|
|
Post by Hellbreaker on Sept 6, 2010 13:32:28 GMT
Not sure who or what Julio is. So, same sex marriage is allowed over here. The world hasn't come to an end yet. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Sept 7, 2010 16:13:10 GMT
coredump: That doesn't make sense... though you may eventually become more conservative as you're older, you only become more conservative of the original values you held. Except that isn't the only way it happens. People change their philosophical views as they grow older, gain experience, gain different experiences, and start changing their priorities. Typically, younger people tend to be more liberal, and become more conservative as they get older. This does not happen all the time, nor for everybody, and not for every issue; but it is an overall trend. People are also making some assumptions here, being against "Gay Marriage" is *not* the same as being against homosexuality. California, one of the most liberal states in the union, with possibly *the* most comprehensive "Gay Civil Union" laws in the country, voted to keep the *term* "Marriage" as defining only a M-W bond. I can't see how anyone can decide that California is 'anti-homosexuality' "Gay Marriage" laws have been put to vote in 31 states in the US, and *every single time* they have been voted down, yet we really don't see huge anti-gay rallies or violence. Yes, it happens, but not with much frequency. Yet the issue is 0 for 31. It largely comes down to semantics. If instead of overturning Prop 8, Californians would push for "gay civil unions' to have the exact same legal rights/responsibilities as "Hetero marriage", it would pass without any effort. As it is, in Cali, civil unions already have 98% of the rights of marriage. (And the remaining 2% are pretty lame things that no one cares about anyway.) There are people that are against homosexuality, and there are people that therefore are against anything allowing homosexuals to have any rights specific to being homosexual... but the biggest problem with the voting issue, is that the Gay Rights people insist on using the term "marriage" to represent when a man and a man want to commit to each other. If they were fought for the same rights, with a different name, it would sail through most ballots. Women were able to get the same rights as men, without having to be called men. Blacks achieved equal rights, without having to use the term white. etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Exodite on Sept 8, 2010 4:38:09 GMT
I'm pretty sure both women and blacks are able to influence the leadership of the country by 'voting', oddly that's the same term used for the process by which a white male influences an election...  Just because it is semantics doesn't mean it's not prejudice. If you don't have a problem with homosexuals then you shouldn't have a problem with them using the term marriage; it's usage influences you in no way (unless you believe its likely to end with your city being rained on with brimstone  )... |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Sept 8, 2010 13:36:04 GMT
You state it as fact, but it is not.
People can object to the use of the word, but not be concerned by the law.
Many many people feel that the definition of the word "Marriage" is the legal/religious bond between a man and a women. They are not against a man and man having a legal/religious bond, but it would be called something else, as it is something different.
Notice the wording on most of these laws being passed. It defines the word, that is really it. It says that a "Marriage" is a man and a women; it does nothing to stop a legal/religious bond between man-man.
The issue for many people, is not to stop Gay-Lesbian people from being legally bonded, but to stop the 'definition' of marriage from being changed.
I dont' think you got my point.
There was a time when 'Men' had certain rights, A-B-C-D-E. We were able to give Women those rights, without changing the definition of 'man' to include males and females.
Married couples (MF) have certain rights; we are able to give MM/FF couples those same rights, without changing the definition of 'marriage' to include MF and MM couples.
There is one difference, there was already an historical term for females, 'women', there is no historical term for a legal bond for MM/FF.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddlersworth on Sept 8, 2010 14:29:13 GMT
^^ Yes but why are we treating them differently? If we are willing to recognize their right to have civil unions then what's the harm in simply calling them 'marriages'?
What if we took the same thing and applied it to race where interracial marriages weren't called marriages but 'civil unions'. Wouldn't that be considered a bit racist by today's standards?
It's already been mentioned a couple times that it's more than likely just something society needs to get used to. As an example, this past weekend at a family get together my fiance was having difficulties figuring out how to introduce her cousin's partner. I just said "call her her wife or her spouse". Now I wouldn't consider my fiance homophobic at all, it's just that she's never dealt with situations like that.
My guess is that in 10 or 20 years there will be less argument and they'll be called marriages at that point by the majority of people because society will be more used to the concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Exodite on Sept 8, 2010 16:26:25 GMT
I dont' think you got my point. There was a time when 'Men' had certain rights, A-B-C-D-E. We were able to give Women those rights, without changing the definition of 'man' to include males and females. Married couples (MF) have certain rights; we are able to give MM/FF couples those same rights, without changing the definition of 'marriage' to include MF and MM couples. There is one difference, there was already an historical term for females, 'women', there is no historical term for a legal bond for MM/FF. Your missing the parallel... Marriage is the right, not the title of the individual. The correct parallel would have been if women were not allowed to 'vote' but instead do the exact same thing so long as it was not referred to as a 'vote'. It would be the same for all other rights (though there's really not many of them left to fight for)... I get what you're saying, but your example fails to make the point. If women should be allowed to vote; gays should be allowed to get married. What your example would support is to not change the names of gays (women) to straight (men) when we grant the the right to marriage (voting)... |
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Sept 8, 2010 21:43:36 GMT
Hi, I'm Julio. I'm an atheist and am long distance dating a small town Christian girl.
