the line...show no variance from what is expected...genuflect...heel. I guess I'm what some would think of as an arrogant Conservative Republican: never yielding on my rights...

Time to move along...this has become a circular discussion...thanks to all who participated and showed civility...I do respect that despite any differences...

nite all...

 katzendogs wrote: 

 musik_knut wrote: 
So if marriage isn't a right, and has no constitutional protections, the government is free to define it as it sees fit? We could pass a law that forbade anyone but people who pass stringent genetic, educational, and economic criteria to marry. No sense letting the sick, the stupid, and the poor breed more of the same, after all.

And what about the Ninth Amendment?

 

 musik_knut wrote: 
That's a whole other issue. Don't bring it in here.

Tell me why the term "marriage" is so important to you. Do we need to separate people with the terms "marriage" and "civil unions"? Why?

I've sent an email to my dad, a Protestant minister, asking him what he thinks about gay marriage. I can't wait to hear what he responds.

 musik_knut wrote: 
My religion defines "marriage" as "two or more people sharing a milkshake at a fast food joint." It's right there in our sacred texts, page 18. Next to the dry cleaning ad. No, the other side. Right there.

Marriages (and families) predate all governments, and they predate all religions. Governments do not define marriages, they recognize them.

Families define themselves. Governments just have to catch up.

 musik_knut wrote: 
You are right! It's a ceremony.

We are best rid of religion in this case. Finally, and for the the health of the commomwealth, get Jesus and God out of it! Marriage is NOT a religious sacrament nowadays, and thanks Heavens! It is a legal commitment and contract, and the superstitions and beliefs of an Iron Age Middle Eastern people should not apply to us here and now. Let us join the circle of civilization and let all people regardless of their sexual perference participate in civil society openly (as they always have secretively).

Here speaking as a happily married atheist. Screw your sacrament. Let us not be divorced 'cause of your prejudice!

 Beanie wrote: 

 

cheezus. 

 AliGator wrote: 

Maybe we can't agree on what 'right' means? You have the right to free speech...you have Miranda Rights...the right to privacy...to be secure in your person, papers and property...

Marriage is nowhere found to be listed as a 'right'...

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right...marriage falls into that category...it is not a right.

 musik_knut wrote: 
And, again, they are welcome to do so for themselves.  Not for me. 

Religious norms govern those who choose to follow a particular faith.  If you want to believe that the only true marriages are blessed by Jesus in a church—or by Necropholastaces in a Wigwam on Vernal Tuesday—you go right ahead.  As I said, it's fine with me, because I'm committed to minding my own business.

And if I want to say that anybody who is willing to publicly commit to a lifetime with another person has as much right to be considered married as anybody else, good for me.  And I'll thank you to mind your own business.

And the government perhaps should stay out of it, but can't, because of various legal issues pertaining to property, custody, and so on. 

I keep coming back to what SFW said: there is nothing to be lost by the religious by broadening their definition.  Nothing, that is, that they'd want to keep; all that is threatened is some sense of exclusivity, or self-importance, that most churches would claim not to be invested in.  But insisting that the law not broaden its definition does huge harm to a large number of people who are just as deeply in love—and wish just as devoutly (yes, that's the word) to be married—than any o' them in that wigwam.

 musik_knut wrote: 

So, MK, I'm not piling on here, but I'll give you some food for thought.

My husband, the Millwright-cum-Constitutional Scholar (that's not a joke),  is quick to point out that the US Constitution is actually intended to protect the rights and liberties of the minority.   When we define amendments to the Constitution that restrict the rights of the minority, it defies the most basic tenets upon which this country was founded.  That is the basis for the unconstitutionality of the amendment.  Majority does NOT always rule in this country when it comes to civil rights, and that's by design.

Good gracious.  I just segued from spirituality to constitutional law.  I think it's time for bed! 

  Happy debating, all!

 BillnDollarBaby wrote: 

Suddenly, everything is a right: I have the right to default on my mortgage and the Government must assist me...
Marriage is not a right...where does any statute speak of marriage rights? Bestow such a right?

You continue pushing the line about civil liberties...while overlooking my thoughts that Civil Unions should be recognized and in such Unions, no rights can be denied that are afforded all other 'unions'...I am not alone in that regard...seems your side of the issue isn't hearing my side: full rights, ALL rights, but not the term 'marriage'...

Perhaps many might wish it were so, but keeping religion out of this matter is impossible...

I might be wrong, but I am not aware of most religions denying Civil Unions...just the term 'marriage'.

 BillnDollarBaby wrote: 
Exactly.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Please explain this to me. "Marriage is not a right." By that logic, according to how I'm interpreting it, parenthood should not be a right.

If I meet X and Y criteria, I can get married. It's not hard to meet the criteria. Hell, the state of Kentucky let me marry n4ku! I don't see where or how this was not my/our right.

And, anyone can be a parent. It doesn't matter who you are, you can create a child and carry it to term in this country. It's a right.

Call me dense, but I don't see your point.