Homophobia?

[JBoy]

Yes, but, I cant msee the church backing down any time soon, might as well get as many people as happy as possible.

Yeah, because gay people are gonna back down.

...which is why I've been suggesting a legal equivalent this whole time

I think you're misunderstanding the point....

[Genevieve]

Yes, but, I cant msee the church backing down any time soon, might as well get as many people as happy as possible.

Yeah, because gay people are gonna back down.

...which is why I've been suggesting a legal equivalent this whole time

Yes, and like I said, they're just gonna accept that and get on with it. They don't wanna be grown-ups, they wanna be seated and the kid's table.

[Terpit]

Yes, but, I cant msee the church backing down any time soon, might as well get as many people as happy as possible.

Yeah, because gay people are gonna back down.

...which is why I've been suggesting a legal equivalent this whole time

Yes, and like I said, they're just gonna accept that and get on with it. They don't wanna be grown-ups, they wanna be seated and the kid's table.

If you say so

[nowaysj]

I just believe regarding marriage, religion is the 'governing body'

Where did you get this idea from?

Well before today, I wanst aware that marriages outside of religious buildings that weren't religious ceremonies were considered as marriage, I thought they were a legal equivalent. However I've been proven wrong. I guess living in an completely different society changes perceptions as well.

No doubt. One of the foundational principals of the United States is the separation of church and state. That separation has never been perfect and the extent of the separation has waxed and waned over the last few hundred years. For example, it was only in 1965 that our highest court struck down state laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception (like condoms). Madness. And it was only in 2000 that Alabama (one of our most backward states) amended their state constitution to no longer prohibit interracial marriage.

Marriage in the US has always been secular, but the religious mouth breathers have fought a concerted and until recently, largely successful campaign to take control of the marriage contract out of the hands of the people and into the hands of religious elites.

In all honesty, and imo, the US federal government's resistance to gay marriage is a proxy position against polygamy. The Mormon, a purely American whacky and sci fi based form of Christianity, practiced polygamy openly up until 1890, but polygamy is still practiced in many Mormon communities today. The federal government has always been strictly opposed to polygamy, and it appears that if same sex marriages are allowed, the polygamists will be that much closer to making a reasonable argument that polygamy should be allowed under state law.

Am I talking out loud?

[Genevieve]

I seriously believe that gay marriage/abortion/Obamacare are all red herrings in American politics. Yeah, Obamacare is bad, but the problems with the American healthcare system go waay deeper than that. Yessss, abortion is a heavy issue, but it's not as simple as PRO-CHOICE/PRO-LIFE and it has way deeper philosophical implications than are usually discussed and more than 2 angles to approach the issue from.. gay marriage is controversial, but are the media/politicians truly discussing the place of government in marriage?

Just meant to divide people evenly and to distract them from the bigger picture.

[nowaysj]

w/o a doubt.

[Hircine]

what's the problem with public health care, it's the state's duty to zeal over life, you can't put a price on that.

terpit, the problem with a legal equivalent for marriage is that it simply can't exist in today's legal systems over the world, two laws can't regulate the same subject, the most comprehensive law will prevail (that's hans kelsen, btw). It may work on a theocratical state such as the emirates or iran, but it won't work in common law or civil law countries.

[Terpit]

'And it was only in 2000 that Alabama (one of our most backward states) amended their state constitution to no longer prohibit interracial marriage.' - WTF, did not know that.

Actually it doesn't work here, there is no equivalent, infact being homosexual in this country can get you jail time.

I dont know what you mean by 'it simply can't exist in today's legal systems over the world, two laws can't regulate the same subject, the most comprehensive law will prevail' - Why exactly couldnt it work? It would speed things up greatly.

[SCope13]

what's the problem with public health care, it's the state's duty to zeal over life, you can't put a price on that.

terpit, the problem with a legal equivalent for marriage is that it simply can't exist in today's legal systems over the world, two laws can't regulate the same subject, the most comprehensive law will prevail (that's hans kelsen, btw). It may work on a theocratical state such as the emirates or iran, but it won't work in common law or civil law countries.

Obamacare isn't "public health care".

[hasezwei]

a legal equivalent to marriage but without the religious part?

doesnt that already exist? in germany it does. if you're atheist or jedi or worship satan or just dont want to pay taxes to the church you can get married in a legal office (standesamt) with no priest, no bible blah blah and still enjoy all the tax cuts and years of paying lawyers once you're gonna divorce.
in fact no matter what religious ceremony you're gonna do as far as i know legally that doesn't change anything, you still have to sign a contract. best way to do it imo.

but of course thats still only for heterosexual couples

[hifi]

OP assumes homophobes are all male though