In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Definition of Words

BLOFTY Wrote: May 13, 2012 6:39 PM
In my opinion, there should be no need for government in marriage. it should be an individual and religious matter. Some conservatives hurt the cause by asking government to encourage marriage and then express dismay when the party crashers arrive.
wiseone Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:01 PM
Fine. Go get married w/o the sanction of government. Get married to your horse if you want. But when I say "As far as I'm concerned you're not married and I won't respect you as a married couple, what are you going to do then?

You and K'ssandra demand to have it both ways. She's on the thread repeatedly yammering that gay couples are being screwed out of 1138 government benefits of "marriage" and now, suddenly, we're supposed to believe you, and her, don't want the government involved.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
K'ssandra Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:27 PM
The government is already involved. But I beleive that it should either butt-out completely or be inclusive -- I don't care which.
David3036 Wrote: May 14, 2012 5:56 AM
Have you met any horses that can say "I do"? Oh, yeah, there was that Mr Ed on TV 60 years ago!
inkling_revival Wrote: May 13, 2012 6:58 PM
I'm afraid this is a position based on ignorance of the institution.

Marriage is not a religious institution, any more than eating or sleeping are religious institutions. It's a human institution. It is sanctioned by the state because marriage is the means by which the culture passes itself to future generations. It's also the means by which property is passed, and also name, status, and title. Furthermore, it's normative, identifying the sort of sexual union the state prefers to encourage because of its stability and productivity.

Marriage may be recognized by most religions, but that is because religions involve themselves in all basic, human institutions.
naysayer Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:17 PM
I actually never use the word institution in defining marriage. Now you considering my position as being ignorant is just a matter of your opinion. I stick by my moral understanding in saying that same-sex unions are just that, unions. But when a man makes a lifetime commitment to one woman, that to me is what marriage is.
Anything outside of that is not.
inkling_revival Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:31 PM
I was actually addressing BLOFTY. But if you think marriage is a religious matter, I have to disagree.

The culture identifies which sort of sexual union they want everybody to seek. There are plenty of alternative sexual unions -- premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, gay unions, and so forth -- but none of the produce the benefits to society that stable marriages produce, so the state sanctions stable marriages and ignores the rest.

Religions say marriage was instituted by God. But by the same token, they say that the ordinary conduct of life, of inheritance, of handling food, were instituted by God as well. So, religion has a prescribed way of handling life, food, etc., but that doesn't mean that those things are religious acts.
K'ssandra Wrote: May 13, 2012 6:43 PM
I agree, BLOFTY, but it would take a lot of work to get government out of marriage given the number of laws that treat people differently based on marital status.
David3036 Wrote: May 13, 2012 6:51 PM
Exactly! The easy way is to simply make legal marriage (not a RELIGIOUS bond) inclusive of every couple, but opponents want to make it difficult by jealously guarding that single word "marriage." Derek Hunter confirms in this column that the argument is a semantic one, and the country's leaders don't make it any easier when they come out in favor of "civil unions" and pander to the ultra-conserviatives when it comes to marriage.
Horribilus Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:00 PM
How long have you wanted to marry your cat?
naysayer Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:03 PM
David it's not about "Jealously guardiing that single word" Two people simulating heterosexuality can form an intimate monagomous bond and call it whatever the hell they like. But sex between a man and woman in the confines of matrimony is marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is therefore justifiable, not bigoted or homophobic.
K'ssandra Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:24 PM
Given that animals cannot give informed consent and therefore cannot form legal contracts like marriage your question is utterly pointless Horribilus.
K'ssandra Wrote: May 13, 2012 7:26 PM
We arn't "simulating" anything, naysayer, we're forming our own unique pair-bonds that deserve the same legal respect as those of other pople regardless of gender.

Gay marriage is an issue most Americans simply don’t care about. We have opinions on it, but it simply doesn’t register, especially at a time of high unemployment. But President Obama shoehorned it into the forefront this week because he can’t talk about the economy, jobs, his record, the massive debt he racked up or anything he’s done since assuming office except ordering the raid against bin Laden. And that party was last week, so a new distraction from reality was needed.

To be clear, what the president said means nothing. It won’t change any law anywhere. And the...