Atleast most support civil unions...

**Biggin** · October 11th, 2009, 05:31 PM

if marriage was not a government issue there would be no extra benefits from getting married.

but it does, that makes it a government issue

**pvfan** · October 11th, 2009, 05:33 PM

I agree, what I'm trying to say is that the benefits should be given to couples (regardless of sex) yet marriage should be religous ceremony.

**R13** · October 11th, 2009, 08:13 PM

So what you want is, that the term "marriage" only be reserved for the religious?

**pvfan** · October 11th, 2009, 08:21 PM

It's not what I exactly want, thats what it is. If it wasn't people wouldn't have religous leaders conducting the ceremonies.

**R13** · October 11th, 2009, 10:28 PM

I see what you're saying and all, but something has to give. I think this is a major injustice going on here in the U.S. and it's ignored because of the ways gays are looked at. Something has to give, especially if it's just battle over the terms.

**pvfan** · October 11th, 2009, 10:47 PM

They are fighting for the wrong thing imo, they should be fighting for equal rights not marriage. I think open homosexuals will have a much harder time achieving equality than women or minorities due to the problems they cause. Not sure we'll see it in our lifetime.

**1inStripes** · October 11th, 2009, 11:15 PM

Lets remember, said benefits are set by companies and insurance providers. One thing that I think scares them about same sex benfits is that its a lot easier for two buddies (guys or gals) to pal up and live together and be able to get along and have a union and raising the cost of all of those benefits that are extended. Im sure there are fraudulent situations between male/female relationships to garner these benefits for another, but it would seem too easy in a same sex situation IMO. I think that is part of it from a business owner/insurance agency standpoint.

**CoeburnCane** · October 12th, 2009, 10:02 AM

How can we say marriage is a "religious" ceremony when if my wife and I had wanted to, we could have gotten a license, went to the courthouse, and had a judge legally marry us, no God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to it?

This is purely a legal issue dressed up in a moral issue's clothing.

**pvfan** · October 12th, 2009, 11:26 AM

Sure you can, and I think thats what homosexuals should do. Yet, what you see on tv is religous leaders marrying them where it is legal. The government needs to give them benefits and outlaw marriage, it would save a lot of headaches.

**CoeburnCane** · October 12th, 2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by pvfan

Sure you can, and I think thats what homosexuals should do. Yet, what you see on tv is religous leaders marrying them where it is legal. The government needs to give them benefits and outlaw marriage, it would save a lot of headaches.

Let churches disallow homosexuals from getting married in churches if they want, but what business of it of a church or its' members if a homosexual couple wants to legally get married w/o the God/Jesus/Holy Spirit part of things put into it. It's still the same thing, just by another name--and most of all it's legal. And...it doesn't get in the way of churches having sanctified marriages occuring in their places of worship.

It's a simple issue to me, but people have been arguing about it for quite a while.