Well, no. The topic is on same sex rights, do they deserve to marry. There was no mention in the OP that the topic was to be expressly litigious. And even if you were right, why would you bring up the Bible at all, if the discussion was purely about the legality of homosexual marriage?


And I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider any discourse into the realm of law to be banal and contrived, hardly the material required to evoke a rousing discussion. I much prefer to discuss morality.

Then go away; this topic is about the legality of same sex marriage.

Amen.

Oh then this is easy.

Marriage, as an institution recognized by the government, is completely separate from the religious variant. They coincide, but having a fanciful ceremony in a nice big church with "official" religious persons does not qualify you to be recognized to be married by the government. Not in any legal sense. You have to apply and get a marriage license for the state to recognize it.

Because of the separation of church and state, "marriage should be between a man and a woman," is both irrelevant and an attempt to inject Christian doctrine into what should be a secular nation. Such a policy is in violation of the legal precedent set forward by the supreme court and the rights guaranteed to all people by the bill of rights. It is an egregious form of discrimination to allow such a thing.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 31 2011, 7:08 pm by Sacrieur.

Your irony is delicious, Jack. I checked the first page, and you want to know what I saw? I saw you - second post in this entire thread - saying this: 'Incorrect. We don't allow it because God says it is immoral. Like stealing, rape, extramarital sex, etc. '

Well, all right. Maybe you were just STATING that and that wasn't your actual argument. Well, that's cool if you were just trying to correct someone.

'This is because marriage is religious. The state should never have got involved with something which is the church's domain.

I don't know exactly why homosexuals, and straight atheists for that matter, even want to get married (beyond the tax benefits and other state-related advantages). I have the feeling there are plenty of homosexuals who don't want to get married simply because they don't want to be seen as copying the hetereosexual way; perhaps lanth could confirm or deny this.'

Funny. That sounded just a bit like a moral reason to me. Why, if I'm not mistaken it looks like you're using some vague legal reason to justify religious reasons. I don't know why, but that just seems dishonest and underhanded. With that said though, If you leave out the morality, there actually isn't a reason to be against same sex marriage, given that most of the reasons are moral ones. Fragile and shallow ones, but reasons none the less. The truth about marriage though - and you're going to hate this - is that it's not actually a religious institution anymore if you think about it, so religion in general doesn't actually have a say in the legality of same sex marriage. This is especially evidenced by the fact that Atheists can get married. Not just that, but you don't even have to get married at a church. The only cases in which it could be considered religious is if it were to be held at a religious building by a religious couple.

If you want legality, we could also discuss on how I should have the right to be free of religion and how I shouldn't have my rights infringed upon based on some religion getting upset about it. You know, something about freedom and liberty?

It's kind of sad really. These fundamentalists try so hard to ban gay marriage and yet they're the ones that always end up getting butt hurt. We need same sex marriage. I'm not anti - religious but I think we need to ban Christians from marrying. Think about it. Most people in the U.S.A are religious. If we ban religious people from marrying, we lower the divorce rate. With just atheists and gay people marrying we'd have less divorces and still enough people to keep the tradition going. See, it's a perfect plan. My argument on why banning Christians from marrying is just is this:

Marriage has never been sacred. Sacred would imply it's infallible - that it's perfect. Divorce rates prove otherwise along with how it had to constantly mutate to fit in with modern societal norms. Only an imperfect and non sacred entity would ever have the need to evolve. To furthermore prove I'm not anti - religious I just want to make it clear that I don't hate Christians, (In fact, I have a christian friend) it's just that I find two Christians marrying offensive to my belief that there is no god. I should have the right not to have their belief in god enforced in my secular churches.

Did what I say sound stupid? Good, because I've been hearing dumber things than that throughout my life that were actually unintentionally stupid. Have a nice day.

Edit - Fuck, I think Sacrieur beat me to it.

Yep, I was correcting Tempz; that wasn't my argument.
'This is because marriage is religious. The state should never have got involved with something which is the church's domain.
I don't know where you see me using a vague legal reason to justify religious reasons. It is a societal institution for some, a religious institution for others, and a mere state institution for yet other people. No, religion doesn't have a say in the LEGALITY of same sex marriage; I don't recall myself arguing that it does. Separation of state and church implies that the church cannot define whether or not the state can have state marriages and control who can get married. The state can say you can get married to your dog, if it really wants to. That doesn't mean that I have to recognize that marriage, nor does it mean that churches have to carry out a marriage ceremony for you and your dog.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. My entire argumentation was based off marriage being a religious institution in the West; I can concede it no longer is a religious institution for many and I don't think I could truthfully say I oppose the state allowing state marriages of homosexuals, in terms of what I think the state should control. I don't think the state should be involved at all, to be precise. If two people want to say that they will commit to a relationship forever or for a short time or whatever, so be it. Now, if there were more Christians around and the nation was a Christian nation, we would most likely have the situation such as some African nations, where homosexuality is illegal, and the issue of homosexual marriage wouldn't even be an issue, and I'd support us being in that kind of a nation. As long as the government doesn't force me or my church to acknowledge gay marriage or carry out a gay marriage ceremony, I don't especially mind per se.

