Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Well it's not really marriage anyway it's a civil partnership, marriage is a religious ceremony, civil partnership is a legal recognisation of a couples right to be together, so religion is actually a complete non-factor in this.
Oh, and I support it BTW.
Poll
Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?
| Yes | 67% | 67% - 112 | ||||
| No | 27% | 27% - 45 | ||||
| I don't know | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Plead the fifth | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Other? (Please State) | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 165 | ||||||
It only counts as real marriage if God approves it.ghettoperson wrote:
Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Well it's not really marriage anyway it's a civil partnership, marriage is a religious ceremony, civil partnership is a legal recognisation of a couples right to be together, so religion is actually a complete non-factor in this.
Oh, and I support it BTW.
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.xBlackPantherx wrote:
My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends. It's how I raised myself.
So the majority of 'married' atheist's are not actually married?sergeriver wrote:
It only counts as real marriage if God approves it.ghettoperson wrote:
Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Well it's not really marriage anyway it's a civil partnership, marriage is a religious ceremony, civil partnership is a legal recognisation of a couples right to be together, so religion is actually a complete non-factor in this.
Oh, and I support it BTW.
Don't leave them alone with your kids, I wouldn't leave them with my kid, but I don't have a problem with them getting married.ATG wrote:
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.xBlackPantherx wrote:
My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends. It's how I raised myself.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-08-24 06:52:13)
Why? Because they're more likely to rape them than a straight person? Or because they'll give your kids 'the gay'?ATG wrote:
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.xBlackPantherx wrote:
My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends. It's how I raised myself.
Does the US not have secular government? If so, without religion is precisely the right way to look at the issue.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
It is involving religion in these types of debate that is totally wrong, but has become so much the norm that it is treated as the way it should be, which is very wrong. It's almost on a par with these backward countries that don't have secular governments - like in the ME.
Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-08-24 06:55:09)
I guess I'm not then, lol. Woot I'm single!!!!!!!ghettoperson wrote:
So the majority of 'married' atheist's are not actually married?sergeriver wrote:
It only counts as real marriage if God approves it.ghettoperson wrote:
Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?
Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.Bertster7 wrote:
Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Agreed. If they want to call it marriage I don't see the fucking deal there.ghettoperson wrote:
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.Bertster7 wrote:
Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-08-24 07:00:39)
When did I say it was the same thing? Should have all the same rights was what I said. Including rights involving adoption, because I totally disagree with comments like this:ghettoperson wrote:
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.Bertster7 wrote:
Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
As for why the need for differentiation, because it is different. It's also a less controversial way of branding it, which should lead to fewer problems from homophobic nutjobs.jord wrote:
Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
Deviant by nature in my opinion.ghettoperson wrote:
Why? Because they're more likely to rape them than a straight person? Or because they'll give your kids 'the gay'?ATG wrote:
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.xBlackPantherx wrote:
My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends. It's how I raised myself.
So you totally disagree with my comment, but do you disagree with the numerous comments about parents not leaving their kids with gays?Bertster7 wrote:
When did I say it was the same thing? Should have all the same rights was what I said. Including rights involving adoption, because I totally disagree with comments like this:ghettoperson wrote:
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.Bertster7 wrote:
Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.As for why the need for differentiation, because it is different. It's also a less controversial way of branding it, which should lead to fewer problems from homophobic nutjobs.jord wrote:
Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
Yes.jord wrote:
So you totally disagree with my comment, but do you disagree with the numerous comments about parents not leaving their kids with gays?Bertster7 wrote:
When did I say it was the same thing? Should have all the same rights was what I said. Including rights involving adoption, because I totally disagree with comments like this:ghettoperson wrote:
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.As for why the need for differentiation, because it is different. It's also a less controversial way of branding it, which should lead to fewer problems from homophobic nutjobs.jord wrote:
Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
Precisely the point, calling it marriage or using the term wedding at all is essentially wrong, marriage is simply a religious ceremony, the legal rights side of the partnership is not religiously based at all and should be applied to civil parnerships also, the same rights apply to couples from other religions whose marriage wouldn't be recognised by a Christian church so why should it not apply to a civil parnership?Bertster7 wrote:
I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
For those who aren't familiar with Civil Partnerships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_part … ed_Kingdom
This bit supprised me, kudos to the Scottish Church on this one for not being as uptight as the rest of the world.
