| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Possible solution for marriage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 10 2005, 03:33 PM (1,090 Views) | |
| Glitch | Jun 10 2005, 03:33 PM Post #1 |
|
Blasphemer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The main argument I see nowadays against gay marriage is the fact that it goes against your religion. Well, I've come up with a solution: seperate federal and religious marriage completely. Basically, couples that are federally married will enjoy all the political and economic benefits currently married couples get from the government. However, the church would not have to recognize this type of marriage. Religious marriage is purely done by religious institutions. Religiously married couples enjoy all the benefits their faith gives them for being married (not sure if there are that many). However, they do not get any additional government benefits that federally married couples don't get. Religiously married couples are automatically federally married. Thoughts/questions? |
![]() |
|
| Rεd | Jun 10 2005, 03:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Silence. I'm thinking.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, you're solution is the seperation of church and state. |
![]() |
|
| Glitch | Jun 10 2005, 04:05 PM Post #3 |
|
Blasphemer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, but in a way that satisfies both parties. |
![]() |
|
| Sytex | Jun 10 2005, 04:07 PM Post #4 |
|
AEKDB
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That might actually work. It seems as if it would benefit both parties, anyway... |
![]() |
|
| finch | Jun 10 2005, 04:08 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why aren't you president? |
![]() |
|
| Rεd | Jun 10 2005, 04:10 PM Post #6 |
|
Silence. I'm thinking.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He isn't old enough yet. |
![]() |
|
| RagingFuryBlack | Jun 10 2005, 04:12 PM Post #7 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I wouldnt call it marrage, Civil Union works. |
![]() |
|
| Lucius | Jun 10 2005, 04:13 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Thrice promoted, twice retired.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I completely agree. It's actually a much-discussed idea. |
![]() |
|
| Glitch | Jun 10 2005, 04:16 PM Post #9 |
|
Blasphemer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was born in China.
Yeah, doesn't really matter what it's called. But what would they put on the back of the car, "Just Civilly United"? |
![]() |
|
| Lee. | Jun 10 2005, 04:17 PM Post #10 |
|
Simp-Lee-Fied
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's an important matter which i believe is not addressed and supported enough. |
![]() |
|
| finch | Jun 10 2005, 04:19 PM Post #11 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I hate that phrase. IMO, a civil union is a hater's term for gay marriage.. |
![]() |
|
| Corey89 | Jun 10 2005, 04:20 PM Post #12 |
![]()
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree that seems like such a simple yet ingenious solution.
Knowing you, you'll probably come up with something to bypass that law. :angel: |
![]() |
|
| Rεd | Jun 10 2005, 04:25 PM Post #13 |
|
Silence. I'm thinking.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Meh. That's too bad. Glitch would have made a great president. |
![]() |
|
| Innocence | Jun 10 2005, 04:52 PM Post #14 |
|
我 百鬼夜行を逝
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think that is a wonderful idea. And RFB, marriage is the union of two people as one. I see no reason why they can't be classified as married. |
![]() |
|
| Clair | Jun 10 2005, 05:03 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Successful at last.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ditto'd
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:50 AM Jul 11
|



![]](http://b1.ifrm.com/0/1/0/p601690/pipright.png)






4:50 AM Jul 11