dontamend.com

[Natoma]

those evil people just happened to be christians. So i would assume that is why they wanted only christian weddings.

later,

Why is it you consider them evil epicstruggle? I mean, they were simply following the rules as they saw them, in their religion. They believed that christianity is the only true religion as told by their lord and saviour. And thus if marriage is a religious construct, and christianity is the only true religion, then a christian marriage must be the only true marriage.

That is exactly how they came about their decision to ban any marriage other than christian marriage. Why should they be evil? Don't you want them to maintain their religious and moral code? Why should the hindus and the muslims be included in marriage when it hurts the christians, who created such laws, so badly?

I mean, discrimination, as long as it's religion-based, is good right?

I will say it again. Thank goodness for america and the founding fathers of our great nation that we have put such foolishness legally behind us. Sure our citizens may stray from time to time, but in the grand scheme of things the law will speak for itself.

 

[Sabastian]

The reason government became involved with the natural family unit and marriage is because of the financial difficulties sometimes run into when trying to raise children. Marriage is not a federally constructed social institution it is a religious/cultural institution. You are just snotty nosed because the religious institutions make marriage an exclusive arrangement between a man and a woman and not who ever decides to cohabitate on the grounds of love rather then the actual making of a human life. If I were you I would be happy with the label of a civil union with the same benefits of heterosexual marriage as opposed to egotistically trying to change an entire culture to suit you. If it were my choice you would not even get the benefits only a civil union.

 

[Natoma]

The reason government became involved with the natural family unit and marriage is because of the financial difficulties sometimes run into when trying to raise children. Marriage is not a federally constructed social institution it is a religious/cultural institution. You are just snotty nosed because the religious institutions make marriage an exclusive arrangement between a man and a woman and not who ever decides to cohabitate on the grounds of love rather then the actual making of a human life. If I were you I would be happy with the label of a civil union with the same benefits of heterosexual marriage as opposed to egotistically trying to change an entire culture to suit you. If it were my choice you would not even get the benefits only a civil union.

Guess what Sabastian. The government regulates Marriage. If you get married in a christian fashion, or a hindu fashion, or whatever fashion, your union will not be recognized by this government. You still have to go to a lawyer and sign all the legal papers to have the status of "Married" conferred upon you. You can get married merely by going down to city hall and having a judge confer the status of "Married" upon you and completely and utterly circumvent the religious construct.

I mean, what would you say to atheists who wish to get married. Sorry, you're not religious and marriage is a religious construct, so you can't get married. Please.

Also, the religious institutions in epicstruggle's country at one point decided that only christian marriages were legal and valid in the eyes of god, and thus banned any marriage that wasn't christian in nature.

 

[epicstruggle]

i give up on you natoma, what ever your on, seems to have killed many of your thinking/reasoning brain cells. Ill leave you with this to think about:"Hitler was a catholic, so all catholics must be guilty of killing jews." This is what I get from reading your last few posts.

later,

 

[Natoma]

i give up on you natoma, what ever your on, seems to have killed many of your thinking/reasoning brain cells. Ill leave you with this to think about:"Hitler was a catholic, so all catholics must be guilty of killing jews." This is what I get from reading your last few posts.

later,

It's called sarcasm epicstruggle. Thank you Simpsons and Married... with Children.

I tried clueing you in on the concept in the "A survey of our American friends and their politcal standing" thread, but I suppose you haven't caught on yet.

Besides, you're the one that called these people evil men who happened to be christian. I merely asked why you're calling them evil when they're merely trying to uphold as they see fit the rules and tenets of their religion.

 

[Sabastian]

The reason government became involved with the natural family unit and marriage is because of the financial difficulties sometimes run into when trying to raise children. Marriage is not a federally constructed social institution it is a religious/cultural institution. You are just snotty nosed because the religious institutions make marriage an exclusive arrangement between a man and a woman and not who ever decides to cohabitate on the grounds of love rather then the actual making of a human life. If I were you I would be happy with the label of a civil union with the same benefits of heterosexual marriage as opposed to egotistically trying to change an entire culture to suit you. If it were my choice you would not even get the benefits only a civil union.

