Homosexual marriage!
X_Stickman
Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
in Discussions
I think the forum filters the word ######, so I put homosexual instead. It should make for an interesting thread.
So. Homosexual marriage has been a big thing in America recently, with many states having to decide on it. Recently, New Jersey had a vote in the senate on legalising ###### marriage. The vote was 20 - 14 against, so <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/nj_senate_rejects_bill_legaliz.html" target="_blank">###### marriage remains illegal in New Jersey</a> (although civil unions for same sex couples remain in effect, they're not equal to marriage).
In America, only 4 states have homosexual marriage (5 begining in february this year). Some have civil unions that are supposedly equal to marriage. Most of the others outright ban it.
It's probably fairly obvious by my tone that I am in favour of homosexual marriage (and no, I don't consider civil unions, even if they have the same legal status, as equal to marriage), and frankly I'm both disgusted and amazed at the amount of opposition it faces.
So what're your thoughts on it?
So. Homosexual marriage has been a big thing in America recently, with many states having to decide on it. Recently, New Jersey had a vote in the senate on legalising ###### marriage. The vote was 20 - 14 against, so <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/nj_senate_rejects_bill_legaliz.html" target="_blank">###### marriage remains illegal in New Jersey</a> (although civil unions for same sex couples remain in effect, they're not equal to marriage).
In America, only 4 states have homosexual marriage (5 begining in february this year). Some have civil unions that are supposedly equal to marriage. Most of the others outright ban it.
It's probably fairly obvious by my tone that I am in favour of homosexual marriage (and no, I don't consider civil unions, even if they have the same legal status, as equal to marriage), and frankly I'm both disgusted and amazed at the amount of opposition it faces.
So what're your thoughts on it?
Comments
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010604016.html" target="_blank">Uganda's Bill To Imprison Homosexuals</a>
I, myself, haven't got a problem with them. If they want to get married, it doesn't really affect me. I suppose them receiving the same tax benefits as hetero couples negatively impacts my country's revenue stream, but I'm willing to sacrifice a few dollars so they can receive the rest of the legal benefits (visitation rights, end of life decisions, estates, ...). The supposed moral issues critics have don't really have any weight with me. People should only be imposing their religious codes on themselves.
Why not? I say we remove marriage from the law altogether, for it is too tangled up with religion. Just replace it with civil union in the law and let the religions deal with marriage as they will.
There are those who view marriage as a legal institution and consider ###### marriage a matter of equal rights (myself included). And there are those who regard marriage as a religious institution and wish to preserve its "sanctity" or whatever. Give them both what they want.
I also think marriage as a religious ceremony shouldn't be touched but the gov't with a 12 ft pole.
Banning ###### marriage breaks both.
I find the discussion on Same-Sex Marriage to be funny actually. In Canada, where I live, it has been legal for 5 years now. No one cares about the issue anymore. It's not even a topic of discussion.
I am for same-sex marriages. I don't see why not really. They are just people and should receive the same benefits as everyone else. And I don't buy the religious argument.
Because they're different. It's a way of saying "we'll let you play with the normal people, but remember, you're not really normal."
<!--quoteo(post=1746206:date=Jan 8 2010, 01:09 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jan 8 2010, 01:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1746206"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say we remove marriage from the law altogether, for it is too tangled up with religion. Just replace it with civil union in the law and let the religions deal with marriage as they will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's one of the ideas I support. Make "marriage" a non-legal term and have the legally recognised term be "civil union" or "domestic partnership", reserving the word "marriage" for religious ceremonies only.
But that won't work, because despite what people say about wanting to keep marriage religious, they still want their religious definition legally recognised.
Back when california introduced same sex marriage, their marriage licenses were changed to aid it. Rather than "bride" and "groom", the forms simply said "partner A" and "partner B". Keep in mind that this is a purely legal, text based thing; it appears on the form, nowhere else. They still had the right to call each other bride and groom if they so wished. This is as close to the idea you and I put forward above as I've found.
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/ridiculous_sanctimony.php" target="_blank">People pissed and moaned anyway.</a>
It's pretty obvious that they want "marriage" to remain as both the legal and religious terminology, so I won't consider it equal until same sex marriages are same sex marriages, not same sex partnerships or unions.
We suck. We are still the same horribly puritanical sheep that enjoy forcing their world views on others. It is all sorts of depressing, and I doubt that it will change anytime soon. Why? Most of our voters are easily controlled by fear, and those opposed to same-sex marriage are damn good at fear mongering.
Remember, these are the same people that believe that there is a "Homosexual Agenda" out there that is out to convert little Timmy to wearing a dress, lisping, and being a damn good interior decorator. Why do they believe this? Because the man on the Radio told them it was true.
In summation:
We Suck. There are no rational arguments against Same-Sex Marriage. Depot and a_civilian summed it up nicely. All of the arguments are religious based, yet we are SPECIFICALLY not a religious nation (despite all evidence to the contrary).
Too bad the US has laws specifically prohibiting your religion getting in the way of legal matters then, huh?
Unless, of course, you condone breaking the law. And the constitution.
