|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:49 pm
I'm not against G/L getting married. I'm addressing the issue realistically. There should be a seperation of church and state, I agree. The thing is that marriage, while being of religious origin, has heavy secular connotations, such as the distribution of wealth and whatnot. It is practiced largely enough and has a significant amount of influence on non religious aspects of life that the government can't help but make laws about it.
However, declaring marriage should be between a man and a woman, whether or not you believe it, isn't up to the government. Marriage is a religous thing adopted into secular life, but the government should only have a say on the aspects of the secular life.
Seperate but equal is bull, of course. I am not saying that straight people get marriage but G/L get civil union. I am saying that EVERYONE gets civil union, and you get married at your own church or temple or mosque.
My stance is for seperation of church and state, which isn't happening right now, by replacing Marriage for civil unions for everyone. I am a firm believer in Islam, but I don't want to government shoving my ideas or anyone else's ideas down anyone's throats. Incidentally, I don't believe being gay or lesbian will prevent you from going to heaven just because you are gay or lesbian. I'm not judgemental. Let's just get that out there. I am not opposing the union of man and man or woman and woman any more than I oppose the union of a man and woman, but I do oppose the union of man and animal, man and inanimate object, or man and made up characters.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:15 pm
Look at it this way. Trying to let homosexuals get married is like trying to break down a thick concrete wall with a sledgehammer. Even if you can do it, it'll take forever and the wall will resist you every step of the way.
Forcing everyone to have civil unions is using a ladder to get over the wall, rather than going through it. It's faster, easier, and the wall can't resist.
Also, Tabi, with regards to your oath of allegiance ".. will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.." , take one guess which faith that refers to, and tell me that the Government of America supports all religions.
You can't, especially as in many states, Atheists are not allowed, by LAW, to run for office. Now, atheism isn't a religion, per say but it gives you something to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:27 am
Valheita Vajapocalypse Val, words and definitions change over time as do laws and customs. Just because 100 people today may think it's religious doesn't mean the next generation will if we continue to progress and alter the idea. Why can't we? To get in touch with my overbearing fundamentalist, it's wrong. Yes, but why should homosexuals have to suffer the wait, when we could just use a different word for the legal union, strip the social religious connotations, and let them have the same right to a legal union as everyone else, regardless of what religion says. Also, how is changing a word wrong? I never said changing a word was wrong... Well it actually depends on what is being changed and how it is being changed. Changing marriage is wrong because of the social impact. Why should they wait? The same reason why interracial couples had to wait, because it's part of life when accepting a group of people. You and Ahmet have an unrealistic expectation that changing everything to civil union would fix everything. It wouldn't. The paper work involved to transition the marital status of couples alone would be a ridiculous undertaking. The religious nuts would be more obnoxious than they already are DX @Ahmet: How is the government forcing their ideas on you? Your mosque doesn't have any legal obligation to marry anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:47 am
Not my mosque, but a church that refused to marry a gay coyple had it's recognition as a house of worship by the government revoked. That meant the church had to start paying taxes and all the other crap a religious house of worship are exempt from.
Also, marriage is a religious thing. So sorry. It's like how some people that aren't buddhist can still believe in karma. It still is religious, whether or not you want it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:45 pm
Vajapocalypse I never said changing a word was wrong... Well it actually depends on what is being changed and how it is being changed. Changing marriage is wrong because of the social impact. Why should they wait? The same reason why interracial couples had to wait, because it's part of life when accepting a group of people. You and Ahmet have an unrealistic expectation that changing everything to civil union would fix everything. It wouldn't. The paper work involved to transition the marital status of couples alone would be a ridiculous undertaking. The religious nuts would be more obnoxious than they already are DX That's not a why. That's a "these people had to suffer, so you have to suffer". I never said that changing things to a civil union would fix it. I just said it would make progress easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:42 am
AHMETRock Not my mosque, but a church that refused to marry a gay coyple had it's recognition as a house of worship by the government revoked. That meant the church had to start paying taxes and all the other crap a religious house of worship are exempt from. Also, marriage is a religious thing. So sorry. It's like how some people that aren't buddhist can still believe in karma. It still is religious, whether or not you want it to be. Source please? The Catholic church refuses to marry people all the time based on who they are marrying. My future mother in law was refused to be married by the Church because her husband to be is Protestant and guess what this same church still has this rule and enforces it with no repercussions. It was once a religious thing, it no longer is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:59 am
Shiori Miko I really think it's dumb people think it needs to be discussed. We all deserve equal rights, including that to marriage. Quoted for hitting the nail right on the head. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:06 am
twisted
Let there be gay-ness!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:09 am
I hate when I miss an interesting discussion. D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:45 pm
The ONLY reason why people don't like homosexuality is because of religion
Really
It was something that was etched in a long time ago, and in the Christian Middle Age, people were killed for being homosexual, and it was considered a disease
Fortunately, people are loosening up now...
