Gay Marriage leads to Animal Marriage???

[Archbio]

And gays *were* repressed.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...hts%20timeline

Of course it's been freeing up for quite a while, but the stigmatization remains, and that's the point they are making with gay marriage.

[Otaku Son]

Originally Posted by BMHadoken

Don't animals get married all the time? I saw a groom crab and a bride crab all dressed up together on Virginia Beach (I kinda wish I made that up...some really bored people out there...)

I think we mean human/animal marriages, big guy. As in you marrying your dog. As in...beastality.

Which I believe is wrong to the extreme. But, I'll hold my thoughts a little longer...

[Trev-MUN Hates AOL]

... and the meantime, I'm sitting in the back, chuckling over how stupid the whole argument is. "OMG WE MUST PASS LAWS FOR GAY MARRAEG AND FOREC TEH CHURHIZ TO COMPLY!11" "OMG WE MUST BAN GAY MARRAEG IN TEH CONSTITUTION!!!1"

We're all so concerned with any hint of the church creeping its way into state matters (like the twelve commandments statue a while back), but everyone's missing the fact that this is a state-into-church situation. Marriage is primarily a religious institution. Only through tax benefits, a multitude of other things, and general recognition of marriage did it become something a part of law or whatever.

And this is why I say we should let religions have the freedom to decide whether they will marry gays or not. There shouldn't be laws forbidding or approving universal gay marriage (or for that matter, animal marriages, given the mentioning that it's a part of hinduism). In fact, I say we revamp the laws so that any kind of union/marriage recognized by government is considered a civil union, with all the benefits given to marriages now put under that title.

I wonder whatever happened to that one bill of rights saying we had a freedom of religion ... Oh, right, it's been obscured by the "MARRIAGE IS LOVE!" "GAYS ARE EVIL!" crap.

[Osterbaum]

Ok, so I don't want anyone to say the word 'normal' anymore. We aren't anyone to deside the meaning of that word. Usually 'normal' is used about the way that most people choose etc., but...WTF?!? No one can say what is 'normal' cause nothing is!

Religion shouldn't get too interested about gay marriages. What the hell does it matter if they wed to ppl of the same gender? It's just stupid. Some times I'm ashamed of my religion. Besides 'true believers' should believe that god is what they first said: Lovinng, cairing etc. Why would such a person (or what ever) not allow gay marriages? This hole argument about animals or gay marriages, or what ever, is just stupid.

What does animal marriage have to do with allowing gay marriage?!?

[Dragonsbane]

After reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that marriage should be something that the church isn't allowed to have anything to do with....but there's no chance of that happening, so this is what I propose.

You have the right to be legally married regardless of gender or sexual orientation (but NO animals, they can't give consent). This allows you all the rights, tax stuff, and freedoms of being married.....basically the legal side.

If you're religious, you can also have a ceremony or whatever, but the church in question doesn't have to perform the marriage if it is against the beliefs they espouse. If you want to change your religion to allow gay marriage or whatever, so that you can be married in the traditional fashion, then start a new sect or find one that permits that sort of thing.

The problem here is that the church abducted the concept of marriage, and that there is a difference in the legal and religious sides of it....people tend to forget this. People have the right to get married if they want to, but religions also have their rights, as long as they don't use them to oppress others.

[Archbio]

And I here I thought this was an issue because no church could perform a legally binding gay marriage (the problem being within the laws) and no an issue of most church not wanting to perform ceremonies for gay people (it would then be a problem with the churches). Was I wrong?

Altough this is obviously a religious problem at its base, I didn't think anywhere here had suggested churches should be forced to perform ceremonies they disagree with.
And no, marriage used to be a civil institution (long, long ago), and can be independent of religion. Of course I think it should be independent of the state, but that'll make the whole point moot.

Dr EDIT says: I agree with the idea that animal marriage, while it shouldn't be wrong according to the law (which treats animals as virtual non-persons in most other ways), shouldn't be treated like a valid union (the no-consent thing. Think the cow will have any idea of what's happening?)

[Krylo]

Altough this is obviously a religious problem at its base, I didn't think anywhere here had suggested churches should be forced to perform ceremonies they disagree with.

Precisely. But allow me to expound on it.

If I go into a church and tell them all that I'm a satanist, pig-fucking, god hating, serial killer and paint their walls with blood (or even if they just don't like me), then I bring a woman to get married, they are in their FULL legal right to deny me.

Churches already have the ability to deny marriage to anyone they want. Just like there are a few people on the forums who are licensed to give out marriage licenses in some states (due to silly online 'become an ordained minister' things). If I ask them to marry me and little susie sunshine, they can tell me to go fuck myself.

You can't FORCE anyone to marry anyone. That's already law. It's a non-issue in the respect of

"OMG WE MUST PASS LAWS FOR GAY MARRAEG AND FOREC TEH CHURHIZ TO COMPLY!11"

Perhaps it would be a good idea to see if an arguement has actually come up before parodying it? Just a thought...

[Dragonsbane]

I still think you should be able to get married (at least in the eyes of the law), even if the church turns you down......it would be more paperwork than ceremony, though, with the signatures of the two partners.

[Krylo]

They already do that. You can get married in a court. You can also get married by elvis, so long as you're in LA.

[Mashirosen]

I still think you should be able to get married (at least in the eyes of the law), even if the church turns you down......it would be more paperwork than ceremony, though, with the signatures of the two partners.

You can, if you're straight (or a transsexual who's marrying someone of opposite sex to the one you're physically assuming) -- it's called a civil ceremony. What did you think atheists do, cross their fingers during all the god parts of a church ceremony? Churches don't have to enter into the equation at all.

I wish the people who get their panties in a wad about "governments forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies" would get that through their goddamn heads. NOBODY'S ASKING FOR THAT. All that's wanted is full legal recognization of homosexual marital unions, equal to that already granted to heterosexuals. Either churches will come around or they won't, although I suspect they eventually will in the face of growing societal disapproval of anti-homosexual prejudice. What part of this is too complicated for some of y'all to grasp?

Brian and I are thinking of making this a verboten subject along with religion, for largely the same reasons -- it's never going to go anywhere.