Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Natoma]

Since you've been able to get a marriage license from the government without being married by a church?

Also, since the government doesn't recognize church marriages at all. You still have to go to city hall and sign your papers even if you've done the religious ceremony of walking down the aisle and what not.

The point was the marriage and religion have always been related (inseparable). However, govermnents should have moved to call their thing a "union" instead. What has happened is the blurring of the lines separating the 2 different institutions. A union and a marriage should be separate.

later,
epic

There has always been a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage in this country epic, which is what I'm concerned with. Christmas started off as being completely religious and now it's pretty much a secular holiday. Should we legislate that christmas can only be observed by christians now, and get santa claus out?

The official term of "marriage" may have begun in the religious realm, but it has long been separated from it in the civil sphere in this country. As I said, you can get a married at City Hall or by a Judge and never set foot in a church, and you can't get a governmenally recognized marriage if you simply get the marriage in a church and nothing more.

That alone gives the separation between religious and civil/secular marriage.

 

[epicstruggle]

There has always been a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage in this country epic, which is what I'm concerned with. Christmas started off as being completely religious and now it's pretty much a secular holiday. Should we legislate that christmas can only be observed by christians now, and get santa claus out?

Actually the problem i have with this, is govermnent(liberal courts, et al) mandating that cities cannot have nativity scenes, because somehow youll stumble on the scene and become a believer in christ. What a plate of BS.

The official term of "marriage" may have begun in the religious realm, but it has long been separated from it in the civil sphere in this country. As I said, you can get a married at City Hall or by a Judge and never set foot in a church, and you can't get a governmenally recognized marriage if you simply get the marriage in a church and nothing more.

Point being that what the govermnent does _should_ have been called something other than a marriage.

That alone gives the separation between religious and civil/secular marriage.

Im of the opinion that govermnent got into the marriage business to make an extra buck and to regulate who could or could not get married. Which it should promptly get out now, while we are debating this. Make the thing a union where you define(or not) all the possible variations acceptable, and leave marriages for churches. AFter getting a union, if you want and get married in a church thats up to you.

later,
epic

ps when did the govermnent start issueing marriage licenses, and what was the initial issues.

 

[Blastman]

I'd like a common sensical reason why gays shouldn't have the same freedoms of others, a reason that isn't derived from Judeo-Christian phobias.

Since when don’t gays have the same freedoms as other people in society???? A… “heterosexual” … has no more right to marry the same sex as a gay person does. A gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex just like a hetero can. Ergo … we have the same rights. This isn’t about the same freedoms as others, it’s about what we accept in society as right and wrong and what we allow and don’t allow.

 

[epicstruggle]

I'd like a common sensical reason why gays shouldn't have the same freedoms of others, a reason that isn't derived from Judeo-Christian phobias.

Since when don?t gays have the same freedoms as other people in society???? A? ?heterosexual? ? has no more right to marry the same sex as a gay person does. A gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex just like a hetero can. Ergo ? we have the same rights. This isn?t about the same freedoms as others, it?s about what we accept in society as right and wrong and what we allow and don?t allow.

Im not arguing with what your saying (actually i am of like mind), but since when is marrying a right? Im curious if the supreme court has designated marriage as a right and not a privilige.

later,
epic

 

[Florin]

Im not arguing with what your saying (actually i am of like mind), but since when is marrying a right? Im curious if the supreme court has designated marriage as a right and not a privilige.

later,
epic

The Supreme Court have declared it a 'fundamental right'. And that everyone should then be able to do it kind of naturally flows forth from affording each citizen 'equal protection' of the laws as defined in amendment 14. Marriage being a legal contract after all, with consequences for taxes among other things.

 

[Rugor]

Love between consenting adults is right.

Intolerance is wrong.

Is it really that hard?

The reason the government is in the marriage business is simple. Separation of church and state. In order for a marriage to have any legal standing it must be sanctified by the state. Religous marriages cannot affect secular legal standing or it would violate church and state. If the state did call it a "civil union" instead of marriage it would run into the same issue. Marriages would have no legal standing.

