Gay Marriage page 102

3390 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

The book was written over 1000 years ago.

And?

issen, I think he’s going for the concept that the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality just might not apply to the modern world….due to the very different views held so long ago.
In that same Bible, it says not to kill your fellow humans. However, people still go around abusing and killing homosexuals. So basically, if you’re with the Bible, you’re breaking your own law.

You are making quite the leap from someone who sees marriage as one man, one woman and someone who actively commits hate crimes.

While there is the quite the difference, I’m w/ the kid in that such hate/sin by Christians et.al. would tend to exist under the same “umbrella-of-sinning”.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

MyTie….ya’ve been making this point of yours for some time now.
It’s been equally countered many times by many ppl in that if one uses the word (CONCEPT) of union//contract in the place of marriage…..then, the separation of church & state DOES SUPPORT yer point.

Gays do have just as much Constitutional right to have a legal union and all the benefits therein as do heterosexuals. If any (or all?…lol) religion wants to perform a spiritual union….well, isn’t THAT actually up to them and their religious freedoms?

TheBSG’s post is making this point in support (in my opinion) of this concept.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:
Originally posted by issendorf:

The book was written over 1000 years ago.

And?

In that same Bible, it says not to kill your fellow humans. However, people still go around abusing and killing homosexuals. So basically, if you’re with the Bible, you’re breaking your own law.

You are making quite the leap from someone who sees marriage as one man, one woman and someone who actively commits hate crimes.

Your comments aren’t exactly stating anything.

I’m pointing out that your reasoning for wanting gay marriage legal vis-a-vis ‘bible thumpers’ is really weak and that you aren’t really arguing anything.

 
Flag Post

Here’s my argument: Gays should be able to marry.

 
Flag Post

Really? I couldn’t tell by your avatar :-D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:

Here’s my argument: Gays should be able to marry.

He’s my argument: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility. Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

 
Flag Post

What a tired old thread…with the same tired old arguments…

Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility
The government is involved in marriage, it’s a ceremony with legal implications and benefits sanctioned by the State.

Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

What a jumble mess of nonsense…the government shouldn’t be allowed to determine who can drive? Are you even thinking about what you are typing?

 
Flag Post

The libertarian argument mytie is making is stupid, but his current opposition – the ‘proud gay’ thumper – is even more nonsensical. I’m inclined to not give a damn about anyone who uses the “I’m a minority so do it or it’s discrimination” canard.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:

Here’s my argument: Gays should be able to marry.

He’s my argument: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility. Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

So why can the government do that exact thing but with heterosexual marriages?
 
Flag Post

Either way people, gay marriage is being allowed slowly throughout the states, two states allowed it on the day Obama got re-elected, and one state voted no on banning gay marriage.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:

Here’s my argument: Gays should be able to marry.

He’s my argument: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because this is not something that the government should have the power to determine eligibility. Should we have laws that say gays can go to church? be baptized? read? write? Drive? Chew their food? It shouldn’t be government’s role to determine who can do this, because it shouldn’t be within their power to determine who can’t.

So why can the government do that exact thing but with heterosexual marriages?

If I unnderstood his argument correctly throughout this thread it is his opinion – and I kind of find that a really sensible one – that the government should not be able to do that.
The

Gays should not be allowed to marry
is confusing me a bit, though. I think this needs some clarification.

 
Flag Post

I dunno guys. I think MyTie is simply stating an opposition to the existence of State Marriages in their entirety. Which, fair enough by my reasoning.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

I dunno guys. I think MyTie is simply stating an opposition to the existence of State Marriages in their entirety. Which, fair enough by my reasoning.

While I hope I’m “understanding” this concept….at least a little,,,I guess we are at the “wall-of-separation” of church & state.

Churches will dictate who & what “marriage” is….
and the state will stay out of the whole thing entirely?

This means that there is NO legally contractual binding rights of the two ppl.
This means that if there is a “break up”, then the church has “authority” to assess asset distribution, children issues, etc?
Should one of the spouses tell the church to go fuck itself….what then?
Are we gonna allow kids to get the shit-end of the stick?
Won’t, ultimately, the state then be involved….by having to provide care for these children (and likely the mother so she can administer the care)?
Wouldn’t the church—whose “responsibility” (under TyTie’s directive) is the main method for marital unions—actually be the ones that should be in charge of the fallout of failed MARRIAGES?

 
Flag Post

I have to agree with Karma. If marriage falls entirely under the domain of the church, then dealing with the repurcussions of a failed marriage – divorce proceedings, making sure the kids are looked after, etc, must fall entirely within the remit of the church, as well.

If the church does not allow divorces, then it is the remit of the church likewise, to force the couple to stay together, using whatever measures it has at its disposal.

 
Flag Post

This means that there is NO legally contractual binding rights of the two ppl.
This means that if there is a “break up”, then the church has “authority” to assess asset distribution, children issues, etc?
Should one of the spouses tell the church to go fuck itself….what then?
Are we gonna allow kids to get the shit-end of the stick?
Won’t, ultimately, the state then be involved….by having to provide care for these children (and likely the mother so she can administer the care)?
Wouldn’t the church—whose “responsibility” (under TyTie’s directive) is the main method for marital unions—actually be the ones that should be in charge of the fallout of failed MARRIAGES?

Not beyond any legally recognized contract the two embark on. How does the Church get any kids? It would be no different then the State does now with unwedded parents and children. Assets would remain a question of their legal entanglements. I don’t see the Church doing anything beyond providing religious ceremony, as they already do. The government would remain confined to questions of contract, and children.

