Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Wilder at 12:07 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quick summary for the reading challenged: marriage and civil unions should be entirely separate. Marriage should have no legal weight, and gender-blind civil unions should have all the benefits that are currently associated with marriage. Individual religions and groups would then define marriages as they want and chose who to marry/ view as married. Prop. 8 has flooded the political forum with a number of gay marriage topics. Being LiveWire, that more specifically means that Prop. 8 has flooded with forum with a number of shitty gay marriage topics containing shitty arguments about gay marriage. By now, many of you know the correct answer to the gay marriage debate. The majority, however, remains in the dark and supports incorrect positions on gay marriage. I put a great deal of emphasis on "incorrect"; normally I'm somewhat accepting of differing viewpoints, but I really cannot fathom how someone would disagree with the views that I am about to outline and not automatically be an idiot or cunt. Maybe LW will prove me wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Let me start out by establishing the axioms that I am working off of for this: There are, and traditionally have been, many different kinds of marriage. Throughout history there has never been a single conception of marriage (take a look at how far back polygamy goes), and today there are a number of religious and secular groups with different definitions of marriage. Freedom of religion is a good thing. People should be able to honor their religious traditions. To the Roman Catholic Church, marriage is between one man and one woman. To a Unitarian Universalist, marriage is between two consenting adults. Neither should be forced to change their beliefs to match the other. Legal equality is a good thing. Same-sex couples should have access to the same legal benefits (tax status, power of attorney, ect.) as inter-sex couples. Now, where is the problem? It's not a matter of re-defining marriage; many definitions of marriage have existed simultaneously at pretty much every time in documented history. The problem is that for the government to legally define one form of marriage, they are legally mandating a religious ceremony. It is comparable to legally defining God as the father of Christ or banning the ordination of women. The problem is that our government has taken a religious term that religions historically haven't and currently don't agree upon a set definition for and made it into a legal institution that they then are being forced to definitively define. The solution should be obvious. The government has no place in marriage. None. The government should only issue federally-standardized, gender-blind civil unions that carry all of the legal benefits associated with marriage. Marriage would then return to its rightful place in the private sector as a personal ceremony with no legal weight. So: Example 1) A Roman Catholic man and woman decide to get married. They go to their church and do all the Catholic stuff that it takes to get married. Then they get married. Yay! In the eyes of their religion/ creator they are eternally wed together and all that bullshit. In the eyes of the law, nothing is new until they go downtown and get a civil union. Example 2) Two LaVeyan Satanist butt-buddies decide to get hitched. If they tried to go to a Catholic Church they would be denied, but since their religion openly embraces gay marriage they can get in touch with their local grotto and organize a ceremony. Like the Roman Catholics, they need to get a civil union to make it legal and obtain power of attorney rights and the like, though. Example 3) A postmodern theorist decides to marry a box turtle. He gets a drunken hobo to perform a ceremony, and considers himself married. Neither the Catholics nor the LaVeyan Satanists (nor pretty much anyone else) consider him married, he can't get a civil union, and if he tries to get frisky with his wife (husband?) he'll be facing legal charges, but he's free to make his social statement by proclaiming himself married. -- Posted by LondonGirl11 at 12:08 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I disagree. -- Posted by Sheebobee at 12:08 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 oh my thats long but I think I agree? cause I dont think Im an idiot -- Posted by whoami111 at 12:09 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I agree with you. -- Posted by Savior at 12:10 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Frankly the solution is for the government to get the fuck out of the marriage business altogether. Give civil unions all the current rights marriages have and call all legal unions that. Let churches do whatever they want with the religious aspect. -- Posted by Seanee at 12:10 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I read on, I completely and utterly agree with what you have to say. -- Posted by RainbowKid92 at 12:12 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I totally agree. So many politicians and people in positions of power fear that by legalizing gay marriage, there will be an uproar or revolution too great for them to handle. And i think thats pure BS. I truly do. -- Posted by snowfish at 12:12 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I've been saying this for years. Thank you. -- Posted by nicegirl4060 at 12:12 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 agree -- Posted by Wilder at 12:12 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Savior at 1:10 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Frankly the solution is for the government to get the fuck out of the marriage business altogether. Give civil unions all the current rights marriages have and call all legal unions that. Let churches do whatever they want with the religious aspect. Yeah, that's what I'm advocating. I just took the time to break down why that's the only logical conclusion, because somehow most people aren't able to determine that for themselves. -- Posted by PrincessRae at 12:13 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I think marriage is for a man and a woman -- Posted by Chava at 12:13 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I