But marriage, in and of itself, has become a religiously charged term...much as some would balk at seeing it officially called "hand-fasting" by the government, I can see a decent argument for the separation of terminology. I, for example, do not want to be married...but I would love the tax benefits and spousal allowances given married couples.

Two things: I'd like to point out the error in an earlier post that says Mormons promote polygamy. In reality the Mormon church (LDS) has distanced themselves from that since 1890. There are sects that still advocate and practice it, but it is like any extremist sect of any religion, it is not condoned by the main church.<br /> <br /> Other: Marriage has never been exclusively religious/christian. There should be no church basis for calling it civil union versus marriage because "marriage is religious". Every major culture had marriages, even ones long before christianity.

I believe the government should dole out <i>civil unions</i> for everyone, straight couples included. A governing body has no place in church dealings nor vice versa. This way, churches that wish to honor the marriage (or that wish to host the ceremony) are allowed to do so, and couples will all have equal rights in the eyes of the law. So long as that is the case, I don't see why there should be any sort of argument whatsoever.

I say they should be allowed to marry if they want to. Why should straight cuples be the only miserable ones?<br /> <br /> also id like to talk about this topic "You're saying specifically in *a* church, as per the preference of the person actually marrying them, right?"<br /> <br /> Its compleatly different. A church has a spicific religen, if they wish not to marry a cupple its there choice. And its not just gays churches wont marry. The church my sister and i grew up in refused to marry her and her now hubby because she had gotten prego. She wasn't allowed to be married there. Its based on a religious belief system that should not be forced to bend simply because people who do not believe in think its wrong. We don't force you to do thangs you dont believe in, they should be given the same curticy.

That was probably the wrong way to word it, because that's not at all what I mean.. I don't really think it has anything to do with the Civil Rights Movement, either (other than the obvious human rights connection, of course) but I'll try to explain what I meant to the best of my ability. It makes perfect sense in my head, and I'm able to separate my arguments in a way that words and forum spaces just don't allow for. I've tried to type it here three or more times, but just haven't been able to manage it in a way that makes sense..<br /> <br /> I'd like to define a couple things in the way that I understand them (and maybe this will help you decode what I'm saying):<br /> A) Church marriages (at least, in the Catholic tradition, and in my mind) are really wedding ceremonies in which the couple is married <b>in the eyes of God</b> (but they still have to do all the government paperwork in order to be recognized as being legally married). <br /> B) Marriages that happen in places other than a church (because the couple isn't religious, or what have you) are still wedding ceremonies (and those couples still have to do the government paperwork that couples married in the church have to do).<br /> C) The real <b>marriage</b> comes when the couple fills out the marriage license and starts living together as a truly married couple. <br /> <br /> I just think it's stupid for everyone to fight so hard over this, when it's got a pretty simple solution. They (gay couples, government officials, church leaders, etc) just need to sit down and have a talk ( or, you know, however it works) with each other and agree to let the churches keep their definitions of "marriage" as "between a man and a woman" (bullet point A) and settle (not the right word, but I can't think of the correct one) for non-church weddings (bullet point b) and "government" marriages (bullet point C). I think that tiny bit of compromise on both sides could really get the ball rolling on coming up with a solution to this thing. <br /> <br /> It could also be that I'm not understanding both sides of the argument clearly. I stay away from news because I'm cynical and I find all of the outlets to be full of bias)..<br /> <br /> And in answer to the topic I saw brought up about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children or not, I'm definitely all for it. As long as there are homeless children who need families, then I say whatever couple/family wants to adopt these children and give them secure, loving homes should absolutely be able to (as long as they're good people, and not pedophiles or something.. o.O). <br /> <br /> EDITED: I realize "simple solution" may not be the best way to phrase it. Nothing having to do with anyone's feelings/rights is ever simple, so please don't interpret that to be me saying it doesn't matter or isn't important. That's not at all what I'm saying :)

---

yeah I was gonna say the same thing. I thought of it kind of like kicking a dog off the couch and into the backyard.

Being bisexual and leaning towards women, I of course support same-sex marriage. There's nothing wrong with being gay, the attraction for the same or opposite sex is how you are born. I never chose to be bi or like girls more than I do guys. If I want to marry a girl, I should be able to. It doesn't hurt anyone, would help the economy and it is my right to marry whoever I choose as long as they are a consenting adult.<br /> <br /> I honestly don't think there is a single good argument against same-sex marriage. At least, I've never heard one. Because I don't think religious arguments should count. At least, not in America, considering we have seperation of church and state and freedom of religion. You can't use religion to take another person's rights. (I've been in this type of debate like 50 times, so I have all my arguments ready.XD)

"it's only right that the church retains the right to deny them the ability to marry in the church"<br /> <br /> You're saying specifically in *a* church, as per the preference of the person actually marrying them, right?<br /> <br /> I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. It'd be like saying a restaurant didn't have to serve African Americans because the chef is a white supremacist. <br /> <br /> It's segregation, really. Opinions are fine and all, but these are human beings we are talking about. It isn't a preference in paint color for the walls or if you're a dog or cat person. These are real people with rights.<br /> <br /> As an atheist, I'm not getting married *in* a church per-say, and depending on who I'm marrying (his background) I will have to see what my options are as far as the religious aspect to the ceremony. <br /> <br /> But I can't imagine that a couple who's been persecuted with so much hate would really want to get married with someone who's against same-sex marriage carrying out the ceremony. I wouldn't want to.

I don't have anything against gay marriage (after all, homosexuals are humans and entitled to their rights just as much as heterosexuals), as long as everyone respects the right of the church to not condone it. If they're given the right to marry (legally, in the eyes of the government, with all the benefits, etc that are associated with legal, civil marriages), it's only right that the church retains the right to deny them the ability to marry <i>in the church</i> (in the eyes of God). <br /> <br /> Hope that makes as much sense as it does in my head..

Now that I've brought up gay couples having kids, I'm just waiting for someone to come in and bring up "they make horrible parents", "they turn their kids gay", "gay male couples are pedophiles", etc.

---