In Scotland, however, all of the mainstream churches, except the Catholic church, offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.
Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2008-08-24 07:38:23)
The best way to resolve the gay marriage issue is to replace all government recognition of marriage with civil unions. Marriage is technically a religious institution, so the separation of church and state should prevail on both the federal and state levels.
If marriage went back to being a private religious institution, then churches could bicker over gay ceremonies, and the government could focus on enabling gay civil unions, which are clearly a civil rights issue. There is no legal way to back up the banning of gay civil unions.
If marriage went back to being a private religious institution, then churches could bicker over gay ceremonies, and the government could focus on enabling gay civil unions, which are clearly a civil rights issue. There is no legal way to back up the banning of gay civil unions.
yet people dont see the hypocrisy in criticizing shariahFlaming_Maniac wrote:
You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
Other.
Marriage should only be in relation to a given church.
Anything else should be a civil union with the same legal ramifications of a marriage. So, marriage should be a subset of civil unions. If you get hitched at the JOP, then you've got a civil union unless the JOP is an ordained minister.
If a church wants to sanctify a union between two people of the same gender, have at it. But don't have the state force that upon the churches if it goes against their basic tenets.
So...can't really talk "marriage" without talking about religion.
Marriage should only be in relation to a given church.
Anything else should be a civil union with the same legal ramifications of a marriage. So, marriage should be a subset of civil unions. If you get hitched at the JOP, then you've got a civil union unless the JOP is an ordained minister.
If a church wants to sanctify a union between two people of the same gender, have at it. But don't have the state force that upon the churches if it goes against their basic tenets.
So...can't really talk "marriage" without talking about religion.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Considering I don't even agree with what I wrote and it got such a violent reaction from a few different people, I'm not even going to try to back it up. The point is it is very stupid to in the OP essentially say "the other side can't mention the basis of their argument, because it is invalid".
edit: I also agree with the above two posts.
edit: I also agree with the above two posts.
Damn lowing, just when I thought I had you pigeonholed, lol. Nice...lowing wrote:
Yes I agree with gay marriage. Gay marriage does nothing to hinder everyone else's rights to life liberty and happiness. It also can not tarnish an institution that has a 70% failure rate already. I say more power to them, as long as special privileges and "rights" do not go along with it that is not afforded to everyone else.
Not to mention the fact that it is none of anyone elses business
Considering marriage has been around since before written history, I don't really know what Christianity or any other modern religion has to do with it. Religion wasn't even incorporated into marriage until the 9th century. Ancient Greeks even devalued marriage, saying Love was a thing between 2 men, and that marriage to a woman was for inheritance. Hell, if a woman's dad died with no male heirs, she could be forced to marry her nearest male relative.
So yes, you can have the marriage argument without religion, because marriage started without religion.
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2008-08-24 10:21:31)
i strongly agree with lowing's post
So true. Religion in general is often practiced in such an asinine way.God Save the Queen wrote:
yet people dont see the hypocrisy in criticizing shariahFlaming_Maniac wrote:
You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
Good point here as well. I love for the fundies to defend their views because it's usually pretty easy to tear them down. So yeah, I think it's a good thing to have them contribute. It gets pretty boring if only one viewpoint is expressed anyway.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Considering I don't even agree with what I wrote and it got such a violent reaction from a few different people, I'm not even going to try to back it up. The point is it is very stupid to in the OP essentially say "the other side can't mention the basis of their argument, because it is invalid".
edit: I also agree with the above two posts.
No it isn't.Turquoise wrote:
Marriage is technically a religious institution, so the separation of church and state should prevail on both the federal and state levels.
I don't know where this idea comes from, but marriage is not inherently a religious institution.
Let me restate... The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics. This is why it becomes a religious institution. There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic. The same could be said for other religions like Islam.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't.Turquoise wrote:
Marriage is technically a religious institution, so the separation of church and state should prevail on both the federal and state levels.
I don't know where this idea comes from, but marriage is not inherently a religious institution.
The point is... religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.
Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America. Granted, the irony is that your country's government has more of an official connection to religion.