posted March 01, 2011 01:39 PM            

gay people can not be religious, or spiritual? and religion is not supposed to represent that aspect of human's experience: human's spirituality?

so if being married is a problem because it makes religions recognize gay people getting together, then religion is the main issue behind gay's right to live like others, here read straight. hence religion is not fulfilling it's other role, to include every human beings in a spiritual journey.

in europe, that is what happened. catholicism is dying, surely and definitely, and is being replaced by islam. although france and other european countries have centuries of histories to back up our culture. but I wonder if those conservatives of today in anglo saxon world like the US australia are going to react when the same will happen in THEIR countries and arab countries will habe become democracies like it is begining to happen. islam culture will no longer be a threat. how could a democracy be threatened by another? influenced, but hey what can you do about influence, well, I think not much, especially in individualistic countries...

posted March 01, 2011 01:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
America is a great melting pot of diversity and ethnicity...with freedom of religion and the practice thereof; however, make no mistake about it--the US is a Christian nation, and it always will be. Marriage is a big thing in Christianity.

---

the US is a christian nation ... sorry but you seem to think that a country is not a living thing.

if a country is not a living entity, then it is already dead. and if it is living, it is evolving. france was a catolic country, 70 years ago, although at the time already, the separation of the church and the state was 35 years old. it was still very much christian (essentially catholic). it has always been, sine clovis in the 6th century.

but in 100 years, basically the 20th century, poof, it all changed.

posted March 01, 2011 04:11 PM            

Well we found a pagan who had an ordination which made her be able to just sign the LEGAL CONTRACT.

Yeah, her ordination was Christian but she totally ignored all that crap and signed the LEGAL certificate.
We did our own vows in the lake.
The ceremony part is not a legal thing.
The certificate is.
Why the fraking fuquque ups at the courthouse refused us was plainly blatantly illegal and discriminatory!
They said go get married by your own kind, BUT IT WILL NOT BE LEGAL!
Then I asked;
"what if people are Buddhist or whatever?"
They said,
ONLY CHRISTIANS OR THOSE HAVING THE CHRISTIAN CEREMONY DONE HERE CAN BE MARRIED HERE AT THE COURTHOUSE OR BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND HAVE THE LEGAL DOCUMENT SIGNED.

PS. We got married for the legal reasons, HIPPA, insurance and so forth.
As far as I am concerned.....
Marriage contracts should be legal only and called a partner contract for any couple, hetero, gay, whatever.
And if anyone wants a religious/spiritual ceremony of any kind.....
do that separate from the legal partnership document.
They are not the same thing!

posted March 01, 2011 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Similar to a civil union. I think that's a fine idea. I think the problem gays have with not being allowed marriage is simply the question, "Why should some adults be able to marry, and not others?" It seems like a bit of a semantic issue. If the concept of marriage were abolished and it were all Life Partnerships/civil unions then everyone would be on the same playing field.

---

posted March 01, 2011 04:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pire:
is it because religion is involved that gays cannot be concerned by the marriage?

gay people can not be religious, or spiritual? and religion is not supposed to represent that aspect of human's experience: human's spirituality?

so if being married is a problem because it makes religions recognize gay people getting together, then religion is the main issue behind gay's right to live like others, here read straight. hence religion is not fulfilling it's other role, to include every human beings in a spiritual journey.

---

THE IDIOTS ARE MIXING CHURCH AND STATE!

THE DOCUMENT IS THE LEGAL PART OF THE UNION,
NOT THE CEREMONY OF ANY KIND!

See my above posts ranting about all that crap.

Simply remove the word marriage from the LEGAL part of the LEGAL not religious CONTRACT!

posted March 01, 2011 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Okay, so I'm not a fan. But now that I have your attention, I have a solution for all of the problems with marriage. I will call it a Life Partnership. What that would be is official recognition of a relationship for legal reasons. All we need is a simple federal law that requires that those unions be given the same rights as marriage. Just a simple registration process (and de-registration). No divorces. No courts. And it solves the problem with gays without offending those who oppose gay marriage. Marriage would still exist, as well. Many heterosexual couples would choose an LP over a marriage. We could also have a Life Partnership Contract to predetermine any custody and property issues in case of a split. And even Life Partnership ceremonies (symbolic only). Opinions?

