Gay Marriage: Yes or No

[slant]

If someone gets upset, I'll stop.
This is fun.

 

[BenW]

Interesting that I managed to miss this thread until now...

"Gay Marriage: Yes or No?"
No.
No to straight marriage, too.

The only role the governmental/judicial/law enforcement bodies should have in contractual agreements is that of enforcing the involved stipulations; NOT defining who can be involved.
Marriage should be completely deinstitutionalized.
That way, the churches can argue over what marriage really is 'till the cows come home, and any two (or more) people who want to enter into a marriage-like agreement get to do so simply with the signing of a legal document.

 

[smiffy]

Interesting that I managed to miss this thread until now...

"Gay Marriage: Yes or No?"
No.
No to straight marriage, too.

The only role the governmental/judicial/law enforcement bodies should have in contractual agreements is that of enforcing the involved stipulations; NOT defining who can be involved.
Marriage should be completely deinstitutionalized.
That way, you can let the churches argue over what marriage really is, and let any two (or more) people who want to enter into a marriage-like agreement do so with the simple signing of a legal document.

whoah! you have just sparked off this debate for another 10 pages.............at least!

 

[The Jester]

Interesting that I managed to miss this thread until now...

"Gay Marriage: Yes or No?"
No.
No to straight marriage, too.

The only role the governmental/judicial/law enforcement bodies should have in contractual agreements is that of enforcing the involved stipulations; NOT defining who can be involved.
Marriage should be completely deinstitutionalized.
That way, the churches can argue over what marriage really is 'till the cows come home, and any two (or more) people who want to enter into a marriage-like agreement get to do so simply with the signing of a legal document.

I agree.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I'm not sure if to take that as a personal attack, seeing as my MBTI is stated ST.

I guess I went personal, I'm sorry, but I just dont know how to cope with the inability of someone to not feel :S Now I feel that we are getting somewhere, partially because there is mutual understanding!!

But regardless of that, what I'm talking about with marriage is in fact the legal rights. Is it possible to be married legally with no legal benefits of that partnership? If so, I wasn't aware. I thought that we were talking about marriage in the legal context because I didn't know that a non-legal form of marriage existed. If this is the case, then gays technically can be married because marriage isn't considered to have any laws backing them, that's 'domestic partnerships' which is what gays cannot have.

Glad that the misunderstanding was sorted out then because I was not focusing on the legal context. Gays can get married, however problem arises when religious gays want to be able to get married in church - and the church rejects them. That is the big problem which obviously further involves Law.

I've never met someone who's married but not under some sort of legal system, because it seems you were implying in earlier arguements that religion has nothing to do with marriage- if so, why would someone get married if there were no legal rights backing it and no religious rights behind it?

Oh well no I didn't. I said that religion doesnt have to be apart of marriage, neither does legal rights either. It could simply be a ceremony.

Marriage has symbolism in legalities and religious beliefs, and without those reasons, two people together is simply 'coupling' and not considered a marriage.

EXACTLY!! but the difference is that by uniting in marriage under legalities and religious beliefs is that it happens first and foremost because of Love. Coupling doesnt!

 

[Quinlan]

Love is complex, but to me love is not an emotion, love is an attitude and practicing that attitude often leads to positive emotions but does not = positive emotions.

 

[HaHa]

Gays can get married, however problem arises when religious gays want to be able to get married in church - and the church rejects them. That is the big problem which obviously further involves Law.

It may be a problem, but it's not my problem. It's a problem between those gay partners and their church which is bigoted against them. The church is free to be bigoted, we have freedom of religion in this country. And they are free to find another church which is more accepting. I don't see what role this plays in the debate.

 

[The Jester]

Love is complex, but to me love is not an emotion, love is an attitude and practicing that attitude often leads to positive emotions but does not = positive emotions.

You mean that love is the attitude and being in love is the emotion right?

 

[Pristinegirl]

We must both agree that love is an emotion right? As an emotion and due to our nature nothing can last forever. Sure, I have felt love before towards another person: my cat, my parents etc etc but all things are not permanent because they either transform into an another emotion or it just disappears altogether. I'm not saying that love doesn't exist but it's one of those things that you cannot grasp in your hands forever which in essence is just an illusion. It's like saying that you can keep water forever. YOu can touch it for a few moments but it never endures in your hands.

