Same-sex marriage should be legalized

[philly]

Honestly i dont see what the problem is it's a freakin WORD.

 

Not quite. It is an issue legally for gays (if ever its legalized). If its called "marriage", nothing needs to be changed in most laws. If its called a "civil union" and treated as something other than marriage, laws will need to be rewritten defining exactly what that is and what rights are associated with it. Much easier to deny equality by defining it as something else.

 

Thats the problem right there, the American religous groups are making such a stink over it, that it will probably be leagalized in more states before the federallies get their hands on it.....

 

I really h8 talking about american politics and civil liberties.

[nuages]

anyone ever see that daily show where they did the thing about same sex-marriage delaying people from getting married :P it was hilarious!!

 

edit:

found it here its at the bottom, queer and present danger it is called.

 

[TetsuoShima]

Honestly i dont see what the problem is it's a freakin WORD.

 

Not quite. It is an issue legally for gays (if ever its legalized). If its called "marriage", nothing needs to be changed in most laws. If its called a "civil union" and treated as something other than marriage, laws will need to be rewritten defining exactly what that is and what rights are associated with it. Much easier to deny equality by defining it as something else.

 

Thats the problem right there, the American religous groups are making such a stink over it, that it will probably be leagalized in more states before the federallies get their hands on it.....

 

I really h8 talking about american politics and civil liberties.

 

I also think it might be something of a religious issue, the word, but since appearently (and I'm counting on Ruk delivering accurate information, not that I have a reason to doubt that btw ;) , I just never knew this...) they sort of 'stole' the term from the state (be it a long time ago), so maybe it's time for the church to edit their naming scheme a little...

 

Now, that of course won't happen any time soon, but if it would, it might make things easier... No changing of laws, the word used can be marriage and the church can do what it wants (which is not allow it probably)...

[philly]

Honestly i dont see what the problem is it's a freakin WORD.

 

Not quite. It is an issue legally for gays (if ever its legalized). If its called "marriage", nothing needs to be changed in most laws. If its called a "civil union" and treated as something other than marriage, laws will need to be rewritten defining exactly what that is and what rights are associated with it. Much easier to deny equality by defining it as something else.

 

Thats the problem right there, the American religous groups are making such a stink over it, that it will probably be leagalized in more states before the federallies get their hands on it.....

 

I really h8 talking about american politics and civil liberties.

 

I also think it might be something of a religious issue, the word, but since appearently (and I'm counting on Ruk delivering accurate information, not that I have a reason to doubt that btw ;) , I just never knew this...) they sort of 'stole' the term from the state (be it a long time ago), so maybe it's time for the church to edit their naming scheme a little...

 

Now, that of course won't happen any time soon, but if it would, it might make things easier... No changing of laws, the word used can be marriage and the church can do what it wants (which is not allow it probably)...

 

If i remember right here in Canada when we legelized it some churches stated that they would not marry gay couples for the sole reason of the term/word marrige. Didnt affect gay couples gettin married tho...

[creativeT]

Wow - interesting. Yes it is legal in Canada. Marrying sheep... One has to wonder, would they give you as much of a "problem" as any other spouse? hmmmmm ;-)

[Antipodean]

I also think it might be something of a religious issue' date=' the word, but since appearently (and I'm counting on Ruk delivering accurate information, not that I have a reason to doubt that btw ;) , I just never knew this...) they sort of 'stole' the term from the state (be it a long time ago), so maybe it's time for the church to edit their naming scheme a little...[/quote']

 

 

I think I've mentioned it earlier... but the difference you're refering to you is NOT an issue the term being 'hijacked' by "them" from the state (which you seem to be tying into the church and religion somehow?).

 

Marriage is an institution which preceeds most states and most contemporary religion.

 

As I said before, the distinction to be made is of

 

1) The religious sacrament of marriage

 

and

 

2) The secular institution of marriage

 

 

Now secular recognition of marriage is centuries old. Further, most western nations have provided legal means for civil weddings for at least half a century. Marriage is not and should not be confined to those who are of a particular faith.

 

 

If it is because you reckon marriage should only be a religious sacrament that you oppose gay marriage - then why don't I see anybody here opposing marriage for atheists?

[TetsuoShima]

I also think it might be something of a religious issue' date=' the word, but since appearently (and I'm counting on Ruk delivering accurate information, not that I have a reason to doubt that btw ;) , I just never knew this...) they sort of 'stole' the term from the state (be it a long time ago), so maybe it's time for the church to edit their naming scheme a little...[/quote']

 

 

I think I've mentioned it earlier... but the difference you're refering to you is NOT an issue the term being 'hijacked' by "them" from the state (which you seem to be tying into the church and religion somehow?).