---

posted March 02, 2011 08:26 AM            

I also want to add that Islamic marriages for Eg.are not recognized in my country. They have their traditional ceremony and then have to go to court to have it deemed “legal”. There are many of them that do not go to court to legalize the marriage and they don’t care because they are married in the eyes of their religion.

Also, the law here automatically sees a couple as “married” if they have lived together for 5 years or longer and have the same rites as the ones that got married the conventional way and that applies to homosexual couples as well ( who are titled Life partners).

posted March 02, 2011 12:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Negative. I've had long-term relationships, but I am always up-front about my views on marriage. Marriage doesn't benefit the guy. Weddings are for the woman.

---

posted March 02, 2011 01:59 PM            

quote:

---

The family vacation cruise that Janice Langbehn, her partner Lisa Marie Pond and three of their four children set out to take in February 2007 was designed to be a celebration of the lesbian couple's 18 years together.

But when Pond suffered a massive stroke onboard before the ship left port and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, administrators refused to let Langbehn into the Pond's hospital room. A social worker told them they were in an "anti-gay city and state."

Langbehn filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday charging the hospital with negligence and "anti-gay animus" in refusing to recognize her and the children as Pond's family, even after a power of attorney was faxed to the hospital within an hour of their arrival

---

That said, I personally see a difference between the ceremony and the contract, and I don't see a need for people to embrace Christianity or its tenets in order to be married (so one doesn't have to be heterosexual either, IMO). A few Christian churches are even fully accepting of gays and are willing to marry them and we don't live in a country where one group of Christians can use the government to tell another group of Christians that they're wrong (separation of church & state). And I also take into account that society has survived changes to marriage before (arranged marriage to consenting, polygamy to nuclear family, etc) and are ok for it just as those countries that have accepted full equality for gays (whether or not they call it marriage) don't seem any worse for it either.

posted March 02, 2011 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Sounds like an ok alternative to me. As long as things like this don't happen:
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jun/25/woman-sues-miami-hospital-after-being-denied- visit/

That said, I personally see a difference between the ceremony and the contract, and I don't see a need for people to embrace Christianity or its tenets in order to be married (so one doesn't have to be heterosexual either, IMO). A few Christian churches are even fully accepting of gays and are willing to marry them and we don't live in a country where one group of Christians can use the government to tell another group of Christians that they're wrong (separation of church & state). And I also take into account that society has survived changes to marriage before (arranged marriage to consenting, polygamy to nuclear family, etc) and are ok for it just as those countries that have accepted full equality for gays (whether or not they call it marriage) don't seem any worse for it either.

But I know many people don't like change (there was even resistance to air conditioners when they first came out!), and this is just one more growing pain, IMO.

---

Good reply!
That sad thing about the woman
is exactly why I got married the most recent time.
Hospitals will deny as they did her, the basic rights married folks have.
I have had 8 or more hospital ER visits.(mini strokes, broken bones, life threatening allergic reactions, and blindness episodes etc.)
If not married, my partner during such times would have been denied access to see me or get word on my condition.
As we can see, even a power of attorney does not work.

I am VERY VERY VERY worried now;
because I am divorcing him AND WILL LOSE MY RIGHTS to have him or any friend or lover be with me if I get sick, or hurt, and need to
go to a hospital;
I WOULD BE ALL ALONE, and FRANKLY THAT TERRIFIES ME TO NO END.
So basically......I would avoid going to an ER or hospital unless I was unconscious or physically forced to go.
NO FRAKING WAY WOULD I GO ALONE until I had absolutely no choice!
"shudder"