Not seperate, nor disliked if they (the extremists) give up a title with historic references (some say religous but I am not sure on that atm)

"Civil Unions exist in most, if not all the more progressive nations... but not gay marriage. (At least as far as I can research Dutch ftl!)"

Here it is in fact called a Civil Marriage, but only because it is state run and not church run. A lot of "normal" couples here, who do not feel they are religious or whatnot, enter Civil Marriage as well. It is not the same as a Civil Union.

The law for "Openstelling huwelijk" of 21 december 2000 states that "Een huwelijk kan worden aangegaan door twee personen van verschillend of van gelijk geslacht." (A marriage can be entered by 2 people of different or the same gender). Gay married couples enjoy the same rights as regular married couples.

Except for... the marriage might not be considered as legal in other countries
and more importantly: Both individuals aren't directly the legal parent when a child is born during the relationship. In a way this makes sense: since they are the same sex, they obviously shouldn't be able to produce any offspring together. The child can then be adopted to become their legal parent, however, only males can do this. A woman cannot become the legal mother of another woman's child (for reasons unknown to me)

So as you can see, we do have legal marriage here in the netherlands. It just isn't marriage run by the church, but by the state, which is normal here. However, there are some off points that still differ gay marriage from regular marriage.

But hey, what's in a name. Just naming a "civil union" between gays a "Gay Marriage" would probably cause 90% of the gays to be content with the change. I don't get why the more conservative countries do allow a civil union with almost all the same rights but refuse to call it a marriage.

As an Atheist, I would not mind if my right to marriage was deprived. In fact, I support it! Please US government, make it illegal for me to marry!

Marriage is a meaningless institution for anyone who rejects religion and the "Hollywood" concept of love.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Just you?

Personally, I think the state should not recognize marriage. It should belong to the churches, and any other couple who wants to call themselves "married."

For me, gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction. The right direction is simply not having the state recognize it, and letting people create their own contracts appropriate to their own needs.

The one marriage I heard that wasn't reckognized by the government was one of my teachers who got married.

Except it wasn't by a judge, or a clergy, or the captain of a boat.

Basically the teacher (a woman), went up to a hill with her guy, and they exchanged vows under a tree on a sunny day, and placed flowers rings on each others head.

She and him considered that, "Marriage by love."

When did marriage become an institution, instead of a belief of faithful love?  And just faithful love is all you need to be married as far as i'm concerned.  Pay someone else to call you man and wife.  Or wife and wife.  Or man and man.  It's gotten complicated with clergy and political garbage that shouldn't trample on someone elses love.

I do not have a problem with the gay community. But when transgender men go walking down A FAMILY FRIENDLY boardwalk. With fake breasts exposed, yet they are men. That is what makes me mad. Then they say because the town told them if they want breast like a women they must cover them up like a women has to they say the town is being racist? Homophobic. What do you call discrimination against homosexuals. Well I say the same thing let them do whatever the heck they want. I do construction down by the beach and they spend millions a year so im not complaining, just if they want to have breast like a women then to cover them up please.

When a politician goes up to the podium and argues against gay marriage.  Are they doing it because they fully believe that it shouldn't happen, or they doing it because the majority of their voters that put them into office think so.  I'm sorry to say, but it's not like homosexuality or alternative lifestyles are a physical, or emotional threat to the rest of the united states.  It's not like it's a hand gun.  Its not like drugs.  It's not demon worshipping goat sacrificers.

Their common people that deserve the same equal rights under the constitution.  And if we have to change the constitution again to make it so, then so be it.

Pretty sure demon worshipping goat sacrificers are allowed under the First Amendment too.

wake me when they can tell inherent sexual orientation at an autopsy

> Einstein wrote:

> Not seperate, nor disliked if they (the extremists) give up a title with historic references (some say religous but I am not sure on that atm)

Certain other titles have been use historically, does that mean we should hold on to those? Now my understanding of US history is very limited (frankly because I don't really care, I am not an American) but wasn't the whole point of the civil war because a large portion of the US still wanted to keep social norms (slavery) because that is what was "historically practised"? I understand there is a big difference between the 2, and the severity was greater before the civil war, just want to comment on that BEFORE someone else does, but by reclassifying a certain group by title (ie. black people by the term Nigga or slave, and homosexuals with "civil unions") still attempts to maintain dominance by a certain group.

Also, if marriage is so sacred (as the RELIGIOUS ceremony that it is, seriously feel that it stems from religious roots), any athiest that wishes to partake in this ceremony would be commiting the same "offence" that homosexuals would. If God doesn't like homosexuals, then he would be equally disapproving of those who worship under a false god, correct? SO if the values of marriage are so important to those who holds the historical meaning, they should disagree with any marriage that is outside of religion.

I think, that it stems from a fear of accepting homosexuality, that by somehow accepting it we believe that we risk turning gay, or welcoming others to explore their sexuality. By normalising homosexuality, we welcome others to freely explore it without ridicule or opression, and we fear that more and more people will turn. It's like society saying that if they want to be gay, they have to sacrifice certain things as a means of deterrence.

Oh and Chris makes a good point.