Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Are you trying to argue that if we let two consenting adults get hitched, we're on a slippery slope towards removing age of consent laws?

We're already on the slope, because we're changing the definition of "marriage" from that of a religious rite to that of carpentry. And once the term means "joining" then the mechanics are up for grabs.

You do have to assume that your opinions have consequences. How could they not? If a group didn't believe in interracial marriages, they'd be in the same boat.

Untrue; one can't decide to be black, which is why there's such eagerness by <some> queers to take the "devil made me do it" claim of genetic cause.

Doesn't really put too fine a point on it, as you could say the same about extending marriage to anyone except rich, white landowners.

Now you've lost me. How is a millennium-old social rite only applicable to rich white landowners?

Incidentally, I had to LOL when I read the wiki entry about same-sex marriage history. It provides a couple of vague assertions about contracts, completely ignoring the fact (as does the weak base article) that these were not generally equivalent to marriage, co-existed with actual and societally-enshrined marriage, and in at least one case had to do with instruction in prostitution.

EDIT -

No. They want the word, the label "marriage" the title and all legal rights that come with it.

Sorry, that's untrue. In many cases they already have the legal rights under the civil union. It's exclusively about the label, which as I said before, has the religious connotation.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

And whether you realized it or not, that's exactly what the current situation IS in many states, though your claim of civil unions being totally different is bogus. That consideration ain't good enough for the queer folk.

I need sarcasm tags for the "like, totally different". It amazes me that people on both sides of the aisle want the term 'civil union' (or other comparable terms). On the religious side the more moderate are willing to accept *** people being in (more or less) the exact legal arrangement as a heterosexual couple as long as the identical legal agreement is called something different. On the non-religious side the more extreme want a legal agreement that is identical to marriage but don't want it called 'marriage' due to the historical background to marriage.

But as to the point - having 'civil unions' for secular 'marriages' and 'marriages' for Church* performed 'marriages' solves nothing - I have no doubt that there will be religious groups who would be happy to marry *** people. And unless you want the Government to rule on which religions are true and which are not the term 'marriage' would also apply to those *** couples.

I noted the opposite.

I accept that there is a section of moderate* religious folk who are OK with *** marriage, as long as it isn't called marriage, but it sure seems that those who are opposed to legal civil unions are also opposed to *** marriage.

*moderate meaning towards the centre of the religious vs non-religious spectrum.

To each their own - and I'd use 'queer' to avoid so many asterisks if I were you.

I considered it, but figured that in many cases people can tell from context if the word should be ***, ***, *** or ***.

I'm sure someone will take offense no matter what name is used

I agree 100%

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Please don't get me wrong. I am very against *** marriage.

I can dislike it for multiple reasons. One of those reasons is because it opens even more cans of worms than just itself.

And yes, children vs adult is a social construct. I think most of us would agree that many 18 year olds are really overgrown children. There are also very mature 15 year olds. But it'd be difficult if everyone was judged on their own merits, so we picked an age that is when puberty ought to be finished and declared everyone above there is "adult" and can "legally" have sex with whomever they want, as long as that other person is also an "adult".

Of course, the age of consent only recently went from 12 to 18 in the US. And what do we know? We're practically an infant country. We should go with the long term standards of Europe and Asia as the baseline. Without doing any research, I'm going to guess that for the past 1,000 years, the average "adult" became that age around 12 to 13.

So please, argue why we should consider this new trend to be anything other than a blip on the radar. Or admit you're OK with anyone and anything getting to call themselves "married".

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Untrue; one can't decide to be black

And people don't decide to be ***. They either turn out to be *** or they are just born ***.

Sorry, that's untrue. In many cases they already have the legal rights under the civil union.

I got an idea. Why don't you call what you have a "civil union". Visit friends and introduce your wife as your "civil life partner" and see how fitting it feels.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

People don't decide to like 14 year olds, either. Why should they be labeled as criminal or sick when all that needs doing is "fixing" a relatively new law?

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

People don't decide to like 14 year olds, either. Why should they be labeled as criminal or sick when all that needs doing is "fixing" a relatively new law?

People are free to like 14 year olds and have sex with them legally. Assuming they are themselves in the same age range.

 

[KremBanan]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Why cant Jesus or God just cure those ****ing homos??

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

We're already on the slope, because we're changing the definition of "marriage" from that of a religious rite to that of carpentry. And once the term means "joining" then the mechanics are up for grabs.

True.

But age of consent is an entirely different mechanic not solely related to marriage. Hence, it's not on the slippery slope; it's an extra barrier, in this case.

