Gay/Lesbian religious unions (Marriage)

[IDLEchild]

The church invented marriage. The state got involved in religion.

Heh, excellent point...but wouldn't you say marriage has changed face since the olden days?...it is a lot more complex social construct now then it was a few hundred years ago or even a few decades ago. Technically the government had no choice but to get involve with the insane amount of new problems and variations perpetuated concerning marriages.

Now it crosses over to legal rights and financial freedoms and rights too. Should the Church realize that or continue to hold it's stand on marriage?

 

[paul_valaru]

You Jewish so you're automatically free of Pope's beliefs aren't you?

I wish, but the overwhelming power he holds, through the church, effects the ways laws are made, etc.

 

[MrBishop]

Just in case you don't speak french and was curious about A13's reference re: frogs

Vous vivez avec une autre personne et vous ne souhaitez pas ou vous ne pouvez pas vous marier.


You live with another person and you do not wish to get married, or are unable to get married.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vous souhaitez organiser les modalités de votre vie commune dans un cadre juridique stable.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
You wish to organize yourselves into a contract for a communal living within a stable legal environment.

[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vous remplissez les conditions prévues par la loi.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You are within the limits of the law.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vous pouvez conclure un Pacte civil de solidarité (PACS) et faire une déclaration conjointe au greffe du tribunal d'instance compétent, ou au consulat si vous résidez à l'étranger et que l'un de vous est français. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can enter into a Civil Pact of Solidarity (CPS) and make a conjugal declaration etc...[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Basically...they have a legally binding alternative to marriage, regardless of wether you're hetro, homo, bi, male female etc... There are no limitations to it. You seem to even be able to be a group of several people and make this arrangement.
[/font]

 

[flavio]

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.

In that case why shouldn't you be treated less than equal?

 

[MrBishop]

In that case why shouldn't you be treated less than equal?

The problem is that it's only an ideal. It doesn't work in real life...at least, not yet. People are still discriminated against for a various number of reasons. It's a human thing to do...place things in cubby holes and rate them. If everything and everyone was on an equal basis, then chaos would ensue.

IMHO it's more of a social issue than a legal one. LEgally...it's easy to say...yeah, they're married. Socially, or if you will, religiously...it's a horse of a different colour.

What would be wrong with equal rights for pedophiliacs? Necrophiliacs declaring their decomposing partners as spouses? Bestialists? etc...

What about the definition of woman or man? Is a man who goes through a sex-change operation legally a woman, and his/her marriage to a man considered marriage? Even though it cannot possibly create children?

What about the legality of a gay marriage accross borders? You know...according to Spain, my wife is still married to her ex-hubby, despite the fact that they've been divorced in Canada for over 7 years now. More so...our son is actually...get this...considered his (her ex's) and not mine, because they're still married and therefore the son in question HAS to be his!

 

[tonksy]

you know, i'm sure that this is a completely naive point of view but with that having been said...i think the socioeconomic sidebar of this conversation is absolutely pointless and silly. the greater point is that people who may be completely, totally, primetime in love with each other aren't allowed to marry each other. it's cruel. think about how you would feel. i have a rule for myself- if you don't like it. don't look at it. they aren't hurting anybody (except maybe their parents- but who hasn't?) and why we we as heterosexuals have the right to tell them they can't get married? are we god? if god is displeased it is something between the offendee and god. life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and all that crap.

 

[MrBishop]

The problem with that statement is that, oddly enough, the churches are made up of people. People who don't like homosexuality and don't want homosexual unions. Churches are also democratic... the idea goes to Parish Council and then to Vestry...and gets knocked down every time.

Tonks...you may not mind the idea of gay-unions...but regardless of wether your part of the majority or the minority, the pro-gay-union side is not as loud as the anti-side. If you don't make enough noise and think that society is intelligent enough to choose the right path, then you will lose every time!

That's the pitfall of democracy. If you don't speak out or vote...things don't change!

 

[MrBishop]

why we we as heterosexuals have the right to tell them they can't get married? are we god? if god is displeased it is something between the offendee and god. life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and all that crap.

We, as heterosexuals, run the churches and the governments, the schools and the offices. We're the majority...the majority rules in a democratic society. It's the same reason as to why the Religious Right in the Bible-belt have been able to block such things as the sciences that go against creationism.

Sucks, don't it!

 

[AnomalousEntity]

What would be wrong with equal rights for pedophiliacs? Necrophiliacs declaring their decomposing partners as spouses? Bestialists? etc...

!

Relationships involving minors could be dealth with in terms of "competency". A minor is not considered intellectually competent enough to make major decisions of any sort (medical, contractual, educational or relationship) until they reach a certain age.

Necrophiliacs? Well I dont think the rule of a relationship between 2 LIVING partners would be difficult to legislate.

