namelesstavern.net

So I was thinking the other day and came up with an interesting solution to the gay marriage issue....

The major problem is that marriage has become intertwined with government. Marriage is not just a spiritual/personal commitment to another person - now it is not "official" until a governmental official stamps a piece of paper and files it away somewhere.

The solution would be to completely divorce the concept of marriage from government. Instead, there should be two social protocols for 'official' romantic partnerships:

1) Marriage: this is the spiritual/cultural/personal half of it. It's ritual and ceremony, but is not recognized in the eyes of the law anymore than christian traditions of confirmation/baptism/communion - or any other religious/cultural/personal ritual.

2) Civil unions: this is the legal side of it. This is what gives individuals 'couple' status in the eyes of the law - in regards to attributing to them the rights/responsibilities/priviledges that current 'official' straight couples are entitled to. In essence it is equal in nature to people forming a business corporation or partnership for legal purposes.

The 'sanctity' of marriage is preserved, as traditional christians can simply refuse to marry homosexual couples in their churches, or refuse to recognize homosexual marriages as 'legitimate' in a religious sense.

It's weird... I've pretty much not heard anything in regards to this viewpoint.


I'm curious as to what youse guys's thoughts are on this? :O

Well, that sounds to me like payin twice for the same service. I mean first off you pay the 'preacher' for the spiritual part then you pay the government for the legal part. Do you work for the Govenor of NJ? I think he might have a spot for you Yamori.

I couldn't care less who marries who, I'll marry you Yamori if it'll make my tax burden less. bleh, uptight homophobic society as if we didn't have bigger fish to fry.

Sorina S wrote:Well, that sounds to me like payin twice for the same service. I mean first off you pay the 'preacher' for the spiritual part then you pay the government for the legal part. Do you work for the Govenor of NJ? I think he might have a spot for you Yamori.

What?

I'm sorry, you're making absolutely no sense to me.

Join the club, yamori.

It's not within my power to make you guys understand the abstract. Either you do, or you don't, and apparently, you don't.

But on another lever, Yamori, your theory is complete bullshit. Seperation of church and state is a myth they tell in 9th grade civics classes. Good luck with that though.

SS~

Sorina S wrote:It's not within my power to make you guys understand the abstract. Either you do, or you don't, and apparently, you don't.

But on another lever, Yamori, your theory is complete bullshit. Seperation of church and state is a myth they tell in 9th grade civics classes. Good luck with that though.

SS~

Either I can't "understand the abstract," or you're inarticulate.

I wonder which it is?

Yamori wrote:So I was thinking the other day and came up with an interesting solution to the gay marriage issue....

The major problem is that marriage has become intertwined with government. Marriage is not just a spiritual/personal commitment to another person - now it is not "official" until a governmental official stamps a piece of paper and files it away somewhere.

The solution would be to completely divorce the concept of marriage from government. Instead, there should be two social protocols for 'official' romantic partnerships:

1) Marriage: this is the spiritual/cultural/personal half of it. It's ritual and ceremony, but is not recognized in the eyes of the law anymore than christian traditions of confirmation/baptism/communion - or any other religious/cultural/personal ritual.

2) Civil unions: this is the legal side of it. This is what gives individuals 'couple' status in the eyes of the law - in regards to attributing to them the rights/responsibilities/priviledges that current 'official' straight couples are entitled to. In essence it is equal in nature to people forming a business corporation or partnership for legal purposes.

The 'sanctity' of marriage is preserved, as traditional christians can simply refuse to marry homosexual couples in their churches, or refuse to recognize homosexual marriages as 'legitimate' in a religious sense.

It's weird... I've pretty much not heard anything in regards to this viewpoint.


I'm curious as to what youse guys's thoughts are on this? :O

I said this very same thing in the last gay marriage thread.

And I believe everyone agreed that would be fine...

Just allow gay people to get married, marrages inject so much money into the economy it's crazy, it's a win win situation. Hell Divorce rates introduce even more money into the economy.

Holy shit...I never thought of that..with the way lawyers run this country I cannot BELIEVE it isn't legal yet!

Ouchyfish wrote:Holy shit...I never thought of that..with the way lawyers run this country I cannot BELIEVE it isn't legal yet!

no you're thinking of the media...

Media doesn't run jack shit in Washington...

I like the quote from the weird guy running for Governor of Texas. Kinky Friedman I think his name is.

"Am I for gay marriage? Sure. I think they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

I think I like this quote too

/agree BTW if you know anyone in Texas have them vote for ol' Kinky, his campaign for governor just rocks.....

his bumperstickers rock....

I also like it how Sorina makes intelligible garbage and when people ask her/her/it to clarify (every time), suddenly you are attacked for being a moron...

I think we, as a country, have a lot more important issues to worry about than whether Bruce and can marry Kieth. Yeah, it's fucking disgusting, but quite frankly I think we need to be more worried about the deal our idiot president is working on to allow the UAE to run some of our ports.

Whats the big deal with letting other countries own our ports man.

Nothing, as long as they're not terrorist supporting muslim countries.

Arent there any american companies that can run the ports ?

There are. In fact the ports in New Jersey (I it's NJ) have filed a law suit to block the purchase. When ever asked the "why" about the situation - the Bush administration starts doing a "umm gee welllll" dance and wont answer the question.

After all his talk on homeland security he wants to give power over something like 22 our ports to a country that has a long history of supporting terrorism.

Diek and Eldred need to put there sigs together and then no dude on NT would ever respond to anything, they would just stare all day

Kinky's campaign slogan is awesome. Kinky for Governer "Why the hell not?"

Oh please they are not turning over security, just operations. Like our ports are that fucking secure now as it is..get real..

You don't live in a port city - I do. I don't want to wake up glowing one day because the UAE "forgot" to list a container carrying a dirty bomb built and loaded by their friends in Humas.

Do you honestly think that the British are doing that good of a job protecting you from that now? Look up statistics on the security of our ports.