Guess what Sabastian. The government regulates Marriage. If you get married in a christian fashion, or a hindu fashion, or whatever fashion, your union will not be recognized by this government. You still have to go to a lawyer and sign all the legal papers to have the status of "Married" conferred upon you. You can get married merely by going down to city hall and having a judge confer the status of "Married" upon you and completely and utterly circumvent the religious construct.

I mean, what would you say to atheists who wish to get married. Sorry, you're not religious and marriage is a religious construct, so you can't get married. Please.

Also, the religious institutions in epicstruggle's country at one point decided that only christian marriages were legal and valid in the eyes of god, and thus banned any marriage that wasn't christian in nature.

"Guess what" a culture that recognizes a union between a man and a woman exclusively refers to it as marriage. Get over your fucking demands for equality to the letter. In my opinion homosexual unions are not the same and they ought not to be regarded as the same by the state and that is how I see it. No matter how much you go on and on I will still hold that opinion and even say so to anyone whom I have contact with.

 

[Natoma]

"Guess what" a culture that recognizes a union between a man and a woman exclusively refers to it as marriage. Get over your fucking demands for equality to the letter. In my opinion homosexual unions are not the same and they ought not to be regarded as the same by the state and that is how I see it. No matter how much you go on and on I will still hold that opinion and even say so to anyone whom I have contact with.

And south africa's culture recognized a union between a christian man and a christian woman exclusively as marriage. But I suppose epicstruggle and his hindu family and friends should get over their fucking demands for equality to the letter. Perish the thought to be treated equally under the law of the land right Sabastian?

In your opinion, homosexual unions are not the same and they ought not be regarded as the same by the state and that is most certainly how you see it. You can certainly have your opinion. The Canadian government, the Dutch government, the New Zealand government, and a host of other governments do not agree with you. And we've seen the american government move in that very same direction, if only a few decades late.

So again, you can have your opinion. That's fine and dandy. But your opinion does not a law make, thank goodness... It's people like you that would keep epicstruggle from being able to get married as a hindu you know. They'd just be against any recognized marriage that wasn't christian, and they'd be fine to have their opinions on the subject.

But that certainly doesn't make it law these days.

Sabastian, say hello to the green-eyed monster we call bigotry. It's ok to embrace it. Your government won't lock you away for it. And neither will it lock me and my partner away, and millions of homosexuals away, for being who we are.

Deal with it.

 

[Sabastian]

Marriage is universally recognized as a union between a man and a woman without exception around the world. I have no problem recognizing similar cultural norms such as marriage between a man and a woman no matter what religion. I won't ever recognize homosexual union as the equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

I thought that green eyed monster was envy. I got no more time for you this very early morning. Gots to go back to bed.

 

[Natoma]

Marriage is universally recognized as a union between a man and a woman without exception around the world.

Canada, New Zealand, The Netherlands, and a host of other countries disagree and state that marriage is recognized as a union between two persons, leaving the door explicitly open for same sex marriages.

I have no problem recognizing similar cultural norms such as marriage between a man and a woman no matter what religion. I won't ever recognize homosexual marriage as the equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Well it's a good thing you're not the one issuing marriage licenses in canada isn't it?

I thought that green eyed monster was envy. I got no more time for you this very early morning. Gots to go back to bed.

Envy and Bigotry are both Christian sins, and as we all know, sin to God is all equal, from the smallest to the biggest. So the green eyed monster is interchangeable. Have a good night.

 

[RussSchultz]

Besides, you're the one that called these people evil men who happened to be christian. I merely asked why you're calling them evil when they're merely trying to uphold as they see fit the rules and tenets of their religion.

Sometimes you're a stupid git. Ever consider its not because you're gay you have so much trouble having people accept you?

