Love and Marriage
I would just like to take this time to say that I am not for gay marriage. That being said, I would also like to state that I am not for straight marriage either. This does not mean that I am against people coming together as man and wife or partners to live the rest of their lives bound by love. I'm simply against the legal aspect of marriage. Contractual obligation has no place in romance.
The government has no business defining what is and is not a marriage. Marriage is a religious issue and the fact that any marriages have a legal standing is, well, not good. It's the government imposing its will on a religious institution, which goes against the separation of church and state.
The government should remove the legal status from all marriages, gay and straight, and instead give only civil unions a legal standing. The term "civil union" does not in any way imply romance; two friends who are living together could choose to get a civil union so that neither has to worry about who gets the other's possessions when he or she dies. Married couples would also get civil unions, but they would not be exclusively for this purpose.
This way, the government doesn't have to take a stance as to whether or not two people of the same gender can love each other, since issues like this shouldn't concern them in the first place.
Marriage wouldn't be gotten rid of, don't get me wrong. It would just be reserved for religious institutions. That way religious institutions can stick to their beliefs and keep marriage between one man and one woman, but homosexuals or people who simply don't want to get married could still benefit by getting a civil union.
Z: My view of marriage is this. In my eyes it is a religous issue only. Everything else is to me, a civil union.
unrivaled apex: as it should be.
unrivaled apex: I agree with you here.
unrivaled apex: And that's why I think the government should get it's hands off of marriage
Z: I'm not sure how I feel about government's invovlement in all of that myself. I haven't looked at the issue enough to make a formal opinion. I do think that gays and others should have some kind of protections while not nessarly calling it out right marriage.
unrivaled apex: right, and that protection can come in the form of a civil union. Actually, that protection can come for ANYONE in the form of a civil union, and then marriage would strictly be a religious ceremony between the couple and God.
Z: agreed.
unrivaled apex: The government has essentially turned marriage into a legal contract, when really it was supposed to be just a contract between the couple and God.
Z: amen to that one.
Z: I may not agree with some lifestyles. But I do feel that some benifits should be allowed. Some people by their choices don't always have the family support. Someitmes the only family they have is their partner.
unrivaled apex: exactly. And by taking the government out of marriage and opening civil unions to everyone, the problem of divorce would likely go down, and religious sects could stick to their beliefs and only marry people they want to marry.
Z: won't happen in our lifetime. Mainly because we have too many hardliners on both sides of the fence in office.
The government has no business defining what is and is not a marriage. Marriage is a religious issue and the fact that any marriages have a legal standing is, well, not good. It's the government imposing its will on a religious institution, which goes against the separation of church and state.
The government should remove the legal status from all marriages, gay and straight, and instead give only civil unions a legal standing. The term "civil union" does not in any way imply romance; two friends who are living together could choose to get a civil union so that neither has to worry about who gets the other's possessions when he or she dies. Married couples would also get civil unions, but they would not be exclusively for this purpose.
This way, the government doesn't have to take a stance as to whether or not two people of the same gender can love each other, since issues like this shouldn't concern them in the first place.
Marriage wouldn't be gotten rid of, don't get me wrong. It would just be reserved for religious institutions. That way religious institutions can stick to their beliefs and keep marriage between one man and one woman, but homosexuals or people who simply don't want to get married could still benefit by getting a civil union.
Z: My view of marriage is this. In my eyes it is a religous issue only. Everything else is to me, a civil union.
unrivaled apex: as it should be.
unrivaled apex: I agree with you here.
unrivaled apex: And that's why I think the government should get it's hands off of marriage
Z: I'm not sure how I feel about government's invovlement in all of that myself. I haven't looked at the issue enough to make a formal opinion. I do think that gays and others should have some kind of protections while not nessarly calling it out right marriage.
unrivaled apex: right, and that protection can come in the form of a civil union. Actually, that protection can come for ANYONE in the form of a civil union, and then marriage would strictly be a religious ceremony between the couple and God.
Z: agreed.
unrivaled apex: The government has essentially turned marriage into a legal contract, when really it was supposed to be just a contract between the couple and God.
Z: amen to that one.
Z: I may not agree with some lifestyles. But I do feel that some benifits should be allowed. Some people by their choices don't always have the family support. Someitmes the only family they have is their partner.
unrivaled apex: exactly. And by taking the government out of marriage and opening civil unions to everyone, the problem of divorce would likely go down, and religious sects could stick to their beliefs and only marry people they want to marry.
Z: won't happen in our lifetime. Mainly because we have too many hardliners on both sides of the fence in office.