Florida Pulse gay club attacked in Orlando

[pErvinalia]

Can you say "HIV/AIDS"?? What about "MAN - DOG LOVE"??

[JimC]

Just get rid of marriage from a civil perspective. The law should only recognize civil unions. If you want to be 'married' then get some ancient doddering fart to mumble some words over you. The only thing that should concern the government is the contractual obligations inherent in what we currently call 'marriage', like taxes, inheritance, child custody and support, etc. Just take the fucking woo out of the equation. Man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, man/woman/woman/unspecified, whatever floats your boat. It's none of their goddamn business otherwise.

There are non-religious civil ceremonies where the word marriage is still used, and it is appropriate to do so; marriage is not the exclusive domain of the delusionists... Many people need some sort of ceremony and celebration, it just doesn't have to be either an exclusively religious or exclusively heterosexual one...

[Scot Dutchy]

Just get rid of marriage from a civil perspective. The law should only recognize civil unions. If you want to be 'married' then get some ancient doddering fart to mumble some words over you. The only thing that should concern the government is the contractual obligations inherent in what we currently call 'marriage', like taxes, inheritance, child custody and support, etc. Just take the fucking woo out of the equation. Man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, man/woman/woman/unspecified, whatever floats your boat. It's none of their goddamn business otherwise.

There are non-religious civil ceremonies where the word marriage is still used, and it is appropriate to do so; marriage is not the exclusive domain of the delusionists... Many people need some sort of ceremony and celebration, it just doesn't have to be either an exclusively religious or exclusively heterosexual one...

Civil marriage here is the only option. You just cant get married any other way. What you do afterwards is your choice and 99.99% leave at that.
Dutch law is very simple a marriage is between two people carried out by the appointed civil servant. Nothing else is valid to be called a marriage.
We have partnerships which are more complicated when kids arrive but they are still all civil.

[JimC]

Not all marriages are civil...

[Scot Dutchy]

Not all marriages are civil...

Afterwards no.

[Svartalf]

marriage has allways been a civil (monetary/land/moneymaking concern) matter, no reason to take it away from civil authorities

religious unions are another matter... they should be purely facultative and have no civil relevance (looking at israel there)

[Scot Dutchy]

marriage has allways been a civil (monetary/land/moneymaking concern) matter, no reason to take it away from civil authorities

religious unions are another matter... they should be purely facultative and have no civil relevance (looking at israel there)

Exactly. It was Napoleon that brought in civil marriages as the only legal one.

[Svartalf]

it was btween the 10th and 12th centuries that the Church took over marriage, before then, religious involvement had been minimal and after the fact.

[JimC]

If a forum expert on European history is required, Svarty is the man...

[Seth]

He can't even get his pants on straight. In his response to you he said there's no inherent unreasoning in homophobia. Then to MM he says that homophobia is unreasoned fear.

A lie from you, as usual.

Bullshit. You said:

homophobia

noun
1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

False definition.

Then in your next post said:

Homophobia is a perfectly natural reaction.

Nonsense. Homophobia by definition (the actual one, not the politically-motivated one) is an irrational and unreasoning fear of homosexuals.

The failure in your reasoning is because you conflate simple distaste or negative preference for homosexuality with "homophobia," which is a false comparison, as I've been pointing out for some time. Homophobia is a specific mental disorder that requires that the sufferer have an irrational or unreasoning fear of homosexuals. Those that do not have such an irrational or unreasoning fear of homosexuals are therefore not homophobic, they just don't like homosexuals.

[Seth]

Firmly hoist by his own petard!

Not hardly, it's eRv that's got the powder keg stuck up his ass.

[pErvinalia]

Wut? You said that the supplied definition of homophobia was a "false definition". You then used that definition in your next post claiming it was "the actual [definition]".

[Seth]

Civil unions or domestic partnerships were only available in limited states prior to legislation and court rulings granting marriage equality.
In no way were they a solution to unequal rights for same-sex couples.

They are a fully appropriate solution. The problem is that rather than gays arguing for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business and restrict itself to recording civil domestic partnership contracts they decided to kick the hornet's nest by demanding that they get to use the word "marriage" too. Then they went further and made even more enemies by abusing anti-discrimination laws to persecute people who simply want nothing to do with gay marriage. Shot themselves squarely in the foot on that one and it's coming back to haunt them.

The rational argument would not be "If straights get to use "marriage" in civil law so do gays," it would be "Since gays don't get to use "marriage" in civil law, then NOBODY should get to use it." That's the appropriate solution to the whole argument.

Marriage should be relegated to religious or spiritual ceremonies and never be mentioned in any law.

[Seth]

Wut? You said that the supplied definition of homophobia was a "false definition". You then used that definition in your next post claiming it was "the actual [definition]".

You're suffering from delusional quote-mining syndrome.

[Seth]

Just get rid of marriage from a civil perspective. The law should only recognize civil unions. If you want to be 'married' then get some ancient doddering fart to mumble some words over you. The only thing that should concern the government is the contractual obligations inherent in what we currently call 'marriage', like taxes, inheritance, child custody and support, etc. Just take the fucking woo out of the equation. Man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, man/woman/woman/unspecified, whatever floats your boat. It's none of their goddamn business otherwise.

There are non-religious civil ceremonies where the word marriage is still used, and it is appropriate to do so; marriage is not the exclusive domain of the delusionists... Many people need some sort of ceremony and celebration, it just doesn't have to be either an exclusively religious or exclusively heterosexual one...

Agreed. What it must be is not exclusively this or that but absolutely NOT within the purview, power or authority of the State. That solves all problems in one swell foop.

Anybody can call themselves "married" any time they want anyway, and it means what the participants say it means. The problem is that gays want equal civil rights in their intimate personal domestic relationships as "married" heterosexual couples enjoy. And they should fucking well have them!

But the solution is not to grant them the right to be "married" in civil law, it's to remove the term "marriage" from civil law entirely, for everyone, and replace it with a neutral civil phrase like "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or some other term that applies absolutely equally to every type of legally-authorized domestic relationship regardless of who the participants are.

"Marriage", being an inherently religious concept, should be relegated to the religious/spiritual sphere where ANYONE can use it in any manner they please. Catholics can be married under the rules of the Catholic church, Buddhists can be married under their doctrines, and gays can be married according to what they mean by "married" and how they choose to celebrate that form. But to be entitled to enjoy any civil benefits that accrue in greater degree to persons in intimate domestic partnerships of any sort, the participants have to register that relationship with the state in the form of a contract setting forth the rights and duties of the relationship, which will be recorded and if necessary adjudicated by the state in the event of dispute, just like any other contract.