What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

Are you for or against?

  • For

    Votes: 291 80.2%
  • Against

    Votes: 72 19.8%

  • Total voters
    363

bueno

In a class by himself
I would like to see a separation between the religous contract called marriage and the civil contract as honored by the government.I am all for gay couples having equal civil rights. Marriage as a religous contract is not a civil right.

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I would like to see a separation between the religous contract called marriage and the civil contract as honored by the government.I am all for gay couples having equal civil rights. Marriage as a religous contract is not a civil right.
I'm married and I didn't go anywhere near a church. Am I not allowed to call myself married?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

glumpy

breeze
And just what is it that makes this poll more "official" than This One? :confused:

Or if that one is too all encompassing--maybe That One? :rolleyes:

Not to be contrary or anything....just asking what it is that makes it so special?

Unofficially mind you--off the record if you prefer. :mellow:

 

Bubba

Player Hater
And just what is it that makes this poll more "official" than This One? :confused:

Or if that one is too all encompassing--maybe That One? :rolleyes:

Not to be contrary or anything....just asking what it is that makes it so special?

Unofficially mind you--off the record if you prefer. :mellow:
QUIT RIDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!and neither of them even claimed to be official...

 

Unlucky

Phenom
Marriage as a religous contract . . .
How about marriage as a non-religious contract?
By not calling it marriage, you are telling gays that they are 2nd class and different. I'm pretty sure they already know they are different from the majority. There is no need to reinforce it through laws. What if we didn't allow marriages based on skin color? Is that really any different?What if the definition said, "Marriage is defined as a union between a white man and a white woman."? Why can't we have this definition: "Marriage is the legal union of two people."?
 

glumpy

breeze
And just what is it that makes this poll more "official" than This One? :confused:

Or if that one is too all encompassing--maybe That One? :rolleyes:

Not to be contrary or anything....just asking what it is that makes it so special?

Unofficially mind you--off the record if you prefer. :mellow:
QUIT RIDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!and neither of them even claimed to be official...
This is the official response? :lol: :takingnotes:

 

bueno

In a class by himself
I would like to see a separation between the religous contract called marriage and the civil contract as honored by the government.I am all for gay couples having equal civil rights. Marriage as a religous contract is not a civil right.
I'm married and I didn't go anywhere near a church. Am I not allowed to call myself married?
Herein lies the difficulty my friend, is that we have allowed ourselves to call two different things the same thing (at least that is how many interpret it). You have a civil contract of marriage, so by today's rules, you are married. You could have been married in a reliigous ceremony and it would be called the same thing, but you chose to keep it civil (pun intended, at least until the honeymoon ends).Gays will not for the foreseeable future, I think, have that choice, even if they are allowed the civil ceremony at some point. I would prefer we recognize religous and civil contracts differently. I think it would be easier to overcome objections to giving gays access to the civil contract, especially outside of the blue states.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

660

Footballguy
Why limit it to two?Why can't we have this definition: "Marriage is the legal union of adults."?

 

Men-in-Cleats

Footballguy
I would like to see a separation between the religous contract called marriage and the civil contract as honored by the government.I am all for gay couples having equal civil rights. Marriage as a religous contract is not a civil right.
So athiests can't be married? The wording is semantics and those opposing gay marriage know it. Most of these people would be against it no matter what you call it. Since athiests are allowed to marry I don't see how the church has a monopoly on the word usage. It is downright silly. Call them all civil unions if you like but you need to put them on equal footing or it is discrimination, pure and simple. The church can call it what it likes but they don't have the right to govern what legally constitutes a marriage/civil union.
 

bueno

In a class by himself
Marriage as a religous contract . . .
How about marriage as a non-religious contract?
By not calling it marriage, you are telling gays that they are 2nd class and different. I'm pretty sure they already know they are different from the majority. There is no need to reinforce it through laws. What if we didn't allow marriages based on skin color? Is that really any different?What if the definition said, "Marriage is defined as a union between a white man and a white woman."? Why can't we have this definition: "Marriage is the legal union of two people."?
Because the legal definition of marriage is between husband and wife and the legal definitions of husband and wife are sex-based.Listen, if you really want to see this, you have to be a realist as to how it is pushed through. I have offered a perfectly reasonable alternative that even has a nice first amendment quality to it. I don't see the problem with what I'm suggesting.
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Gays will not for the foreseeable future, I think, have that choice, even if they are allowed the civil ceremony at some point.
Why not? Plenty of gay people are religious. Churches make a lot of money off of weddings, so I'm sure there'll be a few that are willing to marry gay people as soon as it's legal.
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Because the legal definition of marriage is between husband and wife and the legal definitions of husband and wife are sex-based.
The legal definition of marriage will likely change sooner or later. Maybe later, but I'd say we're heading in that direction, if slowly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bueno

In a class by himself
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?

