»Gay marriage, yes or no?«
|
|||
 Quote: as if church authorities weren't stupid to fall for something like that and still know that it's marriage. what? so you're saying that church authorities ARE stupid enough to fall for something like that...? ... Quote: I was following this fine until this.
So you're saying "Just because you don't call it marriage doesn't mean it is"? I think oscargabriel has some problems with his his wording.. 
posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Gay marriage, yes or no? |
|
|||
 If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Marriage involves giving certain CIVIL rights. There are certain aspects of marriage which are contractual and involve a recognition from the state that a bond exists between that couple. Denying such rights to gay couples is a suppression of civil liberties. However, the right to have a Church marriage is different. Every religion has marriages and it is not certain that all religions consider homosexuality sinful, but each religion is a kind of club. If you break the rules, you don't get the priviledges - end of story. Homosexuals do not demand a religious marriage (and if they do, that is between them and the religion concerned). What they demand is governmental recognition of their relationship just like a heterosexual couple would receive. To deny them this is bigotry - there's no other way to look at it. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: ...and you're obviously NOT a conservative Christian. Got you huh?  No I'm not. Quote: what? so you're saying that church authorities ARE stupid enough to fall for something like that...? No. Remember that Marl proposed a solution in which gay people would be "married" and have the same legal benefits of such, but will not be "legally married" if you know what I mean. It's just the same shit but without the name. And then you said that churches weren't stupid to fall for something like that and that even if they don't call it marriage it still is marriage. Then I said "Yes it is", that meant that I was agreeing with you.  Quote: I think oscargabriel has some problems with his his wording.. Sorry for the confusion there. 
posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||||||
 Maybe someone could list the LEGAL reasons for marriage = the benefits:
Oh, well here are some more:  posted by knn |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|||
 Quote: Marl proposed a solution in which gay people would be "married" and have the same legal benefits of such, but will not be "legally married" that was me but anyway  , i still don't see an option D in the poll!Quote: D. gay people should be able to get "married" and have the same advantages married people do, but don't call it marriage posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: i still don't see an option D in the poll! This is the same as "No, but abolish all differences between 'married' and 'living together' " posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: No. what then? Quote: that meant that I was agreeing with you :utterly confused: posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 If it's not a serious thing, they will divorce any way. If it is, they have the fullest rights and reasons to be married. I understand that the whole question is more about their legal rights and whether gay marriages should be granted the same rights as heterosexual ones. Yes, why not? The fact that they are both men/women doesn't really change anything, does it? Both partners choose to live together, and if let's say one dies the other one should have the right to inherit. If they decided to marry, they must have had reasons for it. Well sure if such a marriage will be allowed, for some time people will go crazy and marry after two days together. Well, heterosexuals do the same, don't they? posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Ok fine they do deserve to be married and have the same rights as non gays do. But i have to agree with nocturnal in the sense that the church created marriage. Marriage is a religious word. Since (this is wrong) christianity and religion in general discriminates against gays, sjould they be allowed to marry? Hypothetical situation I start a club, I invite all my friends and don't invite people i hate. Now (presuming there is no rational reason for my hate) I should let them join. But I do have the right (not at all saying it is right) to exclude groups of people if I see fit. I am not saying this is right. In fact i beleive it to be morally wrong but churches have the right to choose who can marry. But of course marriage nowadays does not really have a christian meaning to most people it is a union and nothing more. Just like christmas has been adopted by many groups of people besides christians. If you speak of marriage without religion and as a union only then the church has no right to exclude any groups. posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Marl64: "Marriage" is just a word applied to the act of a cerimonial commitment. It is the commitment that is important, not the name. And in legal terms the law should be applied to the act, not the name. That is what all the fuss is about. The "fuss" isn't just about legal recognition. It's about equality. A drinking fountain for "colored people" is the same as a drinking fountain for "normal people", but the connotation is clear --- segregation, discrimination, prejudice. The United States already went through it's "separate but equal" phase. It was tried out and thrown out, and only KKK extremists miss it. Isn't it clear that "separate but equal" shouldn't be applied to homosexuality either? Kupov: But i have to agree with nocturnal in the sense that the church created marriage. Marriage is a religious word. Not true. The Christian church had nothing to do with the creation of marriage. Marriage existed for thousands of years before Jesus was a gleam in Mary's eye. +"ancient egypt" marriage ♣ +"ancient china" marriage ♣ But even assuming that Christianity invented marriage, why does that give Christianity exclusive rights to define what marriage is? When a representative democracy was established in the United States, the only people who could vote for representatives were white male property owners. Does that mean that females, minorities, and people who rent should not be allowed to vote today? Clearly, the definition of suffrage has changed over 200 years. Thus, no matter who invented it, marriage is subject to evolution as well. Kupov: If you speak of marriage without religion and as a union only then the church has no right to exclude any groups. And that is exactly the stance that the government should take on marriage. The United States strongly maintains the separation of church and state. If the government makes rulings on marriage from a religious bias, then the separation of church and state is breached. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I just thought I'd update this (didn't want to waste a new thread on the same topic): Canada has became the fourth country in the world to legalise gay marriage.
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to adopt the legislation despite fierce opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders. The bill grants same-sex couples legal rights equal to those in traditional marriages between a man and a woman. The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain are the only other nations that allow gay marriage nationally, although a number of Canadian provinces have been allowing such legal unions for some time. Opponents fear churches and religious officials could be sued for refusing to carry out same sex marriages. But while the legislation grants gays and lesbians the right to full civil marriages, it makes clear that religious officials would not be obliged to marry same-sex couples. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: But while the legislation grants gays and lesbians the right to full civil marriages, it makes clear that religious officials would not be obliged to marry same-sex couples. And that's exactly the way it should be. Then nobody is shoving their beliefs down anybody else's throat. Conservative religions can continue to only marry heterosexual couples, and don't have to violate their beliefs. Meanwhile, same-sex couples will receive equal recognition and status. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: And that's exactly the way it should be.  we rock.
posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kupov: we rock.You do! 
posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
this can not be a  ccepted posted by turkishguy |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 12 February 2012, 21:07 php B.B. |