well ill be! Sarn made a point. well played.

I wasnt stating marriage should be outlawed, merely ignored by the government. People would be free to continue practice their religious traditions. It just seems to me like these issues are caused by incomplete separation of church and state. The government should remove itself from this situation and treat everyone as individuals. Then the pressure would be on the church to reform.

I wonder what percentage of people that support gay marriage would also support polygamy? If the government is going to continue to support legal unions why should it be restricted to two individuals?

I'm crazy.

Well, on your second point, I'm far in the minority, but I'm in favor of government recognition for polyamorous marriages of various sorts. The farther you move from the societal norm, the more individually contractually tailored your situation would have to be, but I don't in principle see why the reasons for marriage (financial cooperation, child raising, etc.) and the legal ramifications for it are less valid when more than two people are involved. But that's an issue for another day, and one that (at least so far as I see) is less of a problem of civil rights.

But to get to your main qualm, I object heartily: marriage is not at heart a religious institution, it's a social one. The fact is that historically most societies (including the US's main ancestors) have used religion do regulate their social institutions, but that doesn't mean that the institutions themselves are necessarily religious. Explaining the causes of natural phenomena (i.e. science) and encouraging people not to harm each other (i.e. morality) were historically the province of religion, but that doesn't mean that modern separation of church and state means the state should butt out of funding scientific research or preventing theft. People get married not just to sanctify their relationships in the eyes of God, but because living together in tight-knit units is a pretty good way to get by in the world--this happens in various forms across societies and religions, so I think it's hard to argue that the fundamental motive is a sacred one. (A nice counterpoint to your view, so far as I know, is the one taken by Buddhists: that marriage is primarily a secular, and not a religious, matter.)

Now, we certainly could debate whether, as Sarn argues, it's useful to gerrymander our dictionaries so that religions (Christianity) get to play with one term and governments get to play with another. But I take you to be arguing something more radical: that governments shouldn't regulate what I take to be a fundamental social institution. (It would be like saying, "Governments shouldn't have anything to do with the sale and transfer of goods: that's primarily a matter or religion.")

the problem is that marriage HAS become very much a religious institution (as well as a social issue and a cash industry.) I have a HUGE problem with the extent to which religion and government have become mixed in the institution of marriage. it would be WONDERFUL if marriage was a purely secular endeavor, but for a good chunk of the people at least in the U.S. it's not. a legally binding arrangement should NOT be presided over by spiritual leader of any given faith... unless said spiritual leader is also a judge... or a notary public. and a religious ceremony should not be held as a legal thingamajig that has legal, fiscal, and social ramifications outside of said religion (taxes and such.)

A legally binding marriage doesn't have to be presided over by a spiritual leader. You can go to a courthouse and get everything you need done. In fact, the wedding usually has nothing to do with laws anyway. Its just something that two people want to do to celebrate the occasion or, as was my case, do spiritually recognize. Believe me, the religion can be left out of marriage. Its actually less of a religious institution now than it has been in years, in my opinion.

In the US it differs by state. Some states allow religious ministers to do the paperwork, others require it be sent into a courthouse, etc.

im not coming at this from an anti-religion standpoint, not at all. i just sincerely think that the "religious" and "legal" aspects of marriage need to be separated.

As a married atheist, certainly I agree they ought to be separated; I just wanted to argue against the claim that governments shouldn't recognize civil partnerships at all. (I also happen to think it's stupid to need to come up with different words for secular and sacred conceptions of marriage, but it's probably the best way around Republicans' sham objection about "liberals redefining marriage against our consent!!1")

let people do what they want and stop bothering us about it

I was going to say it sounds suspiciously like "we can't keep the blacks out of the pool, but we can close it!" That's not to criticize anyone here who's offered the idea, because I think most people who suggest it are just motivated by a good-faith desire to find a compromise. But marriage has been a civil and legal institution for longer than this country has existed, and it's only now, when it's becoming clear that the Constitution requires equal access to marriage for same-sex couples, that people are beginning to ask whether government should be formally recognizing marital relationships in the first place. "Civil unions for all" probably solves the legal issue, but I don't think that makes it the right thing to do.

Not at all*. what i would like to see happen is more along the lines of
person1 "we dont want black people in our community pool!"
person2 "tough, this here is a public pool. you can go put your own pool in your back yard and let in whoever you want."

in this instance everyone has access to the public pool. yes there will be some whites only backyard pools where idiots can keep out the "darkies", but there will also likely be a crap ton of backyard pool parties where everyone is invited.

*at least not what i was talking about.

Heh, I was just trying to be forward thinking about solving the problem without having to constantly to adjust the definition of marriage as society evolves. What happens in the future when people want to marry sentient robots, aliens, clones...? Screw their civil rights for a few decades until they have earned it? Funny you don't hear much about Hermaphrodite marriage.

Vornskr had some good points about government regulations of social contracts, but after racking my brain I can't really accept that the government should be able to define the terms of the contract (ie 1 man + 1 woman). Possibly the most involvement I see required would be to ensure that neither party is having their rights violated. Situations similar to when the government steps in and forces vaccinations on children of Jehovah's Witnesses, or prevents marriage of adults to children.

We've changed it many, many times in the past. I don't know why all of these people don't realize that they're going to be put in the same historical group of *******s as George Wallace.

Also, bear in mind, George Wallace was a Democrat. You hear that, Republicans? You're acting like a Democrat right now! Hurry up and reverse your position and start making some ****ing sense.

Even though I'm a non-wookie (and don't even live in the US), I'm surprised no-one has noted so far that this nicely and irretrievably takes some of the focus of the election away from the economy. I personally wonder if Biden's comments were premeditated, it would seem unusual for a VP to stray from party line and state he's 'absolutely' for gay marriage on TV.

