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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
None.