This debate is futile as if someone would ask to banish all white underwears because "now days we have good dyes and because white underwears are so totaly not fashion"... Who we are to debate of such personnal things/choices?

Get married if you want and don't if you disagree with the marriage, but never impose your own personnal choices to others... Did i missed something last night while i was asleep? Are we still in a free society?

There's marriages in every religions, there's even peoples who follow a religion just to get a religious wedding (like my sister). Even here, we have a Jedi clergy who can marry peoples... talking of it, i wonder why none already clearly answered.

I'll just say again that I love the temple and this community. Personally, I don't need to get married but I want to. I believe in that lifelong commitment. I've become a lot more open than I was in high school to same-sex marriage. Before people get mad, I was raised Mormon and was taught that it was horrible. In california, they still campaign against it. As I've said, I'm a lot more open and accepting since I left the church and began exploring. As many have said, marriage is a choice. It doesn't have to be religious. It can also be performed with the court. I don't think the big, extravagant ceremonies are necessary, yet I think if someone wants to have one, that's their choice.

Ah. I'm part of the clergy and did respond...everyone(regardless of race,gender,or orientation) should be free to choose if,when,how, and to whom they marry...to rob them of that freedom would be simply wrong

I didnt respond, honestly because I didnt think this was worthy to respond too, haha. Anyone who believes in marriage shouldnt be denied the right. If you dont want to be married, it's simple, dont get married.

Sorry I have not been as involved as I should be, been working a lot of hours.

Basically I am pro-civil union as long as the people are of appropriate age and whatnot.

The problematic thing about marriage is that it's got an ambiguous definition. For instance in my religion (United Methodist), marriage is understood an egalitarian relationship, whereas to, say, a Fundamentalist Baptist, it would be heirarchial. I'm all for civil unions, and whatever religious bond two people agree on should be a seperate matter. Personally I have a problem with the word "marriage." Marriage is inherently heirarchial, and even religions that teach egalitarian marriage are simply trying to reform marriage and tweak it to fit their morality. I believe they should instead abolish it and create a new type of union that has no root in sexism. It's like calling sex "consensual rape." I'd rather consider consensual to be a whole different thing than rape...

On a side note, if the government only recognized civil unions, it would do away with debate over gay marriage. It wouldn't be all this business of having heterosexual marriage, and then gay civil unions. There would only be civil unions period, with no distinction. Not that that's a real big issue of mine, just saying.

Alright Star Forge, I am glad to see the clarification there. Makes much more sense when you word it like that. I agree that in a sense we humans have bastardized the meaning and core value of the word "marriage". We need to either improve the value of the word or create a new word that identifies a sacred relationship between two parties (two people) that have caring and loving feelings for one another.

Star Forge wrote:
So the question here comes back to a debate of whether the state has any right to interfere in religious affairs. I suppose that there is no reason why a religious ritual should be recognized by the state, other than that, as many have said, marriage is considered a right and should you wish to get married then you probably ought to have that option available to you. Many religious people see the religious aspect of the marriage ceremony as essential and non-negotiable, and therefore it feels to me that banning marriage and only recognizing non-religious civil ceremonies would 'penalize' them for their belief in God.

Strats wrote:
And I'm cool if people want to call it marriage, as some people believe in heirarchial unions (like Baptists, as the example above states). I just want people to stop using religious terminology in laws. If people want to make whatever committment at whatever religious institution, go ahead, but I don't want that terminology forced on anyone else.

I like the idea of being celibate, but if by some turn of events I were to find someone I liked, I wouldn't even dream of using the world "marriage," as to me it's just sexist. I say the only thing governments should do is civil unions. Whatever ceremony one wants to have at their church and what it means for them religiously is their business that I do not want leaked over into my life.

It seems as if the complication then stems from a perception issue of the term "marriage" between the government and a religious party doing the "adjoining".

Star Forge wrote:
I have never heard anyone say this before, and am honestly quite dissapointed that anyone would label marriage like that. It's short sighted and speaks volumes of their maturity. The institution of marriage does not represent any idea of sexism, only the people involved in the relationship can do that. If we look at the bible (example) it says the man shall be head of the household, but shall give back to the women tenfold, (paraphrasing). That doesnt sound very sexist to me. Grant it, there are differences around the world, but that is not the institution of marriage, that is the local cultures influence. As I said before, dont get married, spend 5 years living together and have a common law binding (5 years in the state of Oklahoma), and be happy I dont care, and I'm certainly not going to attack the common law binding that legally makes you two, one.

(NOTE: All comments in before stated paragraph are meant the reader thingking, and not meant as a personal attack one anyone or anything, because I stated, that's not right.)