 

Iwas referring to post #5 on this page by Ruk, maybe I read more into it then there was. Or maybe I don't entirely understand you post, I had trouble determining what it was you wanted to say...

 

Marriage is an institution which preceeds most states and most contemporary religion.

 

As I said before, the distinction to be made is of

 

1) The religious sacrament of marriage

 

and

 

2) The secular institution of marriage

 

 

Now secular recognition of marriage is centuries old. Further, most western nations have provided legal means for civil weddings for at least half a century. Marriage is not and should not be confined to those who are of a particular faith.

 

I agree, but I'm just saying that I could understand it if the church opposed the naming of it, so to say, just also call it marriage would imo probably be opposed by the church, because they don't think highly of such relationships I believe, now I have no basis for this statement, so correct me if I'm wrong (or maybe you allready did and I just didn't get it).

 

Now I understand religious marriage and secular marriage is not the same, over here most people marry twice you know, once for the state and once for the church, before they are allowed to marry for the church, they have to follow quite a few courses about I don't know what (I'm not yet married and not that interested in church, the reason I know is that my sister is married both for state and church), and also be baptised and a whole lot of other stuff...

 

If it is because you reckon marriage should only be a religious sacrament that you oppose gay marriage - then why don't I see anybody here opposing marriage for atheists?

 

Well, I'm having some trouble interpretting what you're saying in the first part of this, but I hope you're not saying that I oppose gay people getting married, because I don't.

 

I do see your point about atheists. And that indeed makes me wonder. It could be because the state does not register what religion you have and as such the church has no basis to oppose it for them.

 

Again I add that I do not know whether the church opposes the gay-marriage, but I could somehow understand it if they did.

[Antipodean]

I do see your point about atheists. And that indeed makes me wonder. It could be because the state does not register what religion you have and as such the church has no basis to oppose it for them.

 

 

 

NO. It is because in any true democracy and in any civil society we have this wonderful doctrine of the separation of Church and State.

 

This protects each individuals right to worship as they see fit... and it protects government from becoming a theocracy.

 

 

Of course, if you feel that religion is the basis on which government should be organised... feel free to move to Iran.

 

And then tell me what you think of the state being a religious institution. I guess over there you at least wouldn't have to worry about gay marriage... but at what price?

[TetsuoShima]

NO. It is because in any true democracy and in any civil society we have this wonderful doctrine of the separation of Church and State.

 

This protects each individuals right to worship as they see fit... and it protects government from becoming a theocracy.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the church can't influence political decisions, now does it... And I'm pretty certain they do! Even corporations influence political decisions, all it takes to influence politics is either a large base willing to hear your ideas or a very large amount of money involved. If you think that governments are not influenced by either, than I suggest you do some research in the matter...

 

 

Of course, if you feel that religion is the basis on which government should be organised... feel free to move to Iran.

 

And then tell me what you think of the state being a religious institution. I guess over there you at least wouldn't have to worry about gay marriage... but at what price?

 

I don't know how you keep doing this, but you seem to be set on finding everything that might be interpretted wrong in my statements... Some of us on this forum actually have good intentions you know!

[Antipodean]

I'm sorry TetsuoShima if it appeared the "you" in that paragraph was directed at you specifically. That was my fault for using ambiguous language.

I wanted it to read so that the "If you" was generic so that any readers who DID feel that way would know that the following comments were addressed at them.

 

 

I know you're not a religious fundamentalist mate, so once again - I appologise for any offence caused. :)

[Guest c4evap]

What if the sheep doesnt love you?

I'd probably get really depressed, and have to go on prozac. ;)

 

Yeah, but if you took prozac you'd just sit around with your sheep watching TV all day. Of course if you gave the sheep prozac... ;)

 

EDIT: Noticed a post about poor spelling. So here's a link to a web-based spell checker if anyone needs one.

 

EDIT: Question - Does seperation of church and state become a moot point when a religious man like Bush is elected?

 

c4 B)

[Ruk]

If you think that governments are not influenced by either, than I suggest you do some research in the matter...

 

There is a difference between a religion influencing the government, and the leader of that religion actually giving government orders. The head of the SBC might be listened to by President Bush, but Bush still can't just go out and outlaw abortions as that group might want. Influence is not the same as control (although I wouldn't doubt that some polititicans are completely bought and paid for by somebody).

 

 

 

[StitchInTime]

What if the sheep doesnt love you?