Untrue; one can't decide to be black, which is why there's such eagerness by <some> queers to take the "devil made me do it" claim of genetic cause.

Now you're dividing discrimination into "right" and "wrong" categories. If a man kills someone, I don't care if it's because he chose to do it or because he has a genetic flaw that compels him to kill people; I'm going to "discriminate" against him by not inviting him over for tea.

Which is, again, why I'm against discrimination laws. I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised that by discriminating against a particular group, you'll be targeted for it (as wrong-headed as that might be).

Now you've lost me. How is a millennium-old social rite only applicable to rich white landowners?

Well, if we don't define it so narrowly, then it's meaningless of course.

 

[jel]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Why cant Jesus or God just cure those ****ing homos??

Why should they be cured if they like it the way things are?

Short sight is also a disorder, still many people doesn't choose to get a laser surgery or even contact linses.

Removing someones rights relative to the laws due to a disorder/disease, is a big no-no, the same goes for previous convicted people, again they've equal rights just like everyone else at every time.

However if we're talking about marriage in the sense that it has to be in a church, then the church should always be free to deny or accept whoever they wish, it's not anything there should be laws about, it's like a grocery store, if the owner doesn't want you there, you can't go there anymore, unless you can do it without being spotted.

Yes the reasons are of course wrong, but the consequinces in cases like this should not come from the state (forcing priests to marry people) as that'll just make the priest focus on the unfair treatment he/she is being handled and not focusing that it's actually him/herself that's unfair. No the consequences should derive through the shift in the market, which means that fewer and fewer people will have faith in the church if the church behave in a manner that's not acceptable for others. That way they're going to learn it the hard way, and there won't be any supreme force that hinders them, no they'll see it'll be the people who by their own free will denies the church due to their unfair treatment.
As the church is dependent of the people (it does after all only exist for the people) they'll have to reconsider things when they see the consequence, in stead of them focusing on being forced to do something they don't want to, they'll most likely do it willingly.

Yes brute force method is way quicker, but I prefer that people gain some insight and you let it take the time it takes.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

So please, argue why we should consider this new trend to be anything other than a blip on the radar. Or admit you're OK with anyone and anything getting to call themselves "married".

You want the government to legislate which religions are official?

 

[KremBanan]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Wasnt Jesus a homo?

I mean.. he always had men close by, never was with a woman, didnt get any children and never got married.

 

[jel]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Wasnt Jesus a homo?

I mean.. he always had men close by, never was with a woman, didnt get any children and never got married.

Maybe, maybe not, all you listed doesn't make it more likely, as there exists other possibilities than either homo or hetero, however if he had sex exclusively with men then yes.

However as there're no evidence of any of that I'd stay at maybe, maybe not.

 

[Uncle_Mike]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

I got an idea. Why don't you call what you have a "civil union". Visit friends and introduce your wife as your "civil life partner" and see how fitting it feels.

I consider that to be of secondary importance even if your argument is valid. It's not about how we call it, it's about protecting the rights of *** people or allowing them some of the rights of the straight. I for one find it more important for them to be able to be recognized by the state than for them to be a marriage.

I think that churches have the right not to recognize rights of *** people with regard to marriage, they follow different rules and traditions.

You being Swedish does seem to change the perspective since for some reason you seem to consider the existance of 'civil unions' somewhat common which is not the case for a lot of countries.

We've had a post from Lativia already, Poland is another example where it takes guts to even admit to being ***.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

I consider that to be of secondary importance even if your argument is valid. It's not about how we call it

My point is that people often go "hey you got civil union. You have most of the same benefits so it's fine right? But if those people themselves had to call their marriage a civil union they would lose their ****ing minds. They would be outraged.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

I think that churches have the right not to recognize rights of *** people with regard to marriage, they follow different rules and traditions.

What do you mean by this? Churches have the right to restrict membership and access to rites in the Church based ok whatever their beliefs are, but they don't have the ownership of a word or it's use. As I said to others, making "marriage" a term that only applies to people married by a religious body only solves the issue If no religious groups offer *** marriage or if the government legislates which religious groups can marry people or what religions have to believe. Which is not something I think our bretheren on the religious right would be thrilled with.

 

[Uncle_Mike]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

What do you mean by this? Churches have the right to restrict membership and access to rites in the Church based ok whatever their beliefs are, but they don't have the ownership of a word or it's use. As I said to others, making "marriage" a term that only applies to people married by a religious body only solves the issue If no religious groups offer *** marriage or if the government legislates which religious groups can marry people or what religions have to believe. Which is not something I think our bretheren on the religious right would be thrilled with.