Well
Mostly everyone
SCIENCE has absolutely nothing against homosexuality, besides for the fact that the two peopel can't reproduce. But hell, even other animals have homosexuals
EVERY gay person i've met in real life was a lot nicer and a lot cooler than most of the straight guys i know.
Besides
Marriage isn't really a real thing, it's just a human invention biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:18 pm
Marriage may have a religious base, but there are over 1000 legal benefits to the union. If marriage is strictly a religious thing, I declare we ban all atheists from marriage as well as people of minority religions.
Some states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay couples, but not all that do offer the same legal benefits.
Plus, what about religious gays? Why are they not entitled to the same religious rights as heterosexuals?
There are six passages that can be interpreted as being against homosexuality in the bible. But there are over a hundred passages that condemn adultery and premarital sex (meaning if you've had sex and you're not married, you're metaphorically <******** fact: The bible says "Thou shall not kill." Period. It does not say "Thou shall not kill unless you think you have a really good reason." Seriously. It's one of the top ten commandements. No buttsecks between two guys is NOT on that big list.
Yet in all countries, there is a branch of government dedicated to ultimately breaking this rule (military/army). They spend years training to break this rule. It's a big rule. Did I mention it's in the ten commandments?
The government and the people that control the laws are religious - but only to the extent that fits their needs. ******** everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Valheita Tabihito Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The last part is most important. As marriage is, as you said, a legal institution, denying a person the right to marry based on gender is not considered equal protection. Simply put, heterosexual people are getting legal opportunities that homosexual people are not.
Also, in flat-out banning gay marriage (as, unless I misread it, Proposition 8 did in California) would be going against the bit about abridging privileges. Yes, America does have in place a system of majority rule- but that does not change the fact that minorities, thanks largely to this particular amendment, have the same exact rights that cannot be infringed upon.
Just waiting for the Supreme Court to pick this one up. It's used the Fourteenth Amendment to uphold gay rights before (see: Lawrence v. Texas), and it can be used again.
Now, I don't know American law very well... But I do remember hearing that there is a catch point to invoking one of them regarding Gay Marriage, that being that you had to prove that it was not a choice. Not sure if that's the one you're talking about or not though D: I heard that b4 they used to say every man should be treated equally by the way i'm not racist but by that they meant men White men to be clear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:02 pm
CleoSombra Marriage may have a religious base, but there are over 1000 legal benefits to the union. If marriage is strictly a religious thing, I declare we ban all atheists from marriage as well as people of minority religions. Some states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay couples, but not all that do offer the same legal benefits. Plus, what about religious gays? Why are they not entitled to the same religious rights as heterosexuals? There are six passages that can be interpreted as being against homosexuality in the bible. But there are over a hundred passages that condemn adultery and premarital sex (meaning if you've had sex and you're not married, you're metaphorically [********]). Fun fact: The bible says "Thou shall not kill." Period. It does not say "Thou shall not kill unless you think you have a really good reason." Seriously. It's one of the top ten commandements. No buttsecks between two guys is NOT on that big list. Yet in all countries, there is a branch of government dedicated to ultimately breaking this rule (military/army). They spend years training to break this rule. It's a big rule. Did I mention it's in the ten commandments? The government and the people that control the laws are religious - but only to the extent that fits their needs. ******** everyone else. Why should gay people fight for a country that doesn't give them the right to marry the right to be happily married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:05 pm
SoulSkourer The ONLY reason why people don't like homosexuality is because of religion Really It was something that was etched in a long time ago, and in the Christian Middle Age, people were killed for being homosexual, and it was considered a disease Fortunately, people are loosening up now... Well Mostly everyone SCIENCE has absolutely nothing against homosexuality, besides for the fact that the two peopel can't reproduce. But hell, even other animals have homosexuals EVERY gay person i've met in real life was a lot nicer and a lot cooler than most of the straight guys i know. Besides Marriage isn't really a real thing, it's just a human invention biggrin Yea i saw bisexual monkeys dramallama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:42 am
There's this one thing about being attracted to the same sex as you that bothers me a lot. From my point of view everyone is a lot more approving when it comes to girl/girl, but guy/guy is most of the time something disgusting and no way in the seven circles of hell would it get approval from anyone. I really can't help but wonder that what's the thing that makes girl/girl relationships more... popular? Or something like that. I just... don't get it.
I, myself, just to get to the topic, am approving the marriages. Here in Finland all these couples can do is to register their relationship - so no marriage here... I wish it would be possible on some day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