I'd probably get really depressed, and have to go on prozac. ;)

 

Yeah, but if you took prozac you'd just sit around with your sheep watching TV all day. Of course if you gave the sheep prozac... ;)

Well, in that case, I think we'd still both sit around all day watching

TV. :rolleyes:

[bbbb]

Come to Canada, where there are no laws and Canada is a joke to other countries. Just look at our crappy military, they can't even bring a new sub home without making a scene. We legalized same-sex marriage and now we're trying to legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroine for "medicinal" purposes. Remember that gay marriage is a fundamental right and that cocaine use is perfectly acceptable in our civilized country. Did I forget to mention that if you are in government you get a free criminal act for every dollar you donate to the House of Commons? Or that if you report a crime you can be punished? Now if you commit the crime, hey, that's ok you know, it's not like you actually wanted to do it. If you speak English in Quebec you can be punished. Remember, speaking English in Quebec is NOT COOL! Having laws is NOT COOL! Gay marriage is a fundamental RIGHT you know, just like our culture of entitlement, pot and organized crime. It's all ok you know! So come to Canada, EH!

[bbbb]

And no I'm not on crack, the CBC tells us to think this way! Must obey government and its propaganda media outlet, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

[StitchInTime]

And no I'm not on crack' date=' [/quote']

No, sounds like speed to me. ;)

 

. . . the CBC tells us to think this way!

They do?

[Potato]

Speaking as a married US citizen, why would anyone want to get married?

 

I want to pay higher taxes.

I want to have to buy stuff I don't want in order to save money, even though I'd have saved more by not buying anything.

I want my spouse to run off with someone else and take everything I own. (2 of every 3 marriages end in divorce you know).

I want my credit rating to depend on someone I have no control over.

I want everything I do to be questioned.

I don't want to have sex.

 

Sounds like something everyone should strive for, doesn't it?

 

[thedrtim]

 

Dont get me wrong I have nothing against any couple having equal legal and financial protection its just the idea of calling it marriage that kind of grates

 

This is an extreme example I know and I know i'm gonna get flamed for this.. but... what about equal rights for beastiophiles what is so wrong with people having sex with animals

 

DUDE I THINK YOU'RE WAY OFF THE MARK HERE!!! ALTHOUGH PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS AND SOME PEOPLE GET MARRIED SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE SEX, COMPARING AN EXLUSIVE UNION OF 2 HUMAN BEINGS WITH ITS EMOTION AND MUTUAL COMMITMENT TO SEXUAL ACTS PERFORMED WITH ANIMALS, IS JUST SO NOT RIGHT.

 

THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT ANALAGOUS

 

IF NOTHING ELSE, IT COMES DOWN TO THIS. I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO MARRY YOUR SHEEP SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME. IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS IF NO-ONE IS HARMED. IN THE SAME WAY THAT 2 PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX SHOULD HAVE YOUR SUPPORT BECAUSE THEIR MARRIAGE WON'T AFFECT YOU. OR ANYONE ELSE.

 

NOW PEDERASTY IS DIFFERENT. WE DONT WANT PEOPLE SLEEPING WITH KIDS BECAUSE IT HARMS THE CHILDREN. BUT SPEAKING OF PEODOPHILIA, IF YOU RESIDE IN THE STATES YOU SHOULD PERHAPS LOOK AT YOUR MEDIA FOR EXAMPLES OF CONDONED "KIDDY PORN".

 

THINK: THOSE OLSEN TWINS, BRITNEY IN HER FIRST VIDEO AND DOZENS OF OTHERS. THESE ARE MAINSTREAM DEPICTIONS OF TEENAGERS IN HYPERSEXUAL, CYBER FANTASY GET UP.

 

YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, THE CONTRADICTION IS ASTOUNDING. ON THE ONE HAND, SEX SELLS SO YOU GOTTA PUT BRITNEY IN A SCHOOL GIRLS GET-UP. ON THE OTHER, YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE, MAINLY YOUNG KIDS BUYING IT. WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT SEXUALITY IS FAR MORE HARMFUL IN MY MIND THAN A COUPLE OF PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED AND SETTLING DOWN IN THE SUBURBS.

 

ACTUALLY, SCRATCH THAT, THE SUBURBS ARE EVIL.

 

THEY SETTLE DOWN SOMEWHERE FUNKY.

[kyran]

it's now legal in england for same sex people to get offically joined together :)

 

share pensions and such

 

devorce is gonna be easier i bet

 

[theaveng]

Dont get me wrong I have nothing against any couple having equal legal and financial protection its just the idea of calling it marriage that kind of grates

 

 

You're right. And I think it's horrible that we allow inter-racial "marriages", Blacks & whites. Asians & whites. Hispanics & whites. That's not marriage. That's just SICK & should remain outlawed.

 

/end extreme sarcasm

 

 

 

POINT - It's not up to you or I to define who can or can not marry. Marriage is a PRIVATE affair between two individuals. We have NO business telling them what they can or can not do.