You're starting to loop back on yourself. I think this is why I've never really gotten into the Devil's Advocate thing. Or perhaps my original assessment of your mind was accurate. You tell us...

[QUOTE=magician,Nov 24 2008, 01:25 AM]Because so many people are jerks, or immature, or ignorant, or weak-willed, or suffer from innumerable other human frailties.

The fact that many people fail at its implementation is an indictment of the people, not the institution.

 

Gays are also paying taxes. Now because someone is gay their tax dollars are worth less than a straight guy's tax dollars?

Wow... It's a good thing you're not running the country. Inflation would be REAL ####ed up.

 

[QUOTE=rahvis,Nov 25 2008, 11:30 AM]You're starting to loop back on yourself.

 

Right after I made that comment is a quote from your post from yesterday. You were replying to someone regarding the divorce rate and stated that:

[QUOTE=magician,Nov 24 2008, 01:25 AM]Because so many people are jerks, or immature, or ignorant, or weak-willed, or suffer from innumerable other human frailties.

The fact that many people fail at its implementation is an indictment of the people, not the institution.

 

This thread has grown, and it's been an interesting discussion to catch up on! Thanks for all your comments!

__________

Elistan, sorry it took me a day or two to get back on. Work has been busy. In response to the questions you posed on page 2, all three should be able to marry, but it's due to Mormon beliefs on the afterlife and the purpose of life at a deeper level than is worth discussion on this Gay Marriage thread. PM me if you'd like me to try to explain it. The point: the view of my religion, be it argued as right or wrong, is consistent with itself and a view of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

__________

The point about morality being a relative thing is huge. Morals and ethics are not an exact science at this point in time. Obviously we can all find common ground, but when you get into the thick of it, some of us have views that we don't all share, and different cultures accept different sets and parts of them. That's the primary reason so many christians are concerned about this issue. As said earlier, where do we draw the line?

In fact, when I lived in Finland, it was a cultural difference I felt: the US runs based much more heavily on religion-based morality than Finland. Finland seemed to run more on the societally determined relative moral system than a faith-based moral system. It is more evolutionary, fluidic, and progressive than a faith-based system. But if the faith based system is, as professed, 100% correct in principle and weak in application, the relative system is inferior. If faith is misplaced, the religious approach is inferior... and thus we have different views.

__________

magician (and others), I also agree with the civil union type idea.

My issue is not with the right of homosexuals to live together, be accepted as citizens and people, have equal access to government law shelters, and so on. They are equal, and their rights should be the same as anyone's. My issue is with what marriage means to me and my family. It's a morality issue.

Perhaps a better way to look at it that everyone can understand--these ideas are hard to correctly communicate--if the government says Yes to gay marriage, that symbolizes that in the USA, gay marriage is moral. I do not think gay marriage is moral, and just over 50% of californians seem to feel similarly. About 49% disagree. So what do we do? Do we argue morality until blue in the face? Do we fight tooth and nail? Those are miserable approaches! Our world views differ, so our morals and ethics will certainly differ also!

As we've all discussed earlier and at much greater length, the government doesn't have a lot of place in morality issues.

***[the point]***
Although it is very general to different faiths, marriage is religious in nature and is run by the state. Therein lies the problem, in my opinion. I think we're at a point where we should rewrite the whole thing.

Let the states do civil unions ONLY and handle all the legal, tax, and other rights through that medium. As far as the state should be concerned, the civil union is everything.

Let churches do marriages ONLY, not civil unions. Marriage can be what it always has been to christians--a religious issue like baptism. And that is and should be completely unimportant to the government.
***[/the point]***

Although it's not a perfect solution, I don't think that approach would find nearly the same level of resistance. It seems to be a very good compromise.

 

[QUOTE=rahvis,Nov 25 2008, 11:45 AM]Your tolerance of divorce seems to contradict your tolerance of violence.

 

that sounds familiar.

[QUOTE=Will,Nov 24 2008, 12:12 PM]
This is exactly what I feel should happen, as I said in a previous post, with the addition that all state performed unions (both straight and gay couples) be called "civil unions", and convey the same rights regardless of gender.

 

So the ideas of gays having some sort of marriage, but calling it something else, would not work?

 

I totally agree brother, this is how I feel too. As long as people are not on the shit end, they will enjoy participating in the bitching and pissing matches.

 

Yep, it was your and others' idea, not mine. I like it.

And I know others marry gay couples. That's fine. We Mormons won't, and the US won't do it as a nation. People will do what they like. Can't they marry in Connecticut anyway?

For me, it would work. And although you may not see it, I see the separation solution as a very different thing from renaming marriage.

To you, marriages may be civil unions and vice versa. To me, they are not. So if we separate the two, I will be happy, homosexual couples will be happy, and you already are content.