Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

Property rights were once explicitly defined as only available to white men. Just because it is currently 'explicitly defined' does not make it right. That is what the whole issue is about.

o.0 Most people I know don't give a crap about homosexual practices; it isn't socially taboo up here.

Again, o.0 If something is morally wrong, why shouldn't it be criminalized?

Homosexuals trying to convince the government to change the definition of a word (which is your argument, not mine or their's) is not desecration. How on earth with your marriage to your wife be affected if Joe and Bob get married? Will they parade around on the streets saying that Gnarff and his buxom blonde have now been homosexualized?

But civil unions are not the same as marriage as there are fewer rights in civil unions. How (I think) it should be is that everyone should get a civil union first (which has the rights of current marriage) and then, if you so choose, you can have a religious ceremony. It is not fair that people who want to have a union like marriage outside of the church cannot do so (this includes atheists as well... I feel uncomfortable going into a church; should I not be allowed to make decisions for my incapacitated wife because I don't believe in God?*) Why should only religious people be allowed to have certain legal rights?

Woot, yay Massachusetts!


* Note: I am referring to the right in which I could make a medical decision for my wife if she were not able to make her own.

EDIT: Haha wow, this is also one of my first posts here in a long time. I usually stick out of AoDA discussions, but gay rights is a big deal for me.

 

I have no problem with the legal rights issue. If Ted wants to give Ed full power of attorney over his affairs should illness strike, I do not care -- go for it Ed and Ted! If Ted wants to leave all his earnings to his life partner Ed in a will, again, more power to you, boys!

But the word marriage is different -- IMHO they are asking society to say "what you two have and do is the same as what a man and woman do" and that I simply will not do.

Let me put it another way. If a heterosexual couple is living together without being married, I do not go up to them and say "you two vile sinners are living in sin!" That's hardly productive in my mind. I think what they are doing is wrong, but at the same time (going back to the discussion between Chandos and Gnarff) I am most certainly not without sin, so I oughtn't to be throwing stones. HOWEVER, if that same couple says to me "LKD we want you to say that you believe that what we are doing is right and acceptable." Not going to happen. By asking for their relationships to be defined as marriage, they are not asking for legal rights -- they can get those very easily under common law legislation or civil unions. They are asking for society to tell them that their actions are accepted and condoned by the society. Many in society do not condone such things, though they won't bother making an issue out of it unless pushed.

One final thought -- change can be good, I understand that. But it is not necessaily true that ALL change is good. The idea that gay unions should be considered the same as heterosexual marriages is a change that I do not see as a progressive one.

BTW, Silvery, you're still the Bom in my book, never fear!

 

I can sort of see the "defiling what is sacred" argument. There's a difference between having something that's reserved for a select crowd and something that everybody can have - even disgusting people, second class citizens, those you loathe.

But is there anything wrong about homosexuality that isn't purely based on religion? "It's a sin" doesn't really cut it for me, or any non-religious person I'd imagine. Is there some kind of harm involved, something that happens in this life?

If not, it's just a question of whose rights are getting trumped more - those who get unequal treatment or those who don't get to inflict unequal treatment to others as per their religion.

Gotta love the phrasing there, by the way.

 

Well, there's the risk of rectal bleeding. And HIV Aids, of course.

As an aside, I notice that we have so far in this thread post from five people who don't generally post in the Alleys. To them I want to say - KNOCK IT OFF!! The last thing we need here is new people with fresh perspectives.

 

And just to expand a bit on that, I don't think anyone is advocating that a particular religion be forced or coerced into marrying people of the same sex. The only marriages same sex couples would be allowed to receive, would be done at the courthouse. IMO, to do oterhwise would violate the separation of church and state clause in the first amendment. However, shouldn't that premise cut both ways? Shouldn't people who define marriage in religious terms not be able to force that definition on the state?

I still cannot mentally bridge the chasm of why some people are opposed (on religious grounds) to not differentiate between a religious marriage and a secular one. I know that Gnarff and LKD and others have no problem grappling with this issue, but their logic eludes me.

EDIT: Damn it, Splunge - stop posting while I'm posting. My first sentence as expanding on what Susipaisti was saying, as he was the last person who had posted at the time I hit the reply button. I wasn't intending to be explanding on Splunge's rectal bleeding and HIV comments.

 

No. They. Can't. They cannot get power of attorney without marriage, or many other rights that heterosexual married couples can.

 

See, I find thatflattering. 'Someone I have absolutely no interest in thinks I'm hot. Well. At least that's confirmation that someone does. +5 Ego'

I don't even need to worry about letting them down easy, because there's a built in nonoffensive rejection: I'm not attracted to men. But thanks.

 

Not to be a contrary jerk, I myself don't think this is true for all jurisdictions. I'm quite surprised by the whole power of attorney thing -- I was always under the impression that you can designate anyone you please with power of attorney authority. Maybe Splunge can tell us if that's true in Canada.