Bestialists? Again, I dont think legislating that the union must be between two human beings would be a major obstacle.

As far as churches. Well I rather believe the Church should be there for the benifit of its patrons and believers. Church should have no influence what so ever over citizens who are not concerned with what the church believes.

If these members are in fact believers and which to get acceptance from the church...well then they are just going to have to "buck up" and get realistic that may not happen due to the moral belief system of the church and the content of the bible.

Nonetheless...that should not preclude them from entering into a legal, contractual "marriage".

Here, you dont even need a church to get married. All you need is a justice of the peace, a judge, a ships captain, hell even "john the elvis impresonator" can perform the ceremony in vegas.

I think you can even get the liscense to perform the ceremony off the internet now days...

 

[AnomalousEntity]

We, as heterosexuals, run the churches and the governments, the schools and the offices. We're the majority...the majority rules in a democratic society. It's the same reason as to why the Religious Right in the Bible-belt have been able to block such things as the sciences that go against creationism.

Sucks, don't it!

What planet do you live on? I have lived in the Bible belt all of my life and I have been educated in Darwin, vertebrate morphology, AND the Bible as a "literary source only" (not as truth or as a religous belief system). Prayer in school....virtually not allowed! Bible studies in schools...unheard of.

At least in the school districts Ive known about and Ive lived in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and my wife would agree with me and she is from Louisana.


Honestly, you need to stop using the news stations, "joe blow", the paper, or commonly propagated myths and misconceptons as your source of information. You did the same thing in the gun thread.

No offense intended.

By the way the theory of creation and Biblical studies are prohibited in every public school I Know of.

I had a teacher in high school. He was one of the Best teachers I ever had (World History).

He used to write a proverb on the board and use it as a theme for a class.

Example "A house divided against itself will fall"

Then he would teach on the fall of Rome.

Less than a year into this word got out and he was severly sanctioned...and he hardly even mentioned anything about religion other than those proverbs!

 

[flavio]

What would be wrong with equal rights for pedophiliacs? Necrophiliacs declaring their decomposing partners as spouses? Bestialists? etc...

That's a ridiculous arguement. A relationship between two consenting adults is what we're talking about.

If you're going to discriminate against people because because you don't share their personal taste in other consenting adults then why not say discrimate against people who are attracted to fat chicks or ungly guys?

 

[tonksy]

What planet do you live on? I have lived in the Bible belt all of my life and I have been educated in Darwin, vertebrate morphology, AND the Bible as a "literary source only" (not as truth or as a religous belief system. Prayer in school....virtually not allowed! Bible studies in schools...unheard of.

At least in the school districts Ive known about and Ive lived in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and my wife would agree with me and she is from Louisana.


Honestly, you need to stop using the news stations, "joe blow", the paper, or commonly propagated myths and misconceptons as your source of information. You did the same thing in the gun thread.

No offense intended.

well, i never went to school down here, but my husband did and they did teach evolution in accordance with the federal law...remember the monkey trial in the 30's...you know, the jimmy stewart movie? anyway, they teach it....but they didn't teach any form of sex education at all, how backward is that?

 

[AnomalousEntity]

well, i never went to school down here, but my husband did and they did teach evolution in accordance with the federal law...remember the monkey trial in the 30's...you know, the jimmy stewart movie? anyway, they teach it....but they didn't teach any form of sex education at all, how backward is that?

That may be a school to school policy.

We were taught sex ed in high school including procreation, sexually transmitted disease, and safe sex.


We also had Drug education including the types of drugs, how they are sold, what the effects are, etc etc

And we had Hunting/sporting that we spent extensive time on gun use, different gun actions, gun saftey, hunting saftey, boating saftey, and we all went to the firing range and fired shot guns, bow and arrows, and hand guns.

 

[tonksy]

That may be a school to school policy.

We were taught sex ed in high school including procreation, sexually transmitted disease, and safe sex.


We also had Drug education including the types of drugs, how they are sold, what the effects are, etc etc

And we had Hunting/sporting that we spent extensive time on gun use, different gun actions, gun saftey, hunting saftey, boating saftey, and we all went to the firing range and fired shot guns, bow and arrows, and hand guns.

we had sex ed in virginia. drug ed, too. shot archery in p.e.
it must vary. it's a shame about sex ed, though. class actually answers alot of questions that kids have and are unsure how to ask, uh, plumbing-wise. sex ed is no where near what people make it out to be.

 

[MrBishop]

That's a ridiculous arguement. A relationship between two consenting adults is what we're talking about.

Really...what about a relationship between three consenting adults, or four/five etc...?

I can't remember the religion right now, but a few of them allow multiple-wives. Why isn't THAT legal?