You seem to do drive-bys of threads and start raging at people who might not even be involved in the thread. I'm not Westboro Baptist Church.

Also, sacredness doesn't imply perfection. Don't know where you got that idea from.

What?? Did you just say that since being gay in Africa is illegal it isn't a problem?? People die because of that. Do you know how many people would die if suddenly it was illegal in the west - assuming they are able to push legislation for it?

I'm saying I would like Western countries to return to having homosexuality be illegal, much as it currently is in many countries in the world, and as it used to be.Why would lots of people die if it was made illegal in the West? (assuming homosexuality didn't have a death penalty; if it did I can see a lot of people dying, yes. And there would presumably be some protests and riots and such).

I think that was part of Shadow Fox's sarcasm.

What would the end game be to outlawing being gay other than death? Imprisonment? Fines? Of course there would also be rioting and protests. I feel what you would be asking for would end in war mongering, witch huntting and unnecessary (as well as expensive) legislation and enforcement.

Lucky you weren't born gay Jack.

Sacred is holy. I'd think something that's holy should be above the flaws and imperfections of man if it actually happens to exist. Therefor, perfection. I don't believe I was writing to someone that wasn't involved with this thread. I believe I was writing to you. And finally, I believe the point here was 'Legality of same sex marriage'. Can we have some consistency in what argument you want?

'If there were more Christian nations and this was a Christian nation . . . '

More Christians? Now you're just screwing with me. What, do you think that most Americans are Jewish? I hate to tell you this, but Christianity is obviously the majority here. I especially love on how you attribute homosexuality being illegal in Africa to the fact that it's supposedly Christian. I find it ironic that you of all people is actually - perhaps inadvertently - blaming religion for it. That's something I'd expect out of a rabid atheist. If anything, I should be the one saying that. If that's not fucked up enough, I'd be willing to actually defend Christianity, if only partially. Religion isn't the reason why gay people are being executed in Africa. It's a tool and it plays it's part, but it's more or less how the place is rife with ignorance, poverty, and superstition. Which I guess says a lot more on the kinds of people that are against same sex marriage than how it's particularly because of religious belief. Up in Russia, they didn't even start having gay rights pretty much until the U.S.S.R collapsed. And if there's one thing for certain, that was certainly not a Christian nation at the time.

It's not because of religion. The truth of belief in general is that it doesn't matter what faith people hold. They'll damn well believe whatever they want to. They'll twist, they'll cherry pick, and they'll interpret whatever they read however they like to suit their own beliefs. Consider this: I love listening to music and watching movies. At times I even try to interpret what they're about. On occasion, I'll even get to hear the author actually share what the movie or song is about. And you know what I usually learn? I learn that I was completely fucking wrong.

Art is to be interpreted, not told. And in that regard, the bible shares quite a few similarities. It's a pretty big fucking book, and there's an unlimited number of ways you can interpret basically anything it says. If you don't agree to something it says, it can be a metaphor. If it doesn't fit modern societal norms, it's a metaphor. If you agree with it, it's literal. When people have a problem with homosexuality, they only show their immaturity and lack of responsibility when they feel the need to blame their religious affiliation for their own views. If someone has an issue with homosexuality it's probably not because the bible says so, but because the person them self does and will interpret the bible in the particular way that suits their beliefs.

Don't agree with me? Well, I'd love to hear whatever argument you have on how else throughout history countless acts of genocide, torture, and war have been justified through a book that has always been about a man that always preached about peace, respect, and spirituality.

And finally we actually get to my point. I'm not going to compromise with these churches just because they live in their own little delusional bubble. It's not because of their religion that they're against same sex marriage, it's because they choose to be against same sex marriage. These people that run these churches grew up in a world where homosexuality was still a crime, homosexuals were pedophiles, and homosexuals were demonized. That's why they hate us, and it has quite little to do with their religion. Nations that have employed same sex marriage has an approval that only ever increases. And the reason is quite simple - because those horrible scary gay people are finally given a face. And from then on, it doesn't take too long for the churches to actually accept it. No, really. There exist churches that don't just tolerate it, but actually accept it.