There are some things that annoy me, such as Christianity and girls who put xx or ily at the end of everything.
I'm 19 and have an undying fear of earthworms. Waterworms, fireworms, airworms suck too.
On gay marriages, I say marriage is technically a religious thing, so therefore if christians say it goes against Gods word then gays shouldnt be allowed to get married. If they are getting married under goverment law or whatever, then thats perfectly acceptable. Love finds a way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychichobo on Sept 8, 2010 23:21:26 GMT
The problem here though, is when you consider Gay Christians who believe it is ok to get married.
THAT is the reason why it should be allowed. You cannot ask for one branch of religion (in thise case Christians who do not think that homosexuality is right in God's eyes) to be able to declare what another branch of religion (in this case Christians who believe homosexuality isn't something that is disallowed by God) can and cannot do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hyper Kinetic on Sept 9, 2010 4:13:31 GMT
Perhaps, then, there may be an idea for the homosexual (and those that support them) Christians/other religions to split from the Church to create their own sect based on this issue? Same rules, just different in one or two key areas.
Could be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thlaylie on Sept 9, 2010 8:18:11 GMT
Interesting to see the Lightning Strikes pick them off.
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Sept 9, 2010 10:23:51 GMT
Exodite: You have a point, it may not be as good of a parallel as first thought, but I still think it gets the point across.
The reasoning behind Prop 8 (and many other similar laws) is that the term "marriage" has been defined, for thousands of years, as a bond between a man and a woman. If a man wants to be legally/religiously bonded to a woman, that is, and has been for centuries, defined by the term 'marriage'.
If a man wants to be legally/religiously bonded to another man, that is fine, but does not meet the historical definition of the term 'marriage', thus will need to have a new tern applied.
They can have all of the same rights and responsibilities, but will need a new word.
Now, many folks just want to change the definition of 'marriage' to be gender neutral; and that is the debate.
My question is, why is the fight for the word, instead of the rights? In most states, if gays can have a legal bond of some sort, it does not have the same rights as a hetero bond (marriage). So why not fight for those rights, instead of fighting for the use of the word 'marriage'?
As a side note, the vast majority of gays that I speak to about this, could care less about the term 'marriage', they just want the rights that go along with it. It is the gay activists and 'leadership' that are fighting for the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by wormwood on Sept 9, 2010 14:04:48 GMT
Legal definitions for pre-existing terms are subject to change over time, and forcing them to the constraint of a religious group that uses them would be a violation of the establishment clause.
Militia, no longer means all able bodied men who will be called upon for the common defense, although that's exactly what it meant in the second ammendment.
Originally rights were for white land owning men, then definitions were broadened to the rest of the population.
Similarly the Secular governmental legal definition of marriage can be broadened to include non-heterosexual civil unions recognized by the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Sept 9, 2010 15:17:35 GMT
Of course it *can* be changed, we *can* do almost anything. We could even change it so 'marriage' *only* applied to M-M bonding. But what we have seen, over and over, is that the american public doesn't *want* to change that definition. It has been very consistent, *every* time it comes up, the result is the same. (31 times now)
But that same public is usually fine with allowing for M-M legal bonds, as long as it doesn't include changing the definition of the term marriage.
And this does not deal with a 'religious' constraint, it deals with historical precedence. (Which does have religious influence, but that is not the same thing.)
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Sept 9, 2010 15:20:15 GMT
Okay, I have a new topic...
In Florida, there is a small church planning on burning a number of Korans on 9/11. What do people think?
Should they be praised? Should they be stopped? Good idea? Bad idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Sept 9, 2010 15:27:34 GMT
Okay, I have a new topic... In Florida, there is a small church planning on burning a number of Korans on 9/11. What do people think? Should they be praised? Should they be stopped? Good idea? Bad idea? If there's one thing I hate more than Christianity, it's the nutjobs who take it to a whole other level. Burning Korans? Isn't fire the Devils tool? Isn't that violence? Seriously, they might as well just start worshipping Robot Centaur Jesus, Demi-god of War. |
|
"
)...
