What's up with people...

[Timber Loftis]

Raising children is a red herring -- gay couples are shown to raise children just as effectively as straight couples.

However, the people wanting to protect "marriage" as between a man and a woman do have one small point -- since they invented the term, they should be allowed to define it.

On a big picture scale, though, look at the bright side. By and large, even those opposing gay "marriage," i.e. President Bush and Company, generally want to protect the rights of gays, they simply don't want their unions to be called "marriage." While this is at base a to-may-to, to-mah-to issue, let us give everyone their due as far as social progress goes ------- very few are saying gay couples are not valid, and the majority want to preserve their rights. "Crimes against nature" supporters, however vocal, are few and far between.

We've come a long way, baby.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Raising children is a red herring -- gay couples are shown to raise children just as effectively as straight couples. However, the people wanting to protect "marriage" as between a man and a woman do have one small point -- since they invented the term, they should be allowed to define it. On a big picture scale, though, look at the bright side. By and large, even those opposing gay "marriage," i.e. President Bush and Company, generally want to protect the rights of gays, they simply don't want their unions to be called "marriage." While this is at base a to-may-to, to-mah-to issue, let us give everyone their due as far as social progress goes ------- very few are saying gay couples are not valid, and the majority want to preserve their rights. "Crimes against nature" supporters, however vocal, are few and far between. We've come a long way, baby.

But I don't understand why Bush making the issue so intractable. As far as I can see, it would be easy to satisfy both his religious conscience and the needs of modern society by introducing a compromise,

ie.
Marriage will be a term that applies soley to a ceremony performed in church.
No church will be forced or legally obliged to marry a gay couple (though they may choose to if the congregation wishes).

Civil union will be a term that applies soles to a ceremony performed outside of a church (ie City Hall). Gay couples may choose this option and no local government can refuse to perform the ceremony.

Marriage and civil union will then be legal equals.

The only question left to solve is what verb to use for a civil union. "I'm going to get 'civil unioned' " doesn't have much of a ring to it.


If Bush doesn't take the reins and steer the direction of the inevitable granting of 'married' rights to couples rather than trying to halt it, he might be left with something unpalatable when the changes do eventually come.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Raising children is a red herring -- gay couples are shown to raise children just as effectively as straight couples. However, the people wanting to protect "marriage" as between a man and a woman do have one small point -- since they invented the term, they should be allowed to define it. On a big picture scale, though, look at the bright side. By and large, even those opposing gay "marriage," i.e. President Bush and Company, generally want to protect the rights of gays, they simply don't want their unions to be called "marriage." While this is at base a to-may-to, to-mah-to issue, let us give everyone their due as far as social progress goes ------- very few are saying gay couples are not valid, and the majority want to preserve their rights. "Crimes against nature" supporters, however vocal, are few and far between. We've come a long way, baby.

But I don't understand why Bush making the issue so intractable. As far as I can see, it would be easy to satisfy both his religious conscience and the needs of modern society by introducing a compromise,

ie.
Marriage will be a term that applies soley to a ceremony performed in church.
No church will be forced or legally obliged to marry a gay couple (though they may choose to if the congregation wishes).

Civil union will be a term that applies soles to a ceremony performed outside of a church (ie City Hall). Gay couples may choose this option and no local government can refuse to perform the ceremony.

Marriage and civil union will then be legal equals.

The only question left to solve is what verb to use for a civil union. "I'm going to get 'civil unioned' " doesn't have much of a ring to it.


If Bush doesn't take the reins and steer the direction of the inevitable granting of 'married' rights to couples rather than trying to halt it, he might be left with something unpalatable when the changes do eventually come. [/QUOTE]I also thought the same exact thing, and wonder why it's so hard to see? And why is this taking so long to hash out. Just make sure Gay couples get the same benefits as a Married couple and can be legal, and all would be happy.. Simple, No?