To be completely honest, at first I was thinking 'Well, okay Jack. same sex marriage being approved is good enough. Churches shouldn't be held against their will.' But you know, I'm not so sure these churches should be protected by 'Religious Freedom' when I am quite doubtful their religion truly plays a part in their bigotry. Much in the same way a business shouldn't fire a homosexual or a person shouldn't have a homosexual be evicted (which, they actually can in some places, sadly) I don't believe a church should be exempt from that. Choosing to ignore and pretend that Adam and Steve aren't married isn't going to change that. As for gay couples marrying at churches, just deal with it. I'm a pissed off animal rights activist, and yet I have to put up with people that wear fur. And between the two issues, I'd think the one that has a bunch of animals killed over a fashionable status symbol is just a bit less petty than rejecting two guys the equal privileges simply because they're screwin' each other.

If I have to put up with fur when that offends me, churches have to put up with gay guys fucking when it offends them.

I should point out that it would be far easier philosophically and administratively if the government just pulled its hands out of the marriage business once and for all. Leave that up to your religious affiliations and all persons are treated equally under tax law. You can create legislature for next of kin arrangements, etc.

Shadow, are you saying chirches should be forced to marry gays if they don't want to? I hardly agree with that - some churches don't marry couples that get remarried or that are outside the church family or require couples to go through specific counciling. Or there's the fact we live together out of wedlock; churches don't look kindly on that. By saying a gay couple can't be married at a specific church the gay couple aren't singled out. When my boyfriend and I get married we are going to have a little bit of trouble finding a church too.

I don't mean to diminish gay rights, but what I'm saying is that I would not storm a church demanding they marry us on the grounds it isn't my place to force them. I do not force you to be straight or to wear fur - I would expect you to extend the same courtesy to me and not force a church to marry you.

Why would you want someone who thinks your a pedophile to be part of your special day anyways?

Actually, I pretty much agree with you. Those were things that came to my mind and I actually was thinking that maybe churches should be given the ability to deny people service. Furthermore, I also understand that it's probably better off giving them these privileges. I guess the truth is I just think it's ridiculous that we're probably going to have to wait a good ten - twenty years after same sex marriage is finally legalized for the more bigoted churches to start lightening up and realize how petty they're being. Just kind of seems like a waste of time to just wait for them to finally acknowledge we already know.

As for your final comment, I wouldn't personally care for marrying amongst such people, but I do believe some couples would due to the scenery meanwhile others because they're Christians.

I'm more interested in why Jack thinks his god creates people gay, and then condemns them for it.

I suspect he is of the belief, like so many other religious people are, that homosexuality is a 'choice' and not a genetic disposition.

Yer, here is something you should know. Jack has his own made up definition of the word "Christian" which is synonymous only with "Calvinist" (his religion). He rejects Christianity as an umbrella term that encompasses all Christians. So, everyone who isn't a Calvinist isn't a Christian; ergo, most of America isn't "Christian". Yer, silly, I know.


As to the whole marriage 'controversy', I'm all for civil unions. Hell, civil unions all around, hereto and homo. Marriage is just some vestigial societal remanent of a culture that was once dominated by religious belief - abandon it.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 17 2012, 2:48 pm by Oh_Man.

I'm assuming by scenery you mean in a church, correct? I know that the Episcopal Church has approved blessing services for gay couples. If you have never been in an Episcopal church they are quite beautiful. I'm assuming a blessing service is not the same as a wedding, but I think the real battles behind the services a gay couple can share when joined needs to be fought with the state, not with the church, for recognition.

This.

The government should grant civil unions, nothing else. The word 'marriage' would be purely honorific and used by churches or anyone else who wanted to describe their union in such terms.

I think what Sacrieur meant was that the government should not recognize civil unions at all, whereas you're just arguing semantics.

The government does grant only civil unions; they just call it by its commonly understood term. A marriage as recognized by the state does not have anything to do with your beliefs, as two people of any faith or lack thereof can be recognized as married by the state. Satanists can be legally married. Polytheists can be legally married. Hell, the natives of this very land legally allowed same-sex marriages until the colonists took over (look up two-spirited people if you're curious). Marriage by the state is not equivocal to marriage by the church; they are using the same word for two different things, just like how Americans and British folk both use the words "chips" and "biscuit" to refer to that which are different things. So again, I say you're arguing semantics.

I believe the state should use the word "marriage," though, for the "separate but equal" arguments I made... over a year ago...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 18 2012, 1:44 am by Roy.

Except that Sac also said this:
Which, is what the existing marriage legislation does. So really you can equally say that Sacrieur is also just arguing semantics: replace the legislation for "marriage" with some other disparate legislation that provides the same legal benefits.

In New Zealand, we have Civil Unions (any two consenting adults) and we have Marriages (male-female bonds only). There is currently a bill before parliament to extend marriage to any two consenting adults which is likely to pass - but civil unions will continue to exist. My argument is that we should get rid of marriage as a legal entity entirely.