The Bible is not a legal document. Your church can perform marriage ceremonies for whomever it wishes, but specific interpretations of religious texts have no place in legislation.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OFkeKKszXTw"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OFkeKKszXTw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw</a> </div>
(Does posting a video count as making an argument?)
Tell me, which of the other bible sancitoned practices do you support?
Banning homosexuals from church?
Slavery?
Beating your insubordinate wife?
Raping and murdering the women and childen of your enemies when you defeat them in war?
Or do you cherry pick your morals from a 1600 year old book like the rest of the morally bankrupt opposition to Same-sex marriage?
I think a_civilian hit it on the head. From a legal point of view, there should be only civil union for everyone, and let the religious do whatever they want on top of that with their ceremonies and keep their backwards thinking out of civil society. If they don't want to bless same-sex marriage, that's their bussines and good luck to them.
If you make a choice to coexist with someone for your mutual benefit you can do that with or without marriage, but if people want to get married I don't see why they can't. I also however do not see why any of the legal benefits of marriage should be exclusively bundled in with all the other parts of marriage, you can be codependent with someone without any of the conventional connotations that come with marrying them, so you should be able to get that legally recognised in and of itself.
Basically marriage can philosophically and emotionally mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people and you should have the legal right to practise it with whatever meaning you assign to it, if you think it's a holy covenant between you your partner and god, go find a church that agrees and get them to talk to god about it. If you think it's an entirely secular decision to mutually benefit each other through increased efficiency by working as a collective, go find a borg ship and have them assimilate you. Homosexuality is pretty irrelevant compared to all the possible interpretations of marriage considering it's usually cited as being 'I love him/her and we want to be together' which is pretty much what a lot of heterosexual couples use as a justification (as if anybody ever needed one) for getting married.
But then who would be our priests?
Get it?
Because priests molest little boys.
Get it?
Banning homosexuals from church?
Slavery?
Beating your insubordinate wife?
Raping and murdering the women and childen of your enemies when you defeat them in war?
Or do you cherry pick your morals from a 1600 year old book like the rest of the morally bankrupt opposition to Same-sex marriage?
I think a_civilian hit it on the head. From a legal point of view, there should be only civil union for everyone, and let the religious do whatever they want on top of that with their ceremonies and keep their backwards thinking out of civil society. If they don't want to bless same-sex marriage, that's their bussines and good luck to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you puzl
Banning homosexuals from church?
Slavery?
Beating your insubordinate wife?
Raping and murdering the women and childen of your enemies when you defeat them in war?
Or do you cherry pick your morals from a 1600 year old book like the rest of the morally bankrupt opposition to Same-sex marriage?
I think a_civilian hit it on the head. From a legal point of view, there should be only civil union for everyone, and let the religious do whatever they want on top of that with their ceremonies and keep their backwards thinking out of civil society. If they don't want to bless same-sex marriage, that's their bussines and good luck to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are obviously confusing history with God's word.
That being said, the one I have always kinda wondered is:
The primary objection to Same-Sex Marriage is a religious one, and generally Christians at the spear head. Why don't they take issue with other non-Christians getting married? Jews and Muslims might get a buy, after all they are all closely related and worship the same god, mainly differing on the prophets/messiah (and translations). But what about the pagans? Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, or the self proclaimed Pagans (Wicca and what not)? Why is there no objection to them getting a marriage license?
That being said, the one I have always kinda wondered is:
The primary objection to Same-Sex Marriage is a religious one, and generally Christians at the spear head. Why don't they take issue with other non-Christians getting married? Jews and Muslims might get a buy, after all they are all closely related and worship the same god, mainly differing on the prophets/messiah (and translations). But what about the pagans? Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, or the self proclaimed Pagans (Wicca and what not)? Why is there no objection to them getting a marriage license?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A Christian would take issue with ANY person not practicing "God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life." - no matter their faith, or even lack of it.
You seem to be ignoring the rather large and important issue, which is that reasoning behind a law should not just be "because x religion said so."
If you can't find a reason beyond "it sez so in dis book which I think is like totally holy" to deny a large group of people their rights, then you shouldn't be denying people their rights.
And an American would take issue with ANY person attempting to remove the separation of Church and State, and curtailing the freedoms of other mature and rational adults, where those freedoms do not harm others.
Not true. An aethiest or a non-believer may, but many "Americans" are Christians, amirite?
And stickboy, it's not cuz a book said so, it's because God said so - he's the one quoted in the book.
No, *a* god is *referenced* in *a* book.
And it *still* doesn't explain why it has anything to do with the law. Even if god were real and made sure everyone in the world knew it 100%, and even if that god were the very specific god of the christian bibles, then that would have precisely 0 legal weight in the american government.
If marriage is a religious institution, then the government should have nothing to do with it. If it is a secular institution, then the government should not favor one religion's view over another.
Also, just to be fair to all those that I have been slandering:
I know full well that there are MANY Christians out there that have no problem with same sex marriage.
Side note:
If the Bible is the word of God, then God condones slavery and some other rather unsavory topics (if you want to, we can get into quoting chapter and verse, just not in this thread). That is what puzl was getting at, as you well know. However I think that those arguments have no place in a discussion like this.
Also: apparently prop 8 starts the round of appeals today.