As epicstruggle is trying to tell you (but you seem happy to ignore and interject your deep understanding of South Africa political life) they didn't enact these laws to further their religion, it was simply a tool by those in power to uphold aparteid. Nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with power.

 

[MfA]

Whereas the honorable politicians who are proposing to amend your constitution have no ulterior motives whatsoever I am sure

 

[Sabastian]

Whereas the honorable politicians who are proposing to amend your constitution have no ulterior motives whatsoever I am sure

Like the politicians promoting homosexual marriages don't have any sort of ulterior motive. The moral of equality is being promoted in a biblical sense isn't it?

Or is that imperative Marxist/egalitarian hell bent on the atomization of society so that no social institution should be upheld over individuals by the state and all for the motive of realizing the welfare state. The institution of marriage should be upheld by the state as marriage between a man and woman exclusively.

 

[MfA]

Homosexual marriage is more of a side-effect of anti-discrimination laws (which tend to be in direct opposition to traditional marriage laws) than of politicians specifically pushing it ...

It might not be entirely clear in the US with its homogenous political landscape, but I doubt support for the gay marriage is really a left only thing. Over here our most fiscally conservative party voted in favour of gay marriages.

 

[RussSchultz]

It might not be entirely clear in the US with its homogenous political landscape, but I doubt support for the gay marriage is really a left only thing.

Those against it aren't soley right wing fundies. The proposed amendment is bi-partisan and, believe it or not, democrats can be religious also.

 

[Tim Murray]

It might not be entirely clear in the US with its homogenous political landscape, but I doubt support for the gay marriage is really a left only thing.

Those against it aren't soley right wing fundies. The proposed amendment is bi-partisan and, believe it or not, democrats can be religious also.

Well, you just shot your entire argument in the face. If being religious is the primary factor for deciding whether or not this amendment is a good thing, then shame on those who dared to propose it.

Read the First Amendment. Not a summary, but the actual text.

Trying to change the Constitution to promote views based solely on your religion goes against the spirit of the United States.

(oh my God, I just called the religious right un-American...)

 

[RussSchultz]

Quite the opposite: the amendment is about keeping the government out of religion.

 

[Tim Murray]

I still fail to understand how changing the federal government's definition of "marriage" infringes upon religion.

The Supreme Court (I believe) already upheld that a private organization can have its own guidelines for admission (Boy Scouts) and that the government is not allowed to order them to do otherwise.

So how are churches different?

 

[RussSchultz]

"Marriage" is a religous construct, regardless of how much Natoma will tell you it isn't. Having the federal government redefine "marriage" to mean "any two people" is overreaching the bounds of the government as set by the constitution .

Since the supreme court is the sole arbiter of interpreting the constitution and seems to be willing to do this, there is a movement to prevent the this by explicitely laying out in the constitution what is a marriage and what is not.

Not that it prevents anybody from passing laws bestowing equal "rights" to civil unions under the amendment(regardless of Natoma's dire warnings). I'm all for removing marriage out of the government, including the "rights" that go with it and replacing it with a civil union (of which an islamic marriage, a jewish marriage, a christian marriage, etc is a subset thereof).

If you had actually read the thread, you'd see that there isn't anybody (except maybe Sabastian) who's commenting that thinks civil unions shouldn't have the same rights.

 

[Tim Murray]

"Marriage" is a religous construct, regardless of how much Natoma will tell you it isn't. Having the federal government redefine "marriage" to mean "any two people" is overreaching the bounds of the government as set by the constitution .

Semantics. If a couple can be married in the eyes of the law but not in the eyes of religion (which is true I know for Catholics, probably true for all Christian denominations as well), then it is a legal concept just as much as a religious one.

So, I once again fail to see your problem with calling marriage a bond between two people instead of a man and a woman. It doesn't change the religious definition of marriage, merely the legal one, and in this case, that's the only one that matters.

 

[zurich]

The institution of marriage should be upheld by the state as marriage between a man and woman exclusively.

Well, with any luck you live in Alberta, otherwise you're fucked.