I have to agree with Karma. If marriage falls entirely under the domain of the church, then dealing with the repurcussions of a failed marriage – divorce proceedings, making sure the kids are looked after, etc, must fall entirely within the remit of the church, as well.

There would be no Divorce Proceedings, beyond any appropriate religous ceremony they choose to undergo voluntarily. Contractual breach would be a legal matter, as marriages already are. Kids would be a legal matter, as they already are. I don’t see the idea where the suggestion that a whole bunch of power would be conferred to the Church came from.

Merely the State would no longer be in the wedding business.

 
Flag Post

Ung, why would kids or divorce be a legal matter? No legal contract would be signed (obviously), so no legal contractual breech would take place. All three would become solely something the church takes care of internally, however they see fit. Whatever happens, the government does not get involved, as everything relating to the union is entirely within the purview of the church.

 
Flag Post

THEN
aren’t we right back to:

The govt. handles the legality of contract of “marriage”,,,civil union.
Religion handles the morality of “marriage”,,,love union.

Govt. can’t deny Gays’ rights to have a contract of “marriage”.
Religions can or cannot grant love marriage as per each’s own covenants.
Ergo..SOME religions CAN “marry” Gays.

Sounds pretty simple to me,,,
isn’t THAT what we “liberals” have been saying all along….ad nauseum?

 
Flag Post

Ung, why would kids or divorce be a legal matter? No legal contract would be signed (obviously), so no legal contractual breech would take place. All three would become solely something the church takes care of internally, however they see fit. Whatever happens, the government does not get involved, as everything relating to the union is entirely within the purview of the church.

We are not quite touching base here. I don’t think any extension of the purview of the church was suggested. Kids would remain a legal matter as they always have been, procreation and marriage remain quite separate matters. Divorce itself would become as legally meaningless as Marriage, relevant only to the religious appetites of the involved parties. -I would assume many couples would undergo some contractual obligation, but that would remain separate from any marriage.

THEN…
aren’t we right back to:
The govt. handles the legality of contract of “marriage”,,,civil union.
Religion handles the morality of “marriage”,,,love union.
Govt. can’t deny Gays’ rights to have a contract of “marriage”.
Religions can or cannot grant love marriage as per each’s own covenants.
Ergo..SOME religions CAN “marry” Gays.
Sounds pretty simple to me,,,
isn’t THAT what we “liberals” have been saying all along….ad nauseum?

More or less yes I believe so. Albeit there are some slight changes in the specific diction and the inferences used. One would be the government renouncing the traditional nuclear family as a justification of the state. Which I think is long overdue. It would be also be renouncing the word marriage itself, the feelings associated with it, and any innate obligations inferred by the word.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:<br

THEN…
aren’t we right back to:
The govt. handles the legality of contract of “marriage”,,,civil union.
Religion handles the morality of “marriage”,,,love union.
Govt. can’t deny Gays’ rights to have a contract of “marriage”.
Religions can or cannot grant love marriage as per each’s own covenants.
Ergo..SOME religions CAN “marry” Gays.
Sounds pretty simple to me,,,
isn’t THAT what we “liberals” have been saying all along….ad nauseum?

More or less yes I believe so. Albeit there are some slight changes in the specific diction and the inferences used. One would be the government renouncing the traditional nuclear family as a justification of the state. Which I think is long overdue. It would be also be renouncing the word marriage itself, the feelings associated with it, and any innate obligations inferred by the word.

There ya go.
ABOSLUTELY.
This is the “overhaul” that is needed.
It is (I think?) what MyTie is driving at.
There needs to be a serious, obvious, hard-line dichotomy between govt. & “religion” on the issue of civil unions & “marriage”.
Thanks Ung for the input….
I think it helps to make the issue much clearer.

 
Flag Post

Europe: where even conservatives are just fiscally conservative and not socially conservative; or, Europe: where even conservatives are not homophobics incapable of empathy.

 
Flag Post

Since MyTie usually does not gain much support, I have to confess my agreement with his statement: the government should not perform marriages. This is a non-discrimination action, as long as church marriages are not legally recognised (in other words, it means nothing to the government). The “immorality” that people claim about homosexuality really is of no relevance here.

 
Flag Post

So what would irreligious people do if they want to get married? And what would people such as interracials and homosexuals do if in their specific religious community they are not accepted?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

So what would irreligious people do if they want to get married?

Just move in together. That’s the end of it.

And what would people such as interracials and homosexuals do if in their specific religious community they are not accepted?

Find another religion, and/or move home. They won’t be accepted there no matter what they do. That church owns the town.

 
Flag Post

IMO for same sex couples there shouldn’t be anything to complain about as long as they are treated legally the same as heterosexual couples. But if they want to change the whole meaning of marriage and make it so that government forces religions to marry them, not only this sounds like possible tyranny of minority but also very anti-secular.

To clarify what I meant about it being tyranny of the minority: if majority of people think marriage means an union between male and female, minority can’t just force that definition to change. Even if married couples get more legal benefits than same sex civil union couples the problem isn’t in the definition of marriage, it’s in the biased legislation. If and only if more than 50% of people define marriage being an union between 2 adults of any gender, I find the changing the legal definition of marriage to be fair. So, some kind of poll should be done about that.

Also, the other option could be what MyTie proposed, it just depends on whether you want marriage to be a legally recognized institution or not.

 
Flag Post

TuJe, this isn’t about (and should never be about) a majorities ‘right’ to decide definitions…this is about equal rights.

 
Flag Post

And I said so in my post, in the first sentence.

Also, what Janton said in pg. 4 is also true: Christians shouldn’t force their definition of marriage to legislation. That can be tyranny of the minority too.