 

Religious forbiddance of homosexuality is not a load of bull. Second, Yes, God DID create us in his image, and all equal, but GOD DID NOT MAKE PEOPLE GAY. Satan--remember him? The prick that told Eve to eat the forbidden fruit? He's luring people to all manner of sins. He's the same one that lures straight people into fornication and adultery, as well as leading people to see the same sex as desirable. I'm going to demand a reference to your offensive claim about Jesus being bi. And Finally, forgiveness requires that the person forgiven forsake the sins they are forgiven of.

What needs to be taught is that it's wrong to pick on the gay kid. It doesn't mean that gay sex is okay, it just means that abusing them for indulging is wrong.

I need to convince myself of that. I think I talk myself out of this too many times...

Actually, I remember from my College Psychology classes, Heterosexuality and homosexuality were not absolute. While it may be improbable for a "straight" guy to face same sex temptation, it is not impossible. Likewise, it is not impossible for a "gay" man to develop an attraction to a woman. Remember that there is more than just looks involved in such things.

That wasn't me in this case, but I have heard of guys that did find married women more attractive.

The closest I can explain it is that in an abusive relationship, the abuser will degrade the abused and whatever they hold dear. In this case, the gay rights activists are reducing a sacred ordinance to our faith to just a civil procedure, and using that to further degrade it by using it to legitimize the greivous sins of others. It is an abuse on the faithful, one which 30 of 50 states have seen the people rise up and end.

To the faithful, the hope is that ALL heterosexual couples will bring such things to the union. But because the union is divine in origin, it only applies to heterosexuals. That's the way God intended it.

But wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having more available women? While I suppose that you could get by with one, I'm too chicken-**** to find out!

Mariage originated with religion, and thus, the state has no business sticking their nose into it in the first place. As a Religious ordinance, Religion reserves the right to restrict it as they see fit. 52% of the people of California were likely religious enough to act on that reservation. California has a "Domestic Partnership" law, which does extend rights to homosexuals, and within that framework, all rigths can be granted without changing marriage to include homosexuals. The problem is that politicians and courts are too lazy to think of these things, and the activists are too stuck on *****-slapping the religious into acceptance of their sins to accept that as the best they will get!

The problem is that the school would be teaching things directly contradictory to our faith, and applying sanctions if they don't parrot that back to the teachers. They are forcing a gay friendly agenda on our children and punishing (lower grades would constitute a punishment) them for resistance. I have a BIG problem with that.

Not really. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That law does not change whether you are gay or straight.

Easy for adults, but what about a child that's not old enough to make that distinction? AS parents, we are accountable for the upbringing of the child, but the school wants to teach something directly contradictory, how can this be good?

But Property Rights are not a religious matter. Marriage IS a religious matter. Most of the concerns that the gays have are civil matters and should be handled civilly, and without picking a fight with the religious.

Because it's between consenting adults. That is still morally wrong, but none of my business.

Then the civil authorities need to fix the civil unions and quit trying to rewrite religious doctrine to hide their own incompetence.

Again, this is something you should have, but it's not religious holding you back, but rather the incompetence of politicians and judges. Activists refuse to let go of their anti-religious agenda, and thus gays suffer. Until the average homosexual recognizes this, they will remain a second class citizen. This is not out of hatred, but because society cannot figure out how to accommodate them.

I'm going one step further: They SHOULD have those rights. Society has to learn how to grant these rights without degrading the religious tradition that most of the people hold sacred.

Going back to my Grade 13 History, I remember something called a "Keystone CLause" in the US Constitution. It allows Congress to enact any law that would otherwise be against the Constitution if it was of vital importance for the nation. The Marriage laws fall into this category. But I've argued that Gays can get all the rights they deserve without redefining marriage, so that clause would not enable the further suspension of the first ammendment.

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 43 seconds later... ----------

But what if that's only because politicians are incompetent? A competent legislature can fix those problems without re-defining marriage.

 

I disagree with the opinion that homosexuality is normal and I believe the laws which are proposed are a backdoor. The same arguments which are used to enlarge gay rights will be used to cast those same rights as a natural thing and a confirmation that homosexuality is good. Also, groups may use the argument that marriage is not the same as adoption and later use equality to force a law that allows all married couples the right to adopt children. That is something I oppose. I also oppose the "hate speech laws" when they punish people for voicing their opposition to homosexual acts being considered moral or being made legal.

However, it must be noted that every human must be treated with dignity, which means that mocking, harrassing, let alone physically assaulting people, is not fine.

 

You see, I just don't get that. If they were getting married in a Mormon temple, I'd see your point completely. But not if it's being done at a courthouse, which is what these amendments propose to do.

 

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's true. Beren would be better able to answer, though.

 

Ok, so I feel once again compelled to mention my idea. I got a few responses to it in the other thread, but everyone seemed more interested in arguing about the definition of marriage. Here's my idea: delete the term 'marriage' from the legal dictionary. Hence forth, all unions would be called 'civil unions' by the courts. One law covers everybody, so everybody is treated equally, but at the same time the courts haven't tried to change the definition of marriage. If religious couples want to call their relationship a marriage, then so be it, but that's no longer a legal term.