 

[Blastman]

Intolerance is wrong.

Nonsense. Are you going to tolerate a burglar walking into your house and stealing your computer? … and if you don’t does that make you intolerant? Are you going to tolerate someone like Hitler killing people and say that’s ok … … I hardly think so.

 

[Ty]

Intolerance is wrong.

Nonsense. Are you going to tolerate a bugler walking into your house and stealing your computer? … and if you don’t does that make you intolerant? Are you going to tolerate someone like Hitler killing people and say that’s ok … … I hardly think so.

So you're equating homosexual relationships with crimes? Are you suggesting that it should criminalized?

 

[John Reynolds]

Judeo-Christian phobias

Why when gays are brought up its always the judeo-christians that are blamed.

Not everyone is a fan of anal sex .

And I know a gay couple who've been together over 30 years and they don't engage in anal sex.

 

[Rugor]

Intolerance is wrong.

Nonsense. Are you going to tolerate a burglar walking into your house and stealing your computer? … and if you don’t does that make you intolerant? Are you going to tolerate someone like Hitler killing people and say that’s ok … … I hardly think so.

Your points would have been a lot more effective if they had anything to do with intolerance. I wouldn't worry about a bugler stealing my computer, though I might fear for my ears. As to a burglar breaking in to steal my computer, my disapproval of that has nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance. Tolerance has nothing to do with condoning theft.

As for Hitler, the intolerance was more his than anyone's who opposed him. I know a little about that subject, as I still have a copy of the birthday card my late uncle sent my mother while he was imprisoned in a Nazi POW camp.

Intolerance has nothing to do with opposing evil. Intolerance has to do with bigotry and hatred for those who are different.

From Webster's:

Intolerance n. 1. Refusal to tolerate opposing beliefs; bigotry. 2. Unable to bear or endure: with of: intolerant of opposition.

 

[Ty]

Judeo-Christian phobias

Why when gays are brought up its always the judeo-christians that are blamed.

Not everyone is a fan of anal sex .

And I know a gay couple who've been together over 30 years and they don't engage in anal sex.

And I'm sure there are (in absolute terms) more heterosexual relationships engaging in that as well.

 

[epicstruggle]

Intolerance is wrong.

Nonsense. Are you going to tolerate a burglar walking into your house and stealing your computer? ? and if you don?t does that make you intolerant? Are you going to tolerate someone like Hitler killing people and say that?s ok ? ? I hardly think so.

[snip]
Intolerance has nothing to do with opposing evil. Intolerance has to do with bigotry and hatred for those who are different.

From Webster's:

Intolerance n. 1. Refusal to tolerate opposing beliefs; bigotry. 2. Unable to bear or endure: with of: intolerant of opposition.

I dont hate gays, but i dont feel marriage is right for them. I guess im intolerant and a bigot.By the way those 2 words go both ways. By not accepting the way I feel, your a bigot and intolerant too.

later,
epic

 

[Blastman]

…Intolerance n. 1. Refusal to tolerate opposing beliefs; bigotry. …………..

I'm a little baffled then by your use of the term intolerance in context with what I saw as a reference to homosexuality. (ie …… "Love between consenting adults is right."). Perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that Christians/people that believe homosexuality is wrong are being intolerant? Intolerance can be defined so loosely that everyone is intolerant unless we all agree on everything.

So you're equating homosexual relationships with crimes? Are you suggesting that it should criminalized? …

My reference/analogy to the burglar was a roundabout way of stating that the fact that people impose morality on other people doesn't make them intolerant. But do I think homosexual relationships are morally wrong? Yes.

 

[Rugor]

Ahh, but I do accept that you feel that way. I just don't agree with it.

You have every right to dislike, disapprove of and disagree with gay marriage. However, others have the right to disagree with you. Your disapproval of it is perfectly fine as long as you do not force those who don't agree with you to abide by your beliefs.

