[Louis_SX]

I'm all for going the civil union method. That helps get the government out of the religion business to an extent (and thus, religion out of the government business to an extent). Those atheists who scream bloody murder over nativity scenes in public places and then lobby for gay marriage astound me...marriage was defined by God long before my great grandfather was but a twinkle in his great grandfather's eye and atheists banging the wardrum for something religious always mystified me.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I still favor the all-civil-union model, where existing marriages are converted to civil unions and all such relationships henceforth -gay, straight, or otherwise- use this term in legal language. The term grants equal rights for all, the religious term goes back to the religions where it belonged in the first place, and the definition of one of the underpinnings of society goes back to the societies where it belonged in the first place. I fail to see how anyone would lose under this model.

This trend, however, signals much darker times, as one of the pillars of civilization continues to be undermined, as the union of opposites -one of the most important aspects of marriage- ceases to have meaning. Equal rights are a Good Thing, but this was not the best way to achieve them.

This does nothing to change the meaning of the union of opposites, nor does it undermine a "pillar of civilization." Straight people can still get married and view their vows as sacred and unbreakable, even though 50% of them will break them anyway. No one else's actions can change your beliefs, unless you allow them to. If two gay men move next door to me and marry, that doesn't change my beliefs about my marriage, but for some reason, this is always used as an argument, as if gay marriage in fact had any effect on others' marriages.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

Those atheists who scream bloody murder over nativity scenes in public places and then lobby for gay marriage astound me...marriage was defined by God long before my great grandfather was but a twinkle in his great grandfather's eye and atheists banging the wardrum for something religious always mystified me.

Your logic astounds me, see an atheist (hence the term) does NOT BELIEVE that a God defined marriage long ago, that would NEGATE the whole atheist concept now wouldn't it?

Therefore any atheist would not correlate marriage with a GOD or a GOD concept just because you do. Its just a label get over it.

[Louis_SX]

It's been a "God" concept for thousands of years and if you don't believe in God then surely you can accept that religion defined it thousands of years ago and that the concept of gay marriage stomps all over it.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

It's been a "God" concept for thousands of years and if you don't believe in God then surely you can accept that religion defined it thousands of years ago and that the concept of gay marriage stomps all over it.

Religion defined what? The word marriage? Sorry you have to offer proof for such a statement.
And why does gay marriage stomp all over it? Can't homosexuals be just as religious as the next person?

[sanity assassin]

Originally Posted by zerostar

p.s. Guess what? I don't agree with mixed couples, it is against my religion and against the moral fabric of america. People blatantly allowing and accepting this is a step backwards in our society. I don't accept this but I am tolerant of YOUR KIND.

Is that a joke? Or are you just making a point here?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by sanity assassin

Is that a joke? Or are you just making a point here?

I was kidding, not intending to be funny though.

[zerostar]

And from what i can find on marriage:

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property.

As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages.

Also, Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives.

Unless you can prove that marriage ORIGINATED with a religious ceremony then you need to STFU, because the Mesopotamians got you beat.

[sanity assassin]

Religion, God, marriage, family values, etc. Why do these words seem to mostly come from the frothing mouths of many Americans who think they are speaking for the rest of the world. Here's a bit of news - you're a minority to the rest of us, so please dispense with the notion that your worldview is in fact the same for everyone else.

Yeah, yeah, you're bred to believe that you're the greatest form of civilisation ever to grace the world. That what you say is actually what the rest of the world should do, and if we don't, we're terrorists!!!!

Anyway, this notion some of you keep spouting off in regards to marriage and civilisation is nonsense. Jeez, the Celts used to have varying degrees of marriage - some of which you'd find at complete odds with your cosy view of what marriage constitutes.

[sanity assassin]

Originally Posted by zerostar

I was kidding, not intending to be funny though.

lol, cheers. I was hoping so because it seemed at odds with your stance on this.

[sanity assassin]

Originally Posted by zerostar

For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages.

The ancient Greeks didn't mind a bit of same sex luvin' - and they were one of the cradles of civilisation. Hell, they started democracy.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by zerostar

And from what i can find on marriage:

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia.

Yeah, but when was the first time a wife said "How come you never clean the bathroom?"?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Yeah, but when was the first time a wife said "How come you never clean the bathroom?"?

"Put the seat down" has always been my favorite, now we have separate bathrooms, life is good