 

You're a genius NOG! I would totally vote for that.

Everybody has a right to live safely without fear of retribution for their lifestyle and preferences, sexual or otherwise. People also have the right to learn all about every side of society. Fair enough you may be one of those individuals who believe that telling somebody about something makes them a convert (but if that was the case, I would now believe in gas and electric companies) but don't deny children the right to make their own choice!

This may not make much sense, it has been produced and directed by somebody suffering from a lack of caffiene!

 

NOG: It will cost billions to change all the stupid forms. And what would you call it? "Unionized"? That sounds awfully close to euthanized -- which may, after giving this a little thought, be appropriate ... it certainly describes my first marriage.

 

Thanks for the support!

You're right, caffiene makes you make more sense. 'Telling someone about something makes them a convert'? I may have missed what that was connected to. In the future, I'd suggest moree frequent use of the QUOTE feature. It helps avoid a lot of confusion.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, you're talking about the people condemning it being taught in schools. If that's true, then you really need to understand just how un-adult children are. Their minds literally work differently than ours. They're far more likely to believe whatever people tell them, far less likely to be able to differentiate between opinion, belief, and fact, and far more vulnerable to temptation, corruption, and suggestion. This isn't just a lack of experience, either. This is a basic part of how the child's brain works. Their personality isn't even completely set until around 6 years old (by the psychological definition of the term), nor do they have a strong individual identity until around the beginning of puberty. Children should be given plenty of opportunities to choose where the results and consequences are not long-lasting or significant (for good or ill), but where the resutls of a choice could change the child's life forever, or at least for the next many years, the decisions should be made by someone else. Ideally, by a parent of guardian who is older and wiser, though you're only guaranteed to get the first of those.

Here I absolutely disagree with you. I'm sure you're presenting this as a very idealized situation, but in reality this would lead to all forms of corruption being accepted by society. I'm not necessarily arguing homosexuality is a corruption (though I believe it is), but more against the basic logic presented here. Should an alcoholic be allowed to live his life how he wants without anyone interfering? Should a crack addict? For that matter, with this logic, should a thief? I'm quite sure you never intended that logic to apply to such things as this, but when you state a broad generality like that, it does.

T2, I'm sure it would be costly, and turning it into a verb does cause problems, but I still think it would avoid a lot worse. Well worth the cost in both money and time, in my opinion.

 

Well, by saying that unions are no longer marriages, the definition of marriage would be changed anyway; not by the courts, but by the lawmakers. So if you're willing to accept that the definition be changed, then why not change** it instead to encompass gay marriage?

** Note: I am using the word "change" because that's what you think it is. However, I have said this before, and I'll say it again - I don't think the courts are trying to change the definition at all; they just want to clarify it.

 

Ok LKD, i gotta ask, did you have to tweak us by naming a thread dealing with gay marriage issues

Just saying, i've been chuckling about it ever since you first posted it.

 

Normally, I steer clear of the Alleys itself, and these kinds of threads in particular, because the moment religion enters the argument, I always get the feeling that you might as well be arguing to a brick wall - you can argue to it all you want but at the end of the day the wall will still be facing the same direction. Actually, that's a little unfair, as most discussion on the internet feel the same way to me, regardless of whether religion was involved or not, and the walls here can at least make compelling arguments from time to time.

This is what I've been thinking too. If everyone objects to the term marriage being used for the marriage of two people of the same sex, then why not change the terminology? That way everybody can be happy, although I'm sure plenty of people will object to that as well.

On the other hand, though, it seems to be a rather pointless excercise in semantics. I really don't see why there's so much fuss over the fact that the definition of marriage in the law is different than the definition in certain religions. It's not like it's the only word that has different meanings depending on the context.

I'm not really following the news on this, but I understand that in California, they are now even proposing to have marriage unavailable to atheists. I realise that this thread is about gay marriage, but I mention it anyway, as this is clearly motivated by the same reasoning, though taking it to an extreme. And this is a very strange reasoning to me. It is worthwhile considering that the state has attached certain rights to married couples (such as for instance the power of attorney for the significant other, but there are other rights as well) as well as several other benefits, which are always more of a hassle to obtain for non-married couples, if they are available at all.

Therefore, they're in fact arguing that certain rights are only available to people who follow a certain religion or who conform to their religious values, which in turn reeks mightily of discrimination or at the least an obscuring of the separation of state and church. I can only say that I'm glad that marriage is available here for hetero- and homosexual couples without such religious values imposed on the legal framework.

Getting back to NOG's suggestion, while I agree with the general idea and I like the simplicity, it suffers from the same problem I mentioned above. Namely, that you're favoring the people that believe that marriage must be solely between a man and a woman. Why must the state change the wording of its definition of marriage? Why shouldn't the people taking issue with it change their wording? They could for instance rename their marriage to Evangilistic Unions, or Mormon Marriage if your feeling you can't leave out the term marriage (and don't mind the alliteration).


P.S. Is there a way to make it stop snowing on this site? It's getting on my chips.