The traditional, and fallacious, counterexample is that to allow gay marriage is intolerant of those who disagree with it. However, this is a false example. Allowing gay marriages does not prohibit others from disagreeing with it. It does nothing to prevent them from holding their beliefs, only from forcing them on those who believe differently. Preventing someone from forcing others to live by their beliefs is not intolerance.

 

[epicstruggle]

Ahh, but I do accept that you feel that way. I just don't agree with it.

You have every right to dislike, disapprove of and disagree with gay marriage. However, others have the right to disagree with you. Your disapproval of it is perfectly fine as long as you do not force those who don't agree with you to abide by your beliefs.

The traditional, and fallacious, counterexample is that to allow gay marriage is intolerant of those who disagree with it. However, this is a false example. Allowing gay marriages does not prohibit others from disagreeing with it. It does nothing to prevent them from holding their beliefs, only from forcing them on those who believe differently. Preventing someone from forcing others to live by their beliefs is not intolerance.

So why is the oppisition intolerant. I accept that gays would like to get married to each other, however I dont agree that "marriage" is the way to go about it. Those in favor of gay marriage are the ones _forcing_ their beliefs on an institution(and a populace) that has been in place for thousands of years. The ones in my opinion that are intolerant are those who support gay marriage _and_ who feel it necessary to call names of those who oppose it.

later,
epic

later,

 

[Rugor]

They aren't forcing their beliefs, because they aren't forcing others to do as they do.

 

[epicstruggle]

They aren't forcing their beliefs, because they aren't forcing others to do as they do.

But they are. Quite similar to a city not allowing their public square to have a nativity scene during christmas. Because allowing such a thing would somehow force those who walk by to become christians. But the courts have ruled this some how forces people to convert spontaneously. Maybe gay marriages will have such an effect.

later,
epic
edit: Before JR jumps down my throat, I was trying to be funny.

 

[Florin]

I dont hate gays, but i dont feel marriage is right for them.

Why not? And in which way does gays being allowed to marry - like everyone else - affect you?

 

[jandar]

congrads Natoma...

marriage is a bonding of love. Its a beautiful thing. My wedding pictures show me with a grin from ear to ear. Im suprised my jaw didnt break.


see, even some of us Bush Backers can be compassionate as well.


(I grew up with one of my favorite Uncles being ostracized by my family due to his preferences which hurt him deeply, theres no room for hate)

 

[Natoma]

I dont hate gays, but i dont feel marriage is right for them.

Why not? And in which way does gays being allowed to marry - like everyone else - affect you?

If my marrying my boyfriend causes someone else's marriage to crumble and fail, or they believe that will be the end result, then they've got to do some introspection on the stability of their own relationship first.

I don't see people's marriages crumbling to dust because Britney Spears decided to make a mockery of marriage as a publicity stunt. I certainly didn't see people's marriages crumbling when Jimmy Bakker decided he was going to sin. I certainly didn't see people's marriages crumbling after Liz taylor divorced 8 times. Did the world end after Bill Clinton? What about Demi Moore and Bruce Willis?

Hell, 50% of marriages fall apart in this nation for no reason attributable to gay men and women, but the lack of commitment inherent in today's "easy fix" society that sees divorce as being something as simple as cutting up a credit card. If one truly wants to "save" marriage, then outlaw divorce. That'll "save" marriage, because then people will spend more time getting to know the people they are professing to spend the rest of their lives with, and know who it is in fact that they are saying "For Richer, For Poorer, In Sickness and In Health......."

Edgar and I have been living together for almost 3 years now and we've been together 3 1/3 years. I'd say we know each other quite well. Our good and our bad. Our ups and our downs. If anyone is qualified to get married and stay together, it's us. Not some other couple who for the sake of their sex are somehow more "qualified" to get married, but have known each other for 3 weeks, and divorce within a year.