 

[MrBishop]

Look...let's not get off the point. The point is...the moral majority rules. People would rather err on the side of conservatism rather than on the side of progress. So, those who are not sure about their decision will vote "No" and hope placate themselves into thinking that the subject will come up when the time is riper.

Now...I know a lot of gay couples...lots of them. Several of them come to my annual BBQ. One couple has been together for 20 years, 2months. One couple...who live a few blocks from me, are running on their 24th year together. One man who I work with, has been with his partner for close to 30 years now!!!

I don't see a problem with them getting married legally, or spiritually for that matter...BUT...I don't make the rules!

 

[paul_valaru]

Look...let's not get off the point. The point is...the moral majority rules. People would rather err on the side of conservatism rather than on the side of progress. So, those who are not sure about their decision will vote "No" and hope placate themselves into thinking that the subject will come up when the time is riper.

Now...I know a lot of gay couples...lots of them. Several of them come to my annual BBQ. One couple has been together for 20 years, 2months. One couple...who live a few blocks from me, are running on their 24th year together. One man who I work with, has been with his partner for close to 30 years now!!!

I don't see a problem with them getting married legally, or spiritually for that matter...BUT...I don't make the rules!

Maybe it's time people like us start making the rules, most people here live in democracies, it's time out voices are heard

VIVA LA REVALUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (a bit much, that last part)

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Really...what about a relationship between three consenting adults, or four/five etc...?

I can't remember the religion right now, but a few of them allow multiple-wives. Why isn't THAT legal?

Dude, You have lack of detail "itis" (dont worry, I suffered from it Severly in the george bush/war issues threads)


They are called Mormons. Founded by Joseph Biggham. (Thus the term "Biggamy" ((spelling?)). Mostly populated in the Salt Lake area of Utah.

They use the Bible same as any protestant and share 95% of the belief system with common protestant beliefs.

Where they differ is they have an additiona book "The Book of Mormon" which supposedly contains addition scripture centered around Jesus Christ with additional teaching and guides on proper living.

The "ladder day church of Jessus christ" meaning.....events in the ladder days of christ and appearances in more modern times of Christ not documented in the original 66 or so books of the Bible.

Well Catholics have an additional book to. Its called the "Aprochrapha" (spelling). Ive read parts of it....very intresting.


It is legal for a single man to marry multiple partners for Mormons in Utah.

In general the "moral majority" cant say shit about it. The Mormons general belief system is waaaaaayyyyyyy more stringent tham most protestants (no caffiene, no smoking, etc etc.)

And the "moral majority" could easily have their own ways of living shoved down their throats on moral grounds if they even attempted to criticize this one issue.

PS. Your use of the word "vigilante" was incorrect in multiple threads as well.

 

[MrBishop]

Dude, You have lack of detail "itis" (dont worry, I suffered from it Severly in the george bush/war issues threads)

PS. Your use of the word "vigilante" was incorrect in multiple threads as well.

I don't have the time to hunt exact details at all times...I'm limited in my e-access. I'll post less but get my details better.

Vigilante - someone who bypasses the law in order to achieve a certain goal. To take the law into your own hands. Judge, jury and executioner. etc... Where am I wrong in that?

 

[AnomalousEntity]

I don't have the time to hunt exact details at all times...I'm limited in my e-access. I'll post less but get my details better.

Vigilante - someone who bypasses the law in order to achieve a certain goal. To take the law into your own hands. Judge, jury and executioner. etc... Where am I wrong in that?

Dictionary .com

One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
A member of a vigilance committee.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Spanish, watchman, vigilante, from Latin vigilns, vigilant- present participle of vigilre, to be watchful, from vigil, watchful. See weg- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vigi·lantism (-lntz-m) or vigi·lante·ism (-t-zm) n.

Websters:

Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation: "vi-j&-'lan-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date: 1865
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
- vig·i·lan·tism /-'lan-"ti-z&m/ noun

Your usage:

So...you witness something and become a vigilante. or...better yet, you shoot an innocent coming at you and looking mighty suspicious,

You use the term to describe a defensive situation and the text book definations clearly indicate the term to mean a person taking OFFENSIVE action against criminals.

Break down in case you dont understand:

A person pulls a gun on you and you defend yourself-Self Defense

A person pulls a gun on you and you chase them off, you then pursue them and get in your car and chase them down- Vigilante.

The term Vigilante does not apply to any manner or from of self-defense...only when offensive active pursuit, hunting, actively seeking out etc etc. does the term "vigilante" apply.

The courts have upheld and fully agreed with this "benchmark" of determing vigilante and thus illegal and unnecessary actions on an individuals part.. Although law enforcement does meet the definition of the "benchmark"

Defensive actions are clearly not defined this way and the courts agree with this also.

Its not that complicated.


PS. I didnt need the internet to look up Mormons, their activities and beliefs are pretty much common knowledge (and fodder for jokes) to most people.