Forums | MacLife

The video's point, Shepard said, is that in his view Obama has not clearly stated his stances on abortion and gay marriage, important themes within the Christian right.

You know, you'd think a democrat that hadn't come out of the gate strongly pro-choice would be a relief to these people.

bratboy wrote:

His stance on gay marriage isn't particularly overwhelming, either.

What was wrong with it? It sounded like he supported civil unions, he just didn't want to call them marriages to keep the fundamentalists off his back. Terminology aside, so long as they are legally identical - who cares what the contract says at the top?

Perhaps if we called all "marriage" licenses "civil union" licenses, regardless of whether the couple is hetero or homosexual, we might get somewhere?

radarman wrote:

Perhaps if we called all "marriage" licenses "civil union" licenses, regardless of whether the couple is hetero or homosexual, we might get somewhere?

Getting a marriage (or whatever you want to call it) license should be no more than signing a mortgage or registering a car. A contract, enforced by the state, and that's it. Beyond that the significance should be left up to the people within the contract.

Tallgeese wrote:

radarman wrote:

Perhaps if we called all "marriage" licenses "civil union" licenses, regardless of whether the couple is hetero or homosexual, we might get somewhere?

Getting a marriage (or whatever you want to call it) license should be no more than signing a mortgage or registering a car. A contract, enforced by the state, and that's it. Beyond that the significance should be left up to the people within the contract.

Will there be a similar procedure for marrying toasters?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

radarman wrote:

Perhaps if we called all "marriage" licenses "civil union" licenses, regardless of whether the couple is hetero or homosexual, we might get somewhere?

Getting a marriage (or whatever you want to call it) license should be no more than signing a mortgage or registering a car. A contract, enforced by the state, and that's it. Beyond that the significance should be left up to the people within the contract.

Will there be a similar procedure for marrying toasters?

It will be indistinguishable from all present contracts between people and appliances.

God save us from FotF.

You stay classy, Focus on the Family.

What needs to be done is to make all state sanctioned unions "civil unions" and call what happens in a church "marriage". Combining what ought to be two completely separate things is whats bad.
Let the state handle the contract part and let the churches handle the deal with the great watootsie or what ever you want to call your deity.

Pariah wrote:

What needs to be done is to make all state sanctioned unions "civil unions" and call what happens in a church "marriage". Combining what ought to be two completely separate things is whats bad.
Let the state handle the contract part and let the churches handle the deal with the great watootsie or what ever you want to call your deity.

So the English language would be changed how ... by government regulation?

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2008-08-17 11:20 am)

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Pariah wrote:

What needs to be done is to make all state sanctioned unions "civil unions" and call what happens in a church "marriage". Combining what ought to be two completely separate things is whats bad.
Let the state handle the contract part and let the churches handle the deal with the great watootsie or what ever you want to call your deity.

So the English language would be changed how ... by government regulation?

Civil union = government-enforced contract and benefits package
Marriage = Bond between two people

Why would people call it "marriage" if they didn't view it as such?

Personally I think it's far easier to grant equal rights than to go to such absurd linguistic and legal lengths.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

So the English language would be changed how ... by government regulation?

Civil union = government-enforced contract and benefits package
Marriage = Bond between two people

Why would people call it "marriage" if they didn't view it as such?

Personally I think it's far easier to grant equal rights than to go to such absurd linguistic and legal lengths.

Just change the heading on the certificate you get from the state from "marriage" to "civil union", then let the shaman, holy man or what ever come up with their own marriage certificate. If they want.
Couldn't possibly be simpler.

Pariah wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Civil union = government-enforced contract and benefits package
Marriage = Bond between two people

Why would people call it "marriage" if they didn't view it as such?

Personally I think it's far easier to grant equal rights than to go to such absurd linguistic and legal lengths.

Just change the heading on the certificate you get from the state from "marriage" to "civil union", then let the shaman, holy man or what ever come up with their own marriage certificate. If they want.
Couldn't possibly be simpler.

Except that it forces equality by lowering the status of "marriage" rather than elevating the status of gays.

And how could this possibly fly? Wouldn't the same prejudiced douchebags opposing same-sex marriage be just as outraged over the "debasing" of marriage via its legal standing as they would over dudes being allowed to marry dudes?