If you're in love I recommend that you enjoy it while you can but keep in mind that everything that comes to arise shall cease to exist.

Good, glad to have that clear haha. Love is an emotion. But as opposed to Slant, she doesnt think Love exists (which you do). I never discussed how long love can last. But I dare say that it is not an illusion because there are those who can keep the water forever...

 

[Pristinegirl]

It may be a problem, but it's not my problem. It's a problem between those gay partners and their church which is bigoted against them. The church is free to be bigoted, we have freedom of religion in this country. And they are free to find another church which is more accepting. I don't see what role this plays in the debate.

You should reread mine and Slant's discussion again since you obviously took it out of context.
Its not my problem either and they could find another church but the point was that they wont because they feel that they are mistreated and segregated. Thus why the LAW becomes involved.

 

[Pristinegirl]

If you have a poor argument, just increase your volume. You are sure to win then!

If you want to join an argument and have nothing useful to say, rant about the way I'm participating instead...

Sadly, you are in for a rude awakening when you start real life.

I guess that you're very experienced, since you have had zero input on this discussion so far.

 

[HaHa]

You should reread mine and Slant's discussion again since you obviously took it out of context.
Its not my problem either and they could find another church but the point was that they wont because they feel that they are mistreated and segregated. Thus why the LAW becomes involved.

I'm not taking anything out of context. The law simply has no role in such a dispute. If a church wants to exclude something, it's allowed to do so. Banning them from doing so is clearly against the 1st amendment.

 

[slant]

I'm not taking anything out of context. The law simply has no role in such a dispute. If a church wants to exclude something, it's allowed to do so. Banning them from doing so is clearly against the 1st amendment.

Which I agree with- which is why I am suggesting marriage be stripped of it's legal rights and be recognized as a religious ceremony and the rights that were once from marriage be transferred to civil union to better distinguish the lines between the religious' rights and the rights of the government.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I'm not taking anything out of context. The law simply has no role in such a dispute. If a church wants to exclude something, it's allowed to do so. Banning them from doing so is clearly against the 1st amendment.

We werent even discussing the law in that context? You obviously don't know what you are diggin your nose into. We were talking about what 'marriage' is. Thus, why law, love and religion were brought into the same context.

 

[HaHa]

We werent even discussing the law in that context? You obviously don't know what you are diggin your nose into. We were talking about what 'marriage' is. Thus, why law, love and religion were brought into the same context.

Once again, I read both of your comments. I was explaining the position that law has nothing to do with marriage in THAT context.

 

[Billy]

Marriage is a tradition, it's a religious practice, and that's why this 'anti-gay marriage' stuff even has leverage. I've pretty much been posting the same point throughout this thread. The idea of marriage is backed by religion....that's how it was 'invented'. So even though it doesn't seem religious now it still belongs to the same line of religion that invented it and traditionalized it.

Exclusive pair bonding predates religion though.

 

[slant]

Exclusive pair bonding predates religion though.

yeah, of course, for mating.

 

[Billy]

yeah, of course, for mating.

And raising children.

 

[Creon]

Exclusive pair bonding predates religion though.

We don't know that. We don't know whether or not "marriage" had to do with some kind of tribal religion in the primitive human societies, or if there was any bonding at all.

 

[bamf]

It's like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? We don't know if religion created marriage or if marriage predates religion. The problem that comes into play is that marriage (and I'm speaking strictly from the standpoint of the United States) is mixed up between religion and the state.

If we are going to give man-woman couples married under a religious pretext certain rights from the government, all couples, be it man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman should be granted the option to be married free from a religious pretext and have it called just that, 'marriage'. No more of this civil-union bullshit. And the government shouldn't prevent any man or woman, be they homo or heterosexual from getting a religious free marriage and obtaining the same rights as those married in a religious setting. The religious communities would be free to be bigots in any way they choose, but the government cannot be allowed to be bigoted to anyone.

To each there own, marriage for anyone who wants it.

And a note, love is much more than just an emotion, it's also a conscious decision.