New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages

[Alcon]

I don't understand the vitriol.  If you don't consider them marriages, consider them badly-named tax breaks.  Do you normally get this offended when terminology is mis-applied because of religious disagreements?  If you were Jewish, would you oppose any government subsidy of those who raise pork commercially, because that would be government recognition of a religious sin?

That was the crappy analogy, but still, seriously.  The objection here is really just over the government calling something something, when your religion says that something isn't something?  Maybe the institution of marriage is sacred; is the word "marriage" that sacred?

[Alcon]

Ok... Point taken...

Let's put this another way, a more correct way.  I have friends who are gay men and I have known and worked with lesbian women.  I don't care for their lifestyle, but I accept them as men and women and as creations of the Almighty God.  It is my job and, more than that, my honor to love them just like I would my straight friends.  The only thing I cannot do, and have a good conscience about it, is condone their marriage should they want to.  I won't stop them, and I will still be their friend, but don't expect me to be in the wedding audience.  I do support civil unions, however (which took me a long time to get to that point).  I must say, that counting, I actually have three friends who are in the GLBT community.  The third friend is a guy from high school is actually a cross-dresser/transsexual now.

You're still ignoring the issue.  You're this offended over what you see as a mis-application of the word "marriage"?  Because if you support civil unions, that must be the only issue.  In effect, you support equal rights anyway, so what you're offended by is the government using a term you see as having theological connotations, the wrong way.

Is that really a big deal?  Your Church, and you, are not being forced to recognize the term "marriage."

[Alcon]

An obvious solution, as someone said, but no one commented on is to have the government recognize only civil union--regardless of sex--and leave marriage strictly to churches.

For some reason, this will not be accepted at all, because this will really be seen as "destroying the institution of marriage."  Which is retarded, really.

[Alcon]

It might be "obvious" but it's also stupid

Why?

and ahistorical.

So?

[Alcon]

If the government recognizes "civil unions" and stays out of the marriage business, it's not going to cause people to stop having "marriages."  That's ridiculous.  And I don't feel that the issue is petty, I actually feel rather strongly about it, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[Alcon]

You miss my point.

Then you'll have to actually explain it, because apparently asking rhetorical questions didn't communicate your point well enough.  I'm at a loss to think of anything else you would you have meant by that, and the "ahistorical" comment.

I didn't say that all aspects of the issue are petty and was actually quite clear about that. I'd be surprised if the symbolic elements to it were of great importance to you, but then no one is predictable beyond a certain point.

They might be of more importance - or at least more empathetic importance - if they were explained.  Please do.