Gay/Lesbian religious unions (Marriage)

Sadly, that's true, Paul. Marriage has become something of a bad joke. For a lot of people. First fight, call a lawyer.

I'm not one of them. When I said my vows, they included, "What God has joined, let no man put asunder." The missus and I fight (God, do we fight). But that's not a reason to break up.

Just because the "majority" of people treat marriage as a bad joke, doesn't mean that I'm gonna.

And just because the "majority" want to change definitions to suit their personal, bs, desires, doesn't mean that the original definition has no value.

For me, that's what it comes down to. Marriage values. You get married to provide a stable foundation for raising a family. Not because of the tax breaks. Or because you love each other. Marriage. You agree to stay together until you die. Remember that phrase in the marriage vows? Not until the tax laws change. Or until you can't agree on what colour to paint the kitchen. Death.

People today have forgotten what marriage is supposed to be about. I haven't.
 
Professur said:
Sadly, that's true, Paul. Marriage has become something of a bad joke. For a lot of people. First fight, call a lawyer.

I'm not one of them. When I said my vows, they included, "What God has joined, let no man put asunder." The missus and I fight (God, do we fight). But that's not a reason to break up.

Just because the "majority" of people treat marriage as a bad joke, doesn't mean that I'm gonna.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, just finished year one, we fight, but we committed to each other, and though I had some rough patches I'm gonna stick with it. I didn't go through the wedding from hell (priest was nuts, stopped teh ceremony 3 times ) just to end it over a spat.

These people who want the right to marry will respect it cause they fought for it.

The harder osmething is to get, the more it means to you
 
They don't give a shit about pensions. They want to be equal to straight people in society's eyes. Fuck that.
Click to expand...

In the end it al lstems down to personal opinion..that can't be helped by any law changes.
 
BCD said:
society changes so the language should accomodate
Click to expand...

Ok, you're a fag. I've just decided to change the terminology.


Prof said:
People today have forgotten what marriage is supposed to be about. I haven't.
Click to expand...

Another one here. 'Til death do you part can be a really really long time. I'm up for it.
 
Professur said:
Really? They're equal? How do you figure that? Please, explain.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to be prejudiced against a group of people because of what other consenting adults they find attractive. Why shouldn't they be equal?
 
That's not the question. The question is why they should. That all people are equal is, perhaps, the american ideal. That doesn't make it true or right. Remember, the same people who wrote that were slave owners. And their wives weren't included either.
 
No need to change it, I know I'm an asshole.

Words have meanings. Marriage is already taken. Let them find their own word.
 
If this is gonna degenerate into namecalling, I'm out. Call me if you decide to be serious about, what I consider, a very serious issue.
 
I started it to make a point but it was uncalled for.

My apologies BCD.
 
There have been a lot of idiotic responses so far in this thread so I'm not going to bother singling out any one in particular.

The Constitution of the United States gaurantees all citizens equality in the eyes of the law, regardless of race, gender, sexual persuasion, etc. Everyone has equal rights to social services,

So, regardless of whether some redneck fundamentalists find the idea of homosexuality offensive, in the eyes of the law homosexual citizens are entitled to precisely the same benefits and priviliges as are other citizens. Legally, the Federal Government should not be capable of denying certain citizens the right to those tax/family/healthcare benefits that others enjoy.

A good issue to consider is a business analogy. For simplicity, let's define a "Business Partnership" as a legal arrangement between two businesses. Now this means that a "firm" can only enter into a Business Partnership with another business if the legal entity "the firm" is legally identical to "business". If the second party is in fact an individual, no such Business Partnership can be formed, until the individual registers himself as a business.
In marriage we find the same requirement. As far as the State is concerned, Marriage is a legal arrangement between a man and a woman. As above, a man can only enter into this legal arrangement with a "non-woman" if this non-woman can be shown to be legally identical to a "woman". But, since all citizens are equal and have equal rights regardless of gender, LEGALLY, a man is identical to a woman. Thus the state is obliged to recognise any legal arrangement of the type "marriage" between two legal citizens.

No-one can deny that homosexuality is not "natural". However, any attempt to argue against homosexual marriages based on "the Natural Way of Things" argument also falls down - as far as the law is concerned, natural or not is irrelevant - what's important is what is permitted by law. If the State wanted to maintain the insistence on Natural Ways, they would not have granted equal rights to homosexuals in the first place - the same rights that prevent insurance companies charging homosexuals higher insurance premiums simply for being homosexual. To deny homosexual couples the right to marriage is to suggest that a homosexual's commitment to his/her partner is not as valid as that of a hetereosexual - a point which is clearly illegal under the Constitution which states that all citizens are equal.

As far as a marriage being recognised by the church is concerned, anyone stupid enough to let such an idiotic institution prevent him/her from living happily with his/her chosen partner doesnt deserve to be "married" in the first place. Having said that, churches are private institutions and can decide their own "rules" as they see fit. You don't like their rules, go sign up at a different one. The Country Club isn't obliged to change their subscription requirements just because you want to go there, and neither is the Church.
 
Sounds good. One problem. Marriage is not a right. It is licensed & endorsed by the state but it's not a right.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
Click to expand...

for reference
 
Gay marriage is a rights issue. The fact is two heterosexul people of the opposite sex can choose whether to legally marry (in church or in a civil ceremony) or not. That marriage is recognised by the state and confers certain rights and responsibilities on the individuals concerned in the eyes of the law. Homosexual couples can't, that is discrimination when we are supposed to have equal rights in the eyes of the law and makes a mockery of the law imo. Religion just clouds the issue.
 
Gonz said:
I started it to make a point but it was uncalled for.

My apologies BCD.
Click to expand...

I was also making a point in my previous post before the insulting one (in all fairness it was justified retaliation).

I don't exactly believe in creating new labels to describe homosexual unions because religious fundamentalists are irked over them being called married. So what if they are? is my question, does it really matter? Marriage recognized by the law can not observe gender into account due to the "Supposed" equal right US population enjoys. To law gender is not an issue but in religion it makes all the difference. So it really comes down to personal opinion looking at it from a religious POV, but legally there is no exception to the rule. Equal rights do not end where personal preference conflicts with the set laws...no matter how much of the majority is conflicted.

This debate reminds of a quote from the Animal Farm by Geroge Orwell and how it relates to certain peoples ideology on the issue ( I didn't mean people on OTC so please don't rush to defend your character)

All are equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
The problem we are having in Canada is the church is trying to stop the goverment from having gay marriages.

The Church should keep it's nose out of the goverments business.

I hate hearing the church's opinion, I was raised jewish, and am currently agnostic, I don't care what the pope says, and I wish Goverments would stop allowing religious orginazations lobby to them in any fashion.
 
I hate hearing the church's opinion, I was raised jewish, and am currently agnostic, I don't care what the pope says
Click to expand...

You Jewish so you're automatically free of Pope's beliefs aren't you? :D
 
paul_valaru said:
The Church should keep it's nose out of the goverments business.
Click to expand...


The church invented marriage. The state got involved in religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top