 

shuke

Black Ice Skeptic
I would like to see a separation between the religous contract called marriage and the civil contract as honored by the government.I am all for gay couples having equal civil rights. Marriage as a religous contract is not a civil right.
So athiests can't be married? The wording is semantics and those opposing gay marriage know it. Most of these people would be against it no matter what you call it. Since athiests are allowed to marry I don't see how the church has a monopoly on the word usage. It is downright silly. Call them all civil unions if you like but you need to put them on equal footing or it is discrimination, pure and simple. The church can call it what it likes but they don't have the right to govern what legally constitutes a marriage/civil union.
:goodposting:
 

Bigtime

Footballguy
I would like to see a separation between the religous contract called marriage and the civil contract as honored by the government.I am all for gay couples having equal civil rights. Marriage as a religous contract is not a civil right.
As usual I agree with Bueno.
 

Men-in-Cleats

Footballguy
Marriage as a religous contract . . .
How about marriage as a non-religious contract?
By not calling it marriage, you are telling gays that they are 2nd class and different. I'm pretty sure they already know they are different from the majority. There is no need to reinforce it through laws. What if we didn't allow marriages based on skin color? Is that really any different?What if the definition said, "Marriage is defined as a union between a white man and a white woman."? Why can't we have this definition: "Marriage is the legal union of two people."?
Because the legal definition of marriage is between husband and wife and the legal definitions of husband and wife are sex-based.Listen, if you really want to see this, you have to be a realist as to how it is pushed through. I have offered a perfectly reasonable alternative that even has a nice first amendment quality to it. I don't see the problem with what I'm suggesting.
Was "Separate but equal" a realistic thing that should have satisfied black people? This is not different. The legal definition of marriage is archaic and I don't follow why you feel it is so important to maintain. The wording is purely semantics and there is absolutely no reason why they can't change it. You haven't come up with a reason why the law shouldn't be changed. You have basically proposed an unnecessary alternative "separate but equal" compromise into the mix. Why, other than "because the definition would need to be changed and they need to be realistic" shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
God is a witness to every contract, what with His being omni-witnessing and all. That doesn't affect whether a contract is valid. If people want to put God in their contracts, they are allowed to. If they don't want to, they're allowed not to.
 

17seconds

root of all aliai
Proof that being against gay marriage is an extreme position, and being for it is not:- it has been shown that there are more republican FBGs than democrats- being for gay marriage always wins these polls

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Men-in-Cleats

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
 

Bob Sacamano

Marc Levin groupie
I'm not anti-gay marriage.I'm also not pro-gay marriage.I am pro-my-tax-dollars-being-used-for-more-important-####-than-this.

 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Gays will not for the foreseeable future, I think, have that choice, even if they are allowed the civil ceremony at some point.
Why not? Plenty of gay people are religious. Churches make a lot of money off of weddings, so I'm sure there'll be a few that are willing to marry gay people as soon as it's legal.
Now that I think about it, I know for a fact that religious wedding services for gays would be offered as soon as they're legal.I am an ordained minister with the power to perform marriage ceremonies. (You can be, too. Click here.) And I'd be happy to do gay religious weddings for a few hundred bucks a pop.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
Against! (at least as defined here)The gov't shouldn't be in the business period. People not wishing to be married shouldn't be discriminated against. If gays and straights want to marry and attach whatever artificial title to their names, so be it. Allowing gays benefits only further enhances an existing promblem of gov't legislating lifestyle.

 

bueno

In a class by himself
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
 

Steelers4Life

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
I'm married, and there was no God as a witness included. My wife and I chose things to be that way. In fact, it wasn't a religious ceremony at all.This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out. The thought of anyone using religious beliefs as a reason to be against same-sex marriages sickens me, because (1) not everyone believes in God, and (2) not everyone is of the same religion.As long as it doesn't affect my life, I couldn't care less what anyone else does.
 

Peens

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
I'm married, and there was no God as a witness included. My wife and I chose things to be that way. In fact, it wasn't a religious ceremony at all.This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out. The thought of anyone using religious beliefs as a reason to be against same-sex marriages sickens me, because (1) not everyone believes in God, and (2) not everyone is of the same religion.As long as it doesn't affect my life, I couldn't care less what anyone else does.
:thumbdown:
 

17seconds

root of all aliai
This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out.
Yeah, too many in the kitchen if you ask me.
 

Steelers4Life

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
I'm married, and there was no God as a witness included. My wife and I chose things to be that way. In fact, it wasn't a religious ceremony at all.This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out. The thought of anyone using religious beliefs as a reason to be against same-sex marriages sickens me, because (1) not everyone believes in God, and (2) not everyone is of the same religion.As long as it doesn't affect my life, I couldn't care less what anyone else does.
:thumbdown:
Sorry man, but I have my own religious beliefs and I'll be damed if some religious nut-job in government should tell me what is legally right and wrong based on their own beliefs.
 