don't see the problem with it. There are so many GLBT people in the world now that it shouldn't be mandated that in order to receive acknowledgement of their union they have to fall in love with the "right person" a.k.a a member of the opposite sex. I can see a lawsuit coming to California from the 10,000 or so couples who joined in union there within the last few years. They can't take away a union of marriage when it was legal just last year. And yeah the government should get the fuck out and stay the fuck out of it. I mean they've had trouble with the religious people too regarding polygamy and you can't help falling in love with more than one person anymore than you can help falling in love with the same sex. Religion/government should not be allowed to establish marriage laws. -- Posted by FurryPanther at 12:13 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 You know what got me most about the Prop 8 exit poll results? That blacks were the larges group of supporters. I would have thought that their history of inequality would have made them a little more open minded and supportive of the struggle to become equal. But it seems that the more a group struggles for equality, the more they want the spotlight, and the less they support further equalization of minority groups. FP -- Posted by catoman at 12:16 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad -- Posted by FurryPanther at 12:18 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from catoman at 1:16 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church   in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad Did you miss the point here? If homosexuals get a civil union, as they should be equally allowed to, and they want a marriage ceremony, religious freedom shows that a church is not at all required to perform the ceremony. And they cannot file a lawsuit to for refusing to perform the ceremony, as religion is protected. This will not affect religion in the least. FP -- Posted by Wilder at 12:20 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from catoman at 1:16 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad Please try not to use arguments that I directly address and refute in the OP. To quote myself: Example 2) Two LaVeyan Satanist butt-buddies decide to get hitched. If they tried to go to a Catholic Church they would be denied, but since their religion openly embraces gay marriage they can get in touch with their local grotto and organize a ceremony. Like the Roman Catholics, they need to get a civil union to make it legal and obtain power of attorney rights and the like, though. You have the right to say no. No one is saying that Christians have to perform gay marriage. No one has ever said that. -- Posted by Chava at 12:20 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from catoman at 3:16 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad I am so tired of Christians who have no fucking clue what they're talking about. No one will ask an evangelical church to join their same-sex union in holy matramony. Not at least when Unitarians are so understanding and willing. And if you had read one post in this whole topic you would understand that we don't support the "fall of the church". God knows that would be a pity, losing all the zealots and what not. We're advocating that everyone should be able to do as their religion, heart, or personal morals dictate. Nothing more, nothing less. But thanks for giving another reason why the government shouldn't be interfering here. Their not supposed to deal with religion at all. Not even to protect the dictatorship of intolerance that is Christianity. Thanks for proving our point. -- Posted by qi at 12:23 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 This is what I heard a woman say a few days ago, "Did you know, if prop 8 doesn't pass, schools will start teaching first-graders what homosexual relations are?"  I died laughing. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 12:23 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Chava at 3:13 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 And yeah the government should get the fuck out and stay the fuck out of it. I mean they've had trouble with the religious people too regarding polygamy and you can't help falling in love with more than one person anymore than you can help falling in love with the same sex. Religion/government should not be allowed to establish marriage laws. The only problem with this was that polygamy generally doesn't have anything to do with love and has everything to do with control, particularly in the FLDS. Now, I don't have a problem with polygamy existing in and of itself, but polygamy as practiced by the FLDS tends to remove people's right to choose with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives and also often involves pedophilia on some level. Of course, people who genuinely do love more than one person and can make that sort of situation work...more power to 'em. letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad No. Churches are generally private institutions and are therefore able to choose whom they marry and don't marry, whom they exclude and include, whom they teach and don't teach, to whom they give money and to whom they don't, etc. If they were state-run, then yes, they could be forced to start performing gay marriages; however, they are not state run because of something beautiful known as the First Amendment. