My quick solution to the gay marriage debate/separation of church-state

Capt.Flannel

Capt.Flannel

Active member
I haven't put much thought into this, but here's a summary of my last 45 seconds of thought:

In the US, we should NOT have marriage licenses through the state, only civil union licenses (for both gay and straight couples) so that everybody gets all the tax breaks and such. THEN, if you want a marriage, you get that through your church or mosque or synagogue, etc, as marriage is a religious sanctity.

 
So your solution is to piss even more people off by making marriage an exclusive club available only to churchgoers? Might want to run that one through the ol' noggin again, sport.

... Although it does have the benefit of according the suffering of matrimony with the suffering of the repentant sinner...
 
nope, you could always go to a Justice of the Peace to get married, I just didn't mention it because I didn't think of it.

I'm pretty much saying that the states job should be to give out civil union licenses in order to legally unite two people and other resources should be used to make it a religious ceremony or a personal marriage ceremony.
 
that'll piss off a lot of people who really want to keep marriage a government and religious thing. it will further engrave in their minds that the country is being swamped and taken over by the secular, especially some very conservative people.

but it is quite a logical solution. there are other countries that basically follow that process. and it makes sense
 
That may be true, but I personally think that enough people, conservative or not, put up a front (whether or not they believe in it is beyond me) that says "Separation of church and state is important," and that will either bring out a bi-partisan view on keeping them separate, OR it will bring out the politicians that have views different from what our country was based on (including the separation of c/s).
 
lemme restate that:

While it may piss of some people, religious people in particular, going against the idea of 'Separation of Church and State' is something that many people may lean towards, but not many will admit to going against the idea, as that idea was one of the purest ideas of America's foundation. So with that said, any politician who would come out and say "That's not right, because it hinders our ability to bring religion into government" is risking their reputation by going against the original intentions of our founding fathers (not to say this doesn't happen) I.E. GW Bush running AS a Christian does not necessarily mean that he was planning on running this country as a religious nation (that may or may not be true, but the fact that he ran as a Christian does not automatically mean said outcome).
 


I'm not going to marry because I'm not religious, so I couldn't care less.

And if your gay then you shouldn't be fucking christian obviously...

I don't even worry about it anymore, the entire situation is the dumbest thing ever

 
Well yeah we COULD do it that way, but what is important to realize, is that our government can never just do what is logical/efficient/makes sense. just one of those things...
 
i definatly think this could work, if people really care that much about whether its a marriage in gods eyes they can get "married" at a church. if u dont care but wanna have the same rights as any other couple, u can have it legally recognised by the state.

that way gays can have the same rights as anyone else, which they are entitled to. but also atheists can get hitched without having to be hypocrites and doing it in a way that is said to please god. and the religeons will always be there so that straight couples can have the traditional wedding.

this is by far the best solotion i have heard so far as it is the best possible compromise. the holy union of marriage isnt "ruined" and everyone is happy and recieving the same rights.
 
woo!

bump, I wana hear more responses.

Note* I don't give a shit if you're for gay marriage or not, that's not the point of this thread.
 
Im been telling people this the whole time, marrige shouldn't be (and really isnt) a state thing. Marrige, in christianity atleast, is a representation of gods marrige to the church.

 
Justice of the Peace? So... a state official, then? Doesn't that kind of undermine the whole "taking Marriage away from the state and into the Church" thing?
 
Marrige is a church thing, not a state thing, if you want to be married it should be at a church mosque, temple ect.
 
Thats what im trying to say, marrige should be an exclusive club for church goers, and i dont think that rules out gays, becuase many churchs accept gays
 
That's a legitimate opinion, but you have to realize that conceptualizing marriage in that way is going to piss a whole lot of people off.
 
I know a lot of people would be pissed about it, but it would solve the problem of gay marrige becuase then instead of it being a state issue, it would be up to different religious groups.
 
well right now, JOP's can marry people or civil union people so I figure, if people apply for CU licenses and aren't religious, they have the OPTION of going to the state and getting married, instead of having marriage forced on them as it would be the only option (marriage licenses).

In my eyes, a marriage is a religious sanctity and it should stay that way, but I was just offering another suggestion for people that aren't religious, as it already stands that JOP's can marry people outside of a church.
 
the marriage that the JOP gives would be strictly ceremonial, so that you can't bitch about not being married, even though you aren't religious (that'd be like taking christmas away from non christians, I personally have no problem with it, but it's continued on to be such a tradition that taking it away would cause madness).
 
So, would a JOP be able to marry a gay couple then? Because if not, we're back to square one on the discrimination charges front and nothing's been solved.

Whang: it wouldn't solve the issue, it would just redirect the ire of civil rights advocates to the Churches, rather than to the state as a whole. So everyone would just be complaining about the Church being bigoted and intolerant... and what else is new there. It's sort of a solution, but I can see it bringing up a whole host of other problems, such as people debating which church's marriage is more legitimate in the eyes of God, and whether Jews or Muslims or Hindus really have a right to "marry", or if all the churches should call it something different, and then, are they different kinds of unions? It doesn't really just end there.
 
Thats a good point becuase then things like poligomy and other stuff starts coming into the picture
 
It's true that marriage is a religious opportunity.

Nowadays it's become socially acceptable. I think that it should go back to churches and if you want to become unionized legally without any religion invilved then a civil union is for you.
 
Also, what churches are legitimate? Can I start my own Church and go around marrying people? Multiple people? To pieces of furniture?
 
ya ya, I know. I have no answer for that. It's flawed and would never work, but I was thinking that this, though extreme, would solve the entire issue of church and state.
 
Ya I know, which is the problem; non religious people are so used to celebrating what was once strictly religious ceremonies that it'd be impossible to reverse it. Cause think about it, if it wasn't for the tradition, why would an athiest want to get married (in a sense of the marriage being a religious sanctity?). It's a bitch to figure out, but that's why my plan will never work.
 
Not the point; half of my point was to separate church from state in regards to marriage in general, not just gay marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top