I mostly mean that marriage is just a word. For example, the Polish constitution states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It's not that I support that, but i'd argue that it's more important to take care of everyday problems of *** people rather than fight on how you are to call their relationship in legal terms.

I'd also assume that *** people would rather focus on their actual rights than on nomenclature.

 

[stillman]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

It strikes me as odd that homosexuals would want to do things the church way. According to the church, they are all going to hell without passing Go or collecting $200. That attitude alone should be a big hint that MAYBE the church is not the best institution to look up to. So, imo, shouldn't homosexual couples be happy to be called 'legally something' or 'civil union' or some other term? Afterall, 'married' is something that the church calls you, and the church ALSO calls you hellbound sinners, so... why would homosexuals want to be called anything by an institution that hates them?

Maybe Blizzard can hitch them and call them soul bound.

Ah, nevermind. Just a thought. It just occured to me reading this page that there are some people who are homosexual AND deeply religous. Oh man, they are so unfortunate. I have respect for homosexuals, and they have enough on their plate it seems. Imagine how hard it is for homosexuals who want to enter heaven, but they are constantly told they are sinful by nature.
That's got to be worse than not being allowed to marry.

Oh well, they should just come to Canada like Chuck and Larry.
(Actually, I hear marrage is a bad deal.)

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

And unless you want the Government to rule on which religions are true and which are not the term 'marriage' would also apply to those *** couples.

Point of fact being that the queers <are> demanding this, while the religious are not.

I accept that there is a section of moderate* religious folk who are OK with *** marriage, as long as it isn't called marriage, but it sure seems that those who are opposed to legal civil unions are also opposed to *** marriage.

Admittedly things would be simpler if the Gov't had never conflated "marriage" with "matrimony" in the first place. But that being the case, we'd still have legal polygamy in many states.

And people don't decide to be ***. They either turn out to be *** or they are just born ***.

Patently false. And aside from the initial falsehood, there's the secondary invalidity that 'nurture' <can> and <does> make people 'go ***', just as it does in the natural realm. Chickens and roosters can both turn queer when unnaturally penned in.

I got an idea. Why don't you call what you have a "civil union". Visit friends and introduce your wife as your "civil life partner" and see how fitting it feels.

ad hom aside, what relevance does this have? There's few occasions that I've had to produce my wife like a rabbit from a hat and hang a neon sign above her head proclaiming her status.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

But age of consent is an entirely different mechanic not solely related to marriage. Hence, it's not on the slippery slope; it's an extra barrier, in this case.

But, as with polygamy/bigamy, a far lower one than sexuality.

I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised that by discriminating against a particular group, you'll be targeted for it (as wrong-headed as that might be).

Puts me in mind of the discussion on 'hate crime'.

Well, if we don't define it so narrowly, then it's meaningless of course.

Ah, gotcha. Yes, this is definitely the case, insofar as only white males get to own land, and land is the only property which would be passed to children. Reality differs, of course, but marriage as a socio-economic facet was for creation of heirs and passing of lineage onto them. We could imagine the difficulties inherent in queer arrangements if a "child" is granted the inheritance, while a real child of one of the "parents" is disinherited. It is very likely in many courts that the real child would win at least a partial victory over the estate.

Wasnt Jesus a homo?

I mean.. he always had men close by, never was with a woman, didnt get any children and never got married.

I actually answered your feeble trolling some time ago, but I forgot whether it was in this thread. Obviously the concept of a sacrosanct existence escapes you. :whistling:

Ah, nevermind. Just a thought. It just occured to me reading this page that there are some people who are homosexual AND deeply religous.

I'm sure there's some, but a large number of them are Catholic clergy. There's far more Log Cabin Republicans.

Imagine how hard it is for homosexuals who want to enter heaven, but they are constantly told they are sinful by nature.

I doubt there's much of that, really, because of my aforementioned response of "hate the sin and not the sinner". If I'm a drunk, I'm not going to be constantly belittled in church unless I'm found passed out on the altar; likewise queer congregationalists aren't going to be (openly) slandered unless they're caught with their pants down amongst the choirboys.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

It should be put on the ballot and decided by popular vote in each and every state and then it should be accepted until the next election.

You mean like when the slaves where freed, women received the right to vote and black people where given the same rights as white people?

You can't vote on everything, the majority will vote away the rights of the minority for their own comfort.