The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (of age of consent) to join in a civil union.

Right . . . but rather than removing every reference to marriage from every state and federal law and replacing it with the words "civil union" and then extending the right to participate in a civil union to gay people and straight people alike, wouldn't it be way easier just to, uh, let gay people get married?

Besides, if the idea of gay marriage is seen as an "attack" on straight marriage, how exactly is the notion of removing "marriage" altogether going to be construed? Not as a friendly compromise, I'm betting.

Well said but does is really take a gay to know how to decorate my house. Where are all the straight artistic people out there.

1) Requires specific acts of state and federal legislatures. And, those documents are not all centrally stored in one archive -- they are reproduced in countless books and databases across the country. AND, case law uses the same word ("marriage") and relies on the statutes that use the word "marriage." So no, you can't just search-and-replace.

2) You generally can't just make hand-corrections on documents either. You could perhaps issue every married couple a new document that says "civil union," but that would certainly not stop married couples from screaming "I don't want to be in a 'civil union', I was married and I want to stay married."

3) No, I am arguing that there is absolutely no point in inventing a whole new legalism to replace an already-existing and perfectly good one. There is no point at all in creating a whole new term for a binding, loving commitment between two adult sexual partners. We have a word for that and it's "marriage." If "marriage" is reduced to a religious ceremony with no legal force, it becomes sort of superfluous. We don't need whole new terminology, we just need to let gay people friggin' get married.

That's my whole point. If there is NO overlap between religious "marriages" and legal "civil unions," then the whole concept of "marriage" becomes pretty much pointless. If your church says "you're married" and that has no legal force and can in fact still be prohibited by law, what on earth is the point of having a religious marriage? It would be entirely useless, as it would have no legal analogue. As I said before, "If the state can still regulate 'marriage' but at the same time 'marriage' has no legal force, then 'marriage' is meaningless. If the state can't regulate it, then we end up reversing child-protective laws by about 400 years."

We have a perfectly good word for a binding, loving commitment between two adult sexual partners, and the word is "marriage." It's just silly to try to replace it with a whole new word that means the exact same thing and renders the word "marriage" meaningless.

Okay, true. Good job. x]

-----------------------------------------------

When the government decides to remove the word marriage, there is no ground for either party to argue. Do not even accept what happens in a church as anything legal. Tell those people they still to go get papers for their civil union.

"In 1967, the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia found that the right to marry is a "basic civil [right] of man.” Loving v Virginia ended legal discrimination in marriage."

Yes, real rights, Joe. Why do you think I keep referencing the civil rights movement?? We've been through this before. Only last time people were saying colored people couldn't marry whites for ALL the reasons people are saying now and worse.

You can't legislate morality.

Bullshit. Hate crimes bills ARE legislating morality. Most laws are legislated morality. That doesn't mean everyone believes in them, but by putting a consequence to the action you give them a huge incentive to not do the perceived immoral action that was legislated against. You have a long road ahead of you if you don't understand the correlation of peoples perceptions and the law. Again African Americans are a perfect analogy: slaves were freed in 1865, it takes until the 1960's to get civil rights, then 2008 we have a black president. Even you can see that progression. The equal protection under the law precedes the normalization of the minority into the culture resulting in something that could not have happened 20 years ago. That IS how you "educate the next generation". Nothing is sudden. There are still racists out there, but it's not like it was and that is due to that progression. This same progression is what will bring us more representation from the gay community in gay congressmen/women and other aspects of what we consider "public life" as this normalization occurs.

The only power the government has over anyone is the power those people give to the government. Don't you get that? No one needs the government to sanction their marriage. If I decide to commit myself to someone and that someone decides to commit to me, that is all that is needed. Everyone has the God given right to pursue happiness. Forcing the government to give you a piece of paper sanctioning your "marriage" does not constitute the pursuit of happiness because your happiness is not dependent on government sanction.

The government recognizes marriage in many aspects like taxes etc..., don't you get that? The government should not discriminate who it gives said benefits to, do you not get that? Complaining about government involvement in marriage is a bit stupid because the states recognition of your marriage is all that matters in the real world. If I get married in a church but never get a marriage license I am not married in the eyes of the law, it's that simple. Bitch all you want, that's the reality we are working with. Making the government treat you equally DOES constitute pursuit of happiness because if they are not they are in violation of equal protection under the law by favoring one group over another.

Gays can say they are "married." No one will put them in jail for it. Gays can have a wedding ceremony. No one will put them in jail for it. The government saying that gays are allowed to get married will not change the mind of homophobes. Gay marriage is about benefits. They should fight for those benefits.

What do you think they are doing?? Yes, for gay people this battle is about benefits they receive from the recognition that their bonds are no different from heterosexual couples, but the overall struggle for them, as it was/is for black people, is about perception. The perception that they are equal. Why can you not wrap your brain around this?

It doesn't but do you truly believe straight people won't have the same problem if the wording was ever changed? Gays, as you put it, wouldn't be welcome in that club either!

So did countless others when they passed the desegregation acts in Congress. They weren't wanted either but they broke the glass ceiling on that after many, many years of fighting for equal rights. Gays must also fight for their rights and one day, whether you like it or not, they will have them. You don't skirt the issues, you meet them head on.

"No one beats them for it."

The rights legitimize the group and create equilibrium. People didn't beat slaves just because they had a paper that said they could or couldn't. Slaves are dehumanized in the eyes of other BECAUSE they don't have rights. BECAUSE the status quo said they were different and not deserving of equality. The perception was that they were sub humans.