Peens

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
I'm married, and there was no God as a witness included. My wife and I chose things to be that way. In fact, it wasn't a religious ceremony at all.This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out. The thought of anyone using religious beliefs as a reason to be against same-sex marriages sickens me, because (1) not everyone believes in God, and (2) not everyone is of the same religion.As long as it doesn't affect my life, I couldn't care less what anyone else does.
:thumbdown:
Sorry man, but I have my own religious beliefs and I'll be damed if some religious nut-job in government should tell me what is legally right and wrong based on their own beliefs.
Looks to me like you have nothing to worry about, unless you want to marry another man. :excited:
 

Steelers4Life

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
I'm married, and there was no God as a witness included. My wife and I chose things to be that way. In fact, it wasn't a religious ceremony at all.This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out. The thought of anyone using religious beliefs as a reason to be against same-sex marriages sickens me, because (1) not everyone believes in God, and (2) not everyone is of the same religion.As long as it doesn't affect my life, I couldn't care less what anyone else does.
:thumbdown:
Sorry man, but I have my own religious beliefs and I'll be damed if some religious nut-job in government should tell me what is legally right and wrong based on their own beliefs.
Looks to me like you have nothing to worry about, unless you want to marry another man. :excited:
Yep, I'm straight and happily married, but that doesn't mean I should be close-minded enough to think I should tell anyone else who is legally right and wrong based on religion.It sucks even more that the biggest religious nut-job in government is our ####### president right now. The moron woke up from a 40 year long drunken stooper, found God, and now caters to the religious nut-jobs everywhere!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peens

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
I'm married, and there was no God as a witness included. My wife and I chose things to be that way. In fact, it wasn't a religious ceremony at all.This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out. The thought of anyone using religious beliefs as a reason to be against same-sex marriages sickens me, because (1) not everyone believes in God, and (2) not everyone is of the same religion.As long as it doesn't affect my life, I couldn't care less what anyone else does.
:thumbdown:
Sorry man, but I have my own religious beliefs and I'll be damed if some religious nut-job in government should tell me what is legally right and wrong based on their own beliefs.
Looks to me like you have nothing to worry about, unless you want to marry another man. :excited:
Yep, I'm straight and happily married, but that doesn't mean I should be close-minded enough to think I should tell anyone else who is legally right and wrong based on religion.It sucks even more that the biggest religious nut-job in government is our ####### president right now. The moron woke up from a 40 year long drunken stooper, found God, and now caters to the religious nut-jobs everywhere!
So I should give in to what I know in my heart is WRONG just to be accepted and hope to be called "Open Minded"?? :( No thanks, I'm a stronger man than that. :yes: :excited:
 

Peens

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
I'm married, and there was no God as a witness included. My wife and I chose things to be that way. In fact, it wasn't a religious ceremony at all.This is what happens when the religious cooks in government tell everyone what they think is right and wrong. They really should just shut their mouths and butt out. The thought of anyone using religious beliefs as a reason to be against same-sex marriages sickens me, because (1) not everyone believes in God, and (2) not everyone is of the same religion.As long as it doesn't affect my life, I couldn't care less what anyone else does.
:thumbdown:
Sorry man, but I have my own religious beliefs and I'll be damed if some religious nut-job in government should tell me what is legally right and wrong based on their own beliefs.
Looks to me like you have nothing to worry about, unless you want to marry another man. :excited:
Yep, I'm straight and happily married, but that doesn't mean I should be close-minded enough to think I should tell anyone else who is legally right and wrong based on religion.It sucks even more that the biggest religious nut-job in government is our ####### president right now. The moron woke up from a 40 year long drunken stooper, found God, and now caters to the religious nut-jobs everywhere!
This statement has alot of Irony in it. You sound like a man who isnt very OPEN MINDED to religious beliefs.Ever think for a minute that you MAY be wrong, what then? :excited:
 

Men-in-Cleats

Footballguy
Let's spin it a different way then: should the government be required to recognize a contract in which God is a witness?
I've yet to see God's signature on a marriage certificate. I don't think there's a line on there for it either. Since you seem unfamiliar with the process it is usually the best man and maid of honor which act as witnesses.You don't legally have to have the "with God as my witness" part in the wedding ceremony. You could have the minister or justice of the peace say "with Smoo as my witness" and the marriage would be equally legally binding. The ceremony could consist of "I do. I do. I now pronounce you man and wife." and it would still be legal with the correct paperwork filed.
In a religous ceremony, God is a witness.I've been the groom in both types, so yes I do know.
So where did he stand during the ceremony? Did they have a line on the marriage certificate for his John Hancock? How did he voice his approval of the marriage or did they just go ahead with the ceremony prior to hearing back from him? You do realize that you don't have to mention God at all in the ceremony and the the legal side of marriage is the paperwork itself. You can say whatever you want in the ceremony. You can have a Star Wars themed wedding with an ordained minister in an Ewok costume who declares the moons of Endor as a witness and still be able to be considered married as long as you were of opposite sex. What exactly is your point with this God as a witness stuff? If two athiests get married do they declare him a witness or forfeit the use of the term marriage? You have not made a valid point yet you have had two separate threads to make one in. I think you are using this wording issue as a smokescreen for your disapproval for homosexuality. What is to be gained by calling one thing a "marriage" and the other thing a "civil union"? How is your life or anybody else's life different under this scenario than if they were both considered "marriage"?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top