Replies

I guess it is the use of the word "marriage" and all that it entails that may be the root of all of this. My wife and I were married in the Church. It is almost an insult to the concept of marriage that a civil authority can perform a ceremony that, to most people, means the same thing. It doesn't. Being married by Judge Smith at the county courthouse is not the same as being married under the eyes and blessings of God. The latter has much more meaning to me that any piece of paper signed by an official of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The fact is that homosexuality has existed as long as (and probably longer) than organized, religious, marriage. I am not trying to equate a civil union with marriage in a church. What additional civil rights or civil benefits are conveyed upon someone who is married in a church? None. The benefits of a religious marriage are confined, properly I believe, within the applicable religion. Marriage has been a religious ceremony since the dawn of religion, so should we strike down all civil marriages between heterosexual men and women because they dilute the "original meaning" of marriage?

I am talking specifically about the civil benefits conferred upon the union, such as presumed inheritance, the right to make medical decisions for your loved one, the tax benefits, etc. And what would come with this, for those who take it lightly, would be divorce, alimony, child support, etc that right now, these individuals don't have to worry about.

As for the other scenarios you posted, I don't really think those need addressing, they are flame bait, and are off the point anyway. (in my opinion) Thank you for the opportunity to express my views in a cordial discourse.

You are incorrect. Marriage has to be an institutional part of the law because it is the institution which promotes the formation of the next generation.

Society rewards the institution not the individual. Homosexual behavior has zero chance of producing or raising a next generation in a mother/father environment.

Homsoexual behavior is ONLY about recreational sex, nothing else. The law has never considered or involved itself in "love."

Since the government took over the hodgepodge of do it yourself marriage recording, the objective has always been to protect the next generation. Religious marriage is not relevant to the law. Only that the marriage was legally recorded. Religion in marriage is as irrelevant as love in the eyes of the law.

Unfortunatly you have fallen for the homo-propaganda talking point that "religion" is the reason to oppose civil unions or homosexual marriage, it is not. There have very good and very sound non-religious legal reasons to oppose homosexual marriage in any derivation.

I don't really think those need addressing, they are flame bait,

That's because you can't, given your convoluted logic. Pedophilia has also existed since the beginning of time and only arbitrary law makes it illegal.

How about two consenting adult siblings, shouldn't they be permitted to marry too? That's been around since the beginning of time too. And save the lame genetic defect argument , they can always have an abortion. Either admit incestuals should be allowed to marry too or at least admit you're a hypocrite.