There are still people who would beat a black person for being black,and a gay person for being gay just not as many, because extending rights solidifies the perception of equality don't you get that?

If gays are not treated equally it feeds the perception that they aren't equal and therefore a percentage the population will treat them as such. Do you simply not see the violence against gays in this country? It takes a long time to change people perceptions Joe, a very long time. Just look at the examples you gave. In all of those cases the law was changed ahead of the normalizing of the perception it was trying to create. Slavery ended, but civil rights were 100 years away. Women's rights happened, but to this day women make less than men and some asshats still say a womans place is in the kitchen. PERCEPTION.

Finally, Gays marrying is not the argument. Churches can marry who they want and they do. Not all churches are against gay marriage. The argument is the government recognizing WHEN a church marries gays and lesbians in the same way it does for heterosexuals. The churches will do what they want, but the government should not discriminate who it gives rights to. Marriages laws were changed for numerous things ranging from racial marriages to outlawing polygamy so let's not say this is unprecedented. Originally marriage was a contract of ownership of a woman so lets stop all this BS and give these people these rights! I mean, it's not like allowing gay marriage is going to hurt the divorce numbers any more, in fact, in Mass. it has shown to actually help them!

If a gay couple do not have a piece of paper that says that they are married, how are they hurt? They are not hurt. They just don't get "extra" benefits.

Don't be silly.

"If a slave does not have a piece of paper that says that he is free, how is he hurt? He is not hurt. He just doesn't get 'extra' benefits. If I have freedom and I don't give it to you, you are not hurt, you just don't have something extra, something you didn't have to begin with."

"If a woman does not have a piece of paper that says that she can vote, how is she hurt? She is not hurt. She just doesn't get 'extra' benefits. If I have the right to vote and I don't give it to you, you are not hurt, you just don't have something extra, something you didn't have to begin with."

"If a Catholic does not have a piece of paper that says that he may lawfully practice Catholicism, how is he hurt? He is not hurt. He just doesn't get 'extra' benefits . . . "

And so forth.

We're talking about the deprivation of basic rights here, mate. The deprivation of basic rights IS a "legitimate gripe."

I defy anyone to come up with any damn good reason against option 3.

1) Pragmatism. D'you have any idea how many state and federal laws make specific reference to "marriage"? LOTS. Adoption laws, inheritance laws, property laws, credit-and-debt laws, health decision and power-of-attorney laws, insurance benefits laws, tort laws, bankruptcy laws . . . the list goes on, interminably.

2) Married people. If you think they squawk about the gays next door wanting to get married, wait until the government strolls in and tells them that NOBODY is legally "married."

3) Regulation of the family unit. E.g., we don't allow ten-year-olds to get "married" and we don't allow polygamous marriage either. If we separate out "marriage" as an exclusively religious institution on which states cannot intrude, now suddenly we are in a world of hurt with fringe groups who want to "marry" a pre-adolescent harem. Your religion might say it's hunky-dory to have sex with fourteen nine-year-olds, but public policy says something quite different. If the state can still regulate "marriage" but at the same time "marriage" has no legal force, then "marriage" is meaningless. If the state can't regulate it, then we end up reversing child-protective laws by about 400 years.

Honestly...what makes the most sense is option 3. Then the government has nothing to do with religious/philosophical problems. They would be neutral, which is how it should be. Then whichever churches/ship captains/etc. are willing to marry gay people can do so, and those who don't want to don't have to(I'm sure people will be able to find a venue--there's enough support even in some churches that people can find someone to marry them. And they can always go to the courthouse if all else fails). Then gay people can be married, have equality before the law, and conservatives can still believe in their own definition of marriage. But mostly, it makes sense because the government stays neutral in what is a personal/religious/philosophical issue.

I defy anyone to come up with any damn good reason against option 3. :D

Since you chose to copy and paste your argument into a debate, I shall do the same with my reply:

Force themselves into a club where there not wanted?

How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple? Your argument, which you continue to repeat time and time again, is ridiculous, and you know it.

All gays want is equality, and if the government stopped using the word marriage but instead used civil unions that would be great. Look at this site that advocates equal marriage rights. It gives a number of scenarios:

We want the Flag of Equal Marriage to be complete, with all 50 stars lit up. We see three routes to marriage equality, as we define it:

1. Every individual state could pass a law allowing same-sex marriage.

2. The federal government could repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow same-sex marriage at the federal level, overriding all state-level bans.

3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.

So here you're arguing a straw man "gays aren't being reasonable" argument.

Back to the whole "joining a club thing" and why it's bullshit. When African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted, should they have stopped?

In addition, marriage isn't a club. There aren't members only meetings where only married people are allowed to get into, and married people don't have to do anything for other married couples. Marriage is the legal (and often religious/cultural) union of two people who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together. So allow me to repeat: how does letting gays marry affect, even a little bit, straight married couples? What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?

If this is the best argument that you can come up with for opposing gay marriage, maybe you need to reevaluate your position and realize how ridiculous you sound (even more so than usual).

My problem is that I'm an engineer. If the system stands in my way, I either figure a way to navigate through the system or go around the system.

Let's take this to its logical conclusion:

Groups of people should never have migrated from Africa millions of years ago, they should make it work.

Jews shouldn't have left Egypt, they should have just slaved harder for the Pharaohs or figured out a way around it.

All of the tribes being murdered by warlords in Africa should just come up with a tricky way to avoid that.

Why did we end slavery? I mean why couldn't the slaves just work to buy their freedom? Why change the system.

Brilliant Joe, now I can clearly understand your stance on the issue (that's sarcasm)