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 12:27 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 That's not how I get from point A to point B, but I end up at point B, so we're good. -- Posted by HeartofJuyoMk2 at 12:29 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Savior at 3:10 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Frankly the solution is for the government to get the fuck out of the marriage business altogether. Give civil unions all the current rights marriages have and call all legal unions that. Let churches do whatever they want with the religious aspect. qft -- Posted by barnabas at 12:30 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I fully agree with whoever made the statement about separating marriage and civil union all together. I made that argument just recently with someone who told me I was a hypocrite for supporting gay marriage as a Christian who is opposed to homosexuality. I agree with you wilder, but like sean, I may not follow the same path to get there. -- Posted by Chava at 12:31 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:23 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Chava at 3:13 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 And yeah the government should get the fuck out and stay the fuck out of it. I mean they've had trouble with the religious people too regarding polygamy and you can't help falling in love with more than one person anymore than you can help falling in love with the same sex. Religion/government should not be allowed to establish marriage laws. The only problem with this was that polygamy generally doesn't have anything to do with love and has everything to do with control, particularly in the FLDS. Now, I don't have a problem with polygamy existing in and of itself, but polygamy as practiced by the FLDS tends to remove people's right to choose with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives and also often involves pedophilia on some level. Of course, people who genuinely do love more than one person and can make that sort of situation work...more power to 'em. letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad No. Churches are generally private institutions and are therefore able to choose whom they marry and don't marry, whom they exclude and include, whom they teach and don't teach, to whom they give money and to whom they don't, etc. If they were state-run, then yes, they could be forced to start performing gay marriages; however, they are not state run because of something beautiful known as the First Amendment. I was just pointing out that any time government gets involved with religion or marriage it doesn't end up good. Those kids are still being abused after they were forced to be given back. -- Posted by FurryPanther at 12:32 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Chava at 1:31 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I was just pointing out that any time government gets involved with religion or marriage it doesn't end up good. Those kids are still being abused after they were forced to be given back. Right now the government is involved, and we're saying it shouldn't be. FP -- Posted by Chava at 12:36 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Exactly even when it is a situation they should be involved in it usually doesn't turn out well when it involves religion. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 12:42 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Chava at 3:31 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 I was just pointing out that any time government gets involved with religion or marriage it doesn't end up good. Those kids are still being abused after they were forced to be given back. I agree with that point; however, my point was that the government's recent beef with polygamy has nothing to do with polygamous marriages that are just a bunch of people who love each other and freely chose to be married in that way, but rather with situations in which thirteen- and fourteen-year-old girls were being forced to enter into sexual relationships with men who were much older than they were. Frankly, I'd be appalled if the government didn't step in and help in that situation. Regarding the recent problems with the YFZ, the main issue there is that the government was chomping at the bit too much to find more evidence against the FLDS, to the point where they didn't bother to find the girl who called in saying that she'd been abused, and just swept in without gathering further evidence. It had nothing to do, really, with it being a religious matter or cultural matter, and everything to do with the government having a vendetta against the FLDS (understandably so, but that it caused them to act so irrationally and hastily is obviously a serious problem). It's just what happens when the people in power take issue with a certain group. -- Posted by RainbowKid92 at 2:20 pm on Nov. 7, 2008 Quote: from catoman at 12:16 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad I have to say that the bible's disapproval of homosexuality is totally outdated. It was only believed to be disapproved by God because people (specifically men) who were gay couldn't reproduce, and they were thought to be evil because of their indirect hindering of reproduction. Scholars thought that by being homosexual, you were intentionally trying to stop the procreation of mankind. but nowadays, same sex couples have the choice of adoption, or artificial insemination. i believe the bible shouldn't even be mentioned in the court when it comes to the subject of same-sex marriage, its irrelevant. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 8:17 pm on Nov. 8, 2008 Quote: from RainbowKid92 at 5:20 pm on Nov. 7, 2008 I have to say that the bible's disapproval of homosexuality is totally outdated. It was only believed to be disapproved by God because people (specifically men) who were gay couldn't reproduce, and they were thought to be evil because of their indirect hindering of reproduction. Scholars thought that by being homosexual, you were intentionally trying to stop the procreation of mankind. but nowadays, same sex couples have the choice of adoption, or artificial insemination. i believe the bible shouldn't even be mentioned in the court when it comes to the subject of same-sex marriage, its irrelevant. While this is a decent point concerning when homosexual sex was originally condemned in the Bible (when it was part of the Law of the Hebrews, way back in the day, when they were still trying to grow from a wandering tribe into an actual nation and the only way to do that properly is to make babies), a more logical explanation when it came to homosexual acts' future condemnation was to set Christianity apart. I agree with your last sentence, though...but you seem to be kind of missing the point of Wilder's original post in the writing of it. -- Posted by hithere at 7:07 am on Nov. 9, 2008 what if i want to marry two men, or two women, or a man and a woman? should we be allowed to have a civil union? -- Posted by Oceanborn at 10:22 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 agreed Pages: 1 2  Next