High Logic

[sirs]

It means what it means to anyone else with a minimum of a 3rd grade education....as in revered, as in the ultimate of dedication.

[Plane]

Marriage used to be a religious thing. Before priests decided they could make a living off of it, people paired off without any religion involved, as animals do.

When and where was this?

This must be so pre- history , that it may be pre- social.

Marriage is ....sacred?
Where on Earth do you get that?

If it is not , then the gay rights movement have invested a lot into it for no apparent reason. I think they are hoping some of the sacredness will  become the respect they feel they are due, and end the opprobrium that they have been receiving since time immemorial.

This has been decided by the courts. No silly cartoon is going to change that.

I don't think you understood that cartoon , I do not agree with it , I think it makes an interesting point that I disagree with in a particular way.

But you are right , this is a decision of the courts , not the society, not the people.
When the people have been consulted , most of them have not changed their minds .

The courts have put the cart ahead of the horse.

It is not a matter of "crowbar them into respectability". It is simply a desire to have EQUALITY.
 

Non married people are unequal to married ones in what way?
People are different in many ways that the law recognizes, if a person makes a choice that ruins his finances, the law will definitely treat him differently than someone who has plenty of cash, shoot ... even of a person is broke by no fault of his own the law is different for him than for someone with plenty.

Finances are just one example , people who have certain education and licenses get the commensurate privileges and  responsibilities different than those without the degrees and certifications. Age is recognized by the law, sex is recognized by the law , and the state of matrimony is recognized by the  law as different from a state of singleness.

Equality before the law is a good ideal , but the law is quite well able to differentiate for several reasons people who are in fact not really equal. When it is needed to recognize a difference legally we usually find a way. The inequality is tolerated when the people accept that the reason for it is compelling and reasonable to justify the inequality.

So what is the states interest in recognizing and regulating marriage? Why is the state excused in regarding single persons as unequal to married ones?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The equality I am referring to is the desire for gay married people to be regarded by the government as entirely equal to heterosexual married people.

Giving married people of whatever sex a tax break over single people is a different issue, and not the one I was referring to.

[sirs]

Civil Unions do precisely that....in the eyes of Government

[Plane]

The equality I am referring to is the desire for gay married people to be regarded by the government as entirely equal to heterosexual married people.

Giving married people of whatever sex a tax break over single people is a different issue, and not the one I was referring to.

I don't see it as a different issue, the reason to give tax preference to people who are married is a proxy to giving preference to people who are making choices good for the state and society.

Pairing off in long term relationships is good for breeding couples.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Marriage does not guarantee that the couple will stay together.
I have heard many times of people who lived together for a year or more and got along just fine. But then they got married and or the other of them felt trapped, perhaps because they shared finances and they split up.

It is perhaps sacred to some people, but certainly not to all.
I can put up with singles having to pay more taxes, even though it is not fair to them.

When people over 50 get married and don't have much chance of having children, they still get the married deduction.   

[sirs]

Marriage does not guarantee that the couple will stay together.

No one claimed it did.  It's simply a sacred pledge, between a man & woman, in front of some form of ordained clergy.  That's all that marriage is.  How people act during a marriage, has nothing to do with what the definition of marriage is     

[Xavier_Onassis]

 It's simply a sacred pledge, between a man & woman, in front of some form of ordained clergy.  That's all that marriage is.  How people act during a marriage, has nothing to do with what the definition of marriage is   

For SOME people, certainly not everyone. Millions of people are married by Justices of the Peace, ship captains and a lot of other people who have no religious title.

You are wasting your time trying to get gay and lesbian marriages redefined as civil unions. You rightwingers had a chance to do this about twenty years ago, and most of you were still in favor or charging gay people with sodomy.

The bus left the station long ago, and you cannot run fast enough to catch it.

[sirs]

There is no such thing as a lesbian marriage.  That's your problem

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are thousands of Lesbians that will disagree with you and have marriage licenses to prove it.

Live with it. You will change nothing.

[sirs]

They're not disagreeing with me, they'd be disagreeing with the English language,  and the definition of marriage

[Xavier_Onassis]

They have a MARRIAGE LICENSE, just like you. And they donlt have to show it to you, just as you do not have to show yours to them.

The language has changed. 

At some point in every reptile's life, some discover they are dinosaurs and will be extinct.
You seem to have reached that point in your life.

[sirs]

The language has changed. 

And thank you for making my point....that this is all about co-opting a word that meant one thing, for eons, and attempt redefine as another, based on nothing more than political correctness, and the effort to proclaim acts/choices that a majority of the population sees as immoral, along the same lines as Adultery, as being perfectly ok, and to be legally accepted as perfectly ok. 

[Plane]

The bus left the station long ago, and you cannot run fast enough to catch it.

That depends entirely on how well that bus runs.

If it breaks down in the ditch , leaving it behind will  not be challenging.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So now sirs tells us that there should be laws against adultery.
It is the obligation of the government to enforce a ban on cheating on one's spouse.
 
Adultery should be punishable by jail time as a felony. Perhaps flirting could be a misdemeanor.

sirs seems to be embracing the establishment in the USA of a Ministry for the Encouragement of Virtue and the Elimination of Vice, just as our close allies, the Saudis have done. sirs decries Muslim Sharia because he favors Christian Sharia Law.