Vote
29 Total Votes
1

No

18 votes
5 comments
2

Yes

10 votes
5 comments
3

I'm not sure

1 vote
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
benhos says2015-05-10T21:22:29.1674533-05:00
I really don't think so, it's about love, but why do you need a reverend/pastor to marry you and your spouse?
TBR says2015-05-10T21:25:53.0607603-05:00
Well, you don't. There are many people who can officiate a wedding.
briantheliberal says2015-05-10T23:06:14.9177617-05:00
It's not about religion, it's not about love either. It's about the law. Marriage is a legal institution. Under a marriage, a couple is granted various rights and responsibilities under the law. If you want to make it about religion or love, that is a personal lifestyle decision.
benhos says2015-05-11T00:18:44.4128429-05:00
True...
TBR says2015-05-11T09:19:28.3615475-05:00
I think one of the things that gets missed is the fact that many same sex couples have been married by Churches for some time now. The Unitarians (that I sometimes consider myself a part of) have preformed same sex marriages since the 70's. The religion component of marriage is up to each religious group to decide for themselves.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-05-11T09:20:59.6533327-05:00
It's not about religion, love or the law. It's about the family...
TBR says2015-05-11T09:29:39.5084074-05:00
@Diqiucun_Cunmin - A have no problem adding "family" on the list, but it IS about the law in every developed country. Denying equity under the law has been the issue from day one.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-05-11T09:35:09.8587827-05:00
@TBR: I'm not really denying that the law is part of marriage these days. My point was actually that the first and foremost function of marriage is about the family: to serve the ancestors and to extend the bloodline. I oppose defining marriage *solely* or *primarily* with the law, which Brian appeared to do here and in previous discussions I've had with him. In fact, I find this to be my primary disagreement with him on the matter of marriage.
TBR says2015-05-11T15:52:19.7128618-05:00
@Diqiucun_Cunmin - I am not entirely disagreeing. What I am saying is, the legal rights of marriage are the ONLY place for argument. If same-sex couples can marry in, say the Unitarian church without effecting changes in law, then there would be NO need for argument. Fundamentalists Christians and other religions that reject same sex marriage are unaffected. The problem, the ENTIRE problem, is with legal recognition and the additional rights and benefits that includes.
briantheliberal says2015-05-11T17:23:55.8533060-05:00
Diqiucun_Cunmin, in the United States marriage is fundamentally a legal institution, period.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T12:46:35.5613760-05:00
A legal institution that shouldn't exist, as it too closely borders the religious institution by the same name. Nothing in the constitution says that this is something the government should be providing. Maybe your state ones say it ... But certainly not our national one.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T12:48:36.8841314-05:00
Not to mention the fees associated with establishing a marriage do not make up for the loss in revenue that comes from giving these particular people tax breaks over others.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T12:51:48.8680392-05:00
It was a religious institution made legal institution by religious folks hoping to capitalize on tax loopholes. Same as religious institutions claiming tax free status. Thats why their still seen as religious institutions today, it was put there by religious lobbyists.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T12:53:01.9317131-05:00
Theyre* still seen as religious institutions ...

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.