It is kind of funny, the topic is divisive to the point that there's almost no dragging the wider conversation/campaign back to purely economic merits at this point. I would guess the Obama campaign team has done some sums on how many extra voters they could pull out of the woodwork when an issue like this gets thrown in, and how many the GOP could muster for the opposing side of the argument.

This has never, ever happened.

All that matters is winning votes right now. If Romney wins, the economy is surely​ ****ed.

This is the problem I talked about earlier in this thread. We have this mentality that somehow a certain thing is more important than another thing because one of those things doesn't direct involve us. Tell someone who is denied hospital visits or other rights of married couples that the economy is more important than what they are facing. Talking about the economy doesn't get us anywhere. Trying to make people understand that they should treat everyone in the United States the same is more important than droning on about tax reform when congress won't even allow a bill to get voted on. Would you prefer that Obama spend his time complaining about the fact that congress won't allow him to do anything, or would you rather he focus on something where he might be able to make some headway. Call me crazy, but I think it's a good thing that the President is concerned about the civil rights of the citizens of this country being violated. Regardless of all of that, it was only a matter of time before the presidential race became strictly about social issues. It just so happens that the Democrats threw the first punch for once.

Yeah cause Obama has done a great job restoring the economy...

There is no way Romney can possibly fix anything. He wants a massive military budget increase. The guy is full of terrible ideas.

I'm not going down this again. You don't know the first goddamn thing about economics as you have repeatedly shown, year after year, every time this discussion comes up.

I certainly didn't claim Romney is going to do any better.
I'm pretty confident the economy is screwed either way.

How dare you heathens suggest that the word of God shouldn't be taken literally & that there is even a single inconsistency within its holy (if KJV) pages.

P.S. He was correct about one thing--you shouldn't talk to women while they're on their periods.

Note: I just returned from the U.S. where I heard much talk amongst the locals about secession over the issue of gay marriage. These same folks always seem to have a lot of high-powered weapons & beer.

And this is why Lincoln is my least favorite president. We wouldn't have the Bible Belt if he hadn't fought to keep it.

A massive increase in military spending could be good as long as the multiplier is high. Pretty much any large public works projects would do it. Of course, using fiscal policy to correct the business cycle is a central idea from Keynesian economics, so it'll be interesting to see if Fox News has the same opinion about Mitt Romney that they did about Obama.

Thanks to Republican tampering, much of the stimulus spending over the past 5 years went to tax cuts (and lending of last resort.) Tax cuts are basically a money pit. All evidence shows that it's one of the least-effective fiscal policies, largely because tax revenues are already lower during market contractions.

Well that's self evident. One need only look at the history of the 20th century to see that trickle-down theory is demonstrably wrong.

-I wonder what kind of public works projects we could do to turn things around. Back in the day it was mostly building bridges and highways and dams, which we've mostly got enough of now, I think. I mean, other than some touch-ups to those, maybe some gaps to fill in, what else do we need? Not meant rhetorically, meant inquisitively.

In california... ROADS!!! dear god do we need more roads. specifically more freeway lanes in most of southern california. Hell... if they actually got a "functional" version of a toll road i would even pay a toll. right now "fast track" is complete crap, when the toll is a price i would be willing to pay(1.50-2.00) i dont need to use the toll lanes because there's no traffic. When theres actually traffic and i would like to use the toll road the price goes up as high as 8$ yeah... no thanks ill sit in traffic.
Or even a high speed train system or subway that went somewhere USEFUL! None of this transit system that goes ALMOST all the way to LAX airport.
Around the rest of the country im sure there are TONS of public utility upgrades and repairs to roads and bridges and whatnot that could be done.
start up a soylent green industry for a replenish-able food source. All kinds of things!!!

I was thinking this too, I don't think it's realistic to turn this country's finanical problems around in a 4yr period. Even if a think-tank of brillant economists were given free reign.

This right here is the exact reason I'm a bit reserved to expressing that I'm Christian. Even though I'm a bit more studied in the Bible than most, frankly there's a ton I do not know so I pretty much avoid debate because I don't want to argue when I don't understand the entire doctrine.

I personally don't have a stance on homosexuality. I don't think it is very healthy and I wouldn't want a child of mine exposed to someone of the homosexual lifestyle at an early age. That sentiment exists regardless of whether they are married or not. So, call me neutral to the situation.

Yes. The economy blame game.

Why did the breakdown happen? Because men who were in a position of power acted without moral or ethical guidelines. This is the problem, a lack of ethical or moral code. It has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with people and what motivates them.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a bit more complex than that.

No, that's what triggered it. This recession is part of a business cycle. When you run the economy over capacity you are eventually going to have to pay for it.

Nothing. The US is turning its back on the entire notion of public goods; any politician "radical" enough to openly call for more government spending on public works would be laughed out of office.

I wouldn't call that neutral at all...

Haha. Good catch, JediKirby. I didn't pick up on that.

i meant neutral about gay marriage, not neutral about homosexuality.

if gay marriage were on a ballot i simply wouldn't vote yes or no. because i don't care

it doesn't change homosexual behavior which i see as the problem

That's really gay, dude.

If you don't care, you should vote yes.

More freedom = better than.

What's wrong with it?

Well, let's see. It's not something that Reid directly experiences, so, since he is a modern American citizen, and he is unable to feel any kind of empathy toward another human being, he will never understand it. Because of the fact that he doesn't understand it, he thinks it's wrong.

Also he thinks gay boys are icky, no doubt.

-Usually people like that have no problem with lesbians, though. Wonder why.