|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 1, 2004 22:58:30 GMT -5
Hey. I had some thoughts about the infamous gay marriages going on here.
I personally am in favor of them. It seems to me that it doesn't matter, let them decide. If it bothers some people, tough. It bothers me that you are not giving me 5 dollars right now. I'm just going to have to deal with it.
The only other argument I've heard is the reason that it says in the Bible not to. Seperation of Church and State, therefore the Bible should not be in a law, therefore Gay marriages should be legal.
It seems pretty obvious to me.
My challenge: Is there anybody out there who believes Gay marriages should be outlawed? Why?
-pie
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 3, 2004 9:40:02 GMT -5
I have no opinion on the matter but marriage is a church thing you only have to get a mariage lisence so the stat can register you and you can share social secruity and what not.
|
|
|
Post by Supremor on Mar 4, 2004 15:47:58 GMT -5
I have to say, I don't see any moral objection to gay marriages.
I think that people who say that gay couples aren't allowed to get marriage lisences, are just being nasty. They want to be the only ones to have the privalige.
I would also bring up the many problems that arise, when gay people have accidents or die, and the trauma that this brings their partner. You'd think that a person, somebody's lived with for 40 years, has the right to call him/herself the legal partner.
Also, what is all this nonsense about gay couples adopting. They're doing a moral and responsable thing in adopting a child who doesn't have a home. One could argue that this is infact more moral than having another baby through child birth, because every baby that is born, allows another one in a home to go neglected.
However I do not support gay couples having children. This seems to me to be one of the responsabilities of being gay. You can't go into a homosexual relationship without the full knowledge that two people of the same sex, cannot biologically have children. So what if the technology is there. Technology is there to help medical problems or to make up for nature's mistakes, not to change its natural processes.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Mar 4, 2004 21:12:41 GMT -5
I personally am so tired of homophobia that I could scream. I have no problem with two people who love each other just as much as a heterosexual couple could getting married, living together, and raising children. So what? What's so wrong there? People can't find any reason other than "the Bible says so" so (politicians especially) they simply resort to saying, "It's just wrong" or "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman." Oh, give me a break. People are just scared of what's different than them. Discrimination and hatred towards homosexuals is just like racism, sexism, or any other ism.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 4, 2004 21:24:14 GMT -5
I agree Griffey, half of my friends are gay. But marriage is a religion thing, the only reason there are marriage lisences is for tax purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Supremor on Mar 5, 2004 11:15:05 GMT -5
That's a good point Griffy. Many so called politicians do seem to object on a homophobic basis. I personally live in Brighton( supposodly the gay capital of Europe), so being homosexual isn't really a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Mar 6, 2004 8:41:10 GMT -5
I persoanlly see no reason for objecting to same-sex marriages. Marriage is not a religious institution, contrary to what the churches wish to think. Marriages have existed (in one form or another) since well before the establishment of the Judeo-Christian religions.
Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals who are committing to a property succession agreement. As with any other form of contract, the only things that are required to make it valid are two willing parties, terms of an agreement and a witness. Also, many jurisdictions do not require that the contract be written. Many (but not all) accept the implied contract (i.e. not written/common law).
I think it is arrogant of any church organisation to claim that they hold the sole rights to marriages.
I presonally feel that churches should not be able to oversee the signing of a marriage contract. I believe that, as this is a legal contract, accepted by governments, it should be overseen and witnessed by people who are not religious leaders. Most church weddings do have an independant witness (one of the bridal party, for example). I think this is acceptable, but I do not think that any clergy should be able to act as a witness on the document.
My preference, however, would be to have a civil contract, in all cases, and if a religious couple would like to have a chuech ceremony afterwards, they can.
With respect to homosexuals, they should be allowed to have a contract binding them together, financially, which is all that a marriage contract does.
Where I live, (in Ontario, Canada,) same sex partnerships have been acknowledged as valid common law unions (implied contracts) for many years under the Insurance Act (and other similar legislation). It is now legal for homosexuals to have a written marriage contract as well. Should it be named something else? I don't think so. A marriage contract is a marriage contract. If the government goes the way of having "civil unions" and "marriages", I feel that every couple should have to perform the civil union (the enactment of the legal contract), then have the marriage ceremony seperately in their church.
I do, however, feel that churches should be able to decide their own doctrines with respect to who is eligible for the church ceremony. Just as I feel very strongly that governments be free of pressure from churches, I feel that governments should not be allowed to write church ideology and doctrines, as long as those church doctrines are not endangering other citizens.
|
|
Jewel
Broken-in Plebe
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
Posts: 80
|
Post by Jewel on Mar 16, 2004 9:12:46 GMT -5
I'm very pro-gay marriage. I believe everyone should have the same rights. And no, this shouldn't just be sanctioned by religion. In fact, it should stand on its own.
My wedding was very non-religious. We DID have a minister (after trying like hell to find a justice of the peace for a ceremony on a weekend), but he refrained from any talk of religion & gave us a kind blessing at the end of the ceremony.
Jewel ;D
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 4, 2004 14:17:15 GMT -5
Nonny,
Half your friends are gay?!? Where do you live? Greenwich Village?
Gay marriage: How about we privatise marriage? Let any 2 ( or 3,4, 5 ) people call themselves married if they want and not make it a gov't affair.
If some people want to be able to make medical decisions for others, leave them money after they die etc, then let anyone enter into a binding contract under the conditions they choose.
If not, be ready for polygamists asking for the same thing gays are asking for in a few years. I don't have anything against it, but accept it or try to find a coherent reason why gay people should be able to wed but not polygamists.
You can't make an argument from tradition as in:"it's been a 2 person affair for a very long time" and be in favour of gay marriage because that same tradition would forbid gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 4, 2004 14:37:30 GMT -5
You can't make an argument from tradition as in:"it's been a 2 person affair for a very long time" and be in favour of gay marriage because that same tradition would forbid gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, Christians should not be claiming the high moral ground when it comes to family values anyway. The traditional family values that we hear described in the media and from church pulpits isn't even Biblical!!! Polygamy and the service of concubines is biblical, cannibalism and murdering babies is biblical, abortion (in a sense ... cutting open the bellies of your enemies pregnant women) is Biblical, incest (on at least 4 momentous occasions, including the birth of the Saviour) is Biblical. It's high time that the Christians stopped using the word Christian in their commentary on family values and started using their heart for something other than a half-way house for their saviour! The only humanitarian option is to allow all rights to be administered equally. **gets off her soapbox and meekly joins the crowd**
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Apr 4, 2004 16:20:14 GMT -5
No BSR I just happen to have gay friends. It isn't a big deal. Do listen to a lot of talk radio b/c I have heard that arguement many times.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 4, 2004 17:09:05 GMT -5
Non,
"Do listen to a lot of talk radio b/c I have heard that arguement many times. "
No, only when I'm on the bus and I have to.
Auntie, Sure, I was saying that if you dismiss the "it's always been between a man and a woman" argument, be ready to have others dismiss the "it's always been two people" argument as well.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Apr 4, 2004 17:31:40 GMT -5
Hey, talk radio is different in Canada. We aren't talking Rush Limbaugh and "Dr." Laura here. Don't be knocking the CBC based on what the far-right in America is peddling.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 4, 2004 17:32:42 GMT -5
Yaw is right.
Has anyone listened to Air America yet? How is it?
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 4, 2004 19:01:57 GMT -5
BSR - a good friend of mine listens to it frequently ... actually, it has greatly impacted his ability to be on-line and chatting with me ... so my view of it is skewed, it is evil ... lol
Actually, most of my friends are enjoying it.
|
|