Thread: Gay Marriage - a possible solution for all sides

Originally Posted by Wndrtch

I agree. I think a gay couple should be able to join in a committed way, just as hetero's do. But I also want a religious institution to have the right to determine its own rules. So long as the right of a religion is maintain, then gays should be allowed to marry/join/commit/fuse/bond/tie-the-knot/etc..., with a JP or another more accepting religion.

I agree to an extent. A religious union should be able to determine who it allows to enter into a union under their rules, but seeing as society allows non-religious heterosexuals to enter into a non-religious union and still call it marriage, then the term "marriage" clearly doesn't apply solely to religious unions. Mind you, society regularly dictates the rules and conventions by which religious marriage can occur. A good example of this is polygamy, which is allowed by some religions, but western society says that it isn't legal. If the argument that religion should be able to determine who can enter into religious unions, then society at-large must also accept that some religions advocate positions different from conventional marriage.

Originally Posted by noahath

I agree to an extent. A religious union should be able to determine who it allows to enter into a union under their rules, but seeing as society allows non-religious heterosexuals to enter into a non-religious union and still call it marriage, then the term "marriage" clearly doesn't apply solely to religious unions. Mind you, society regularly dictates the rules and conventions by which religious marriage can occur. A good example of this is polygamy, which is allowed by some religions, but western society says that it isn't legal. If the argument that religion should be able to determine who can enter into religious unions, then society at-large must also accept that some religions advocate positions different from conventional marriage.

So couldn't we simplify all of this by simply calling all commited relationships "Civil Unions"? I think it would preserve the rights of a religion and also permit alternative couples the same rights as traditional couples.

Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by noahath

I agree to an extent. A religious union should be able to determine who it allows to enter into a union under their rules, but seeing as society allows non-religious heterosexuals to enter into a non-religious union and still call it marriage, then the term "marriage" clearly doesn't apply solely to religious unions. Mind you, society regularly dictates the rules and conventions by which religious marriage can occur. A good example of this is polygamy, which is allowed by some religions, but western society says that it isn't legal. If the argument that religion should be able to determine who can enter into religious unions, then society at-large must also accept that some religions advocate positions different from conventional marriage.

Absolutely. Religious marriage and its rules should be left up to each individual religion. Civil marriage, and all the legal rights it entails should be left up to the state. Now of course the way I read the Constitution our government, if they recognize ANY religion's form of marriage must then recognize all that only include consenting adults. Gay marriage, polygamy, line marriages, the works.

I don't care if you marry 1 or 5 adults, I don't care if they are all men, or all women or a mix. None of them harms me in any way.

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken

Absolutely. Religious marriage and its rules should be left up to each individual religion. Civil marriage, and all the legal rights it entails should be left up to the state. Now of course the way I read the Constitution our government, if they recognize ANY religion's form of marriage must then recognize all that only include consenting adults. Gay marriage, polygamy, line marriages, the works.

I don't care if you marry 1 or 5 adults, I don't care if they are all men, or all women or a mix. None of them harms me in any way.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Yes, "bigotry."

Indeed it is.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

It's "bigotry" if we do not condone calling such obviously different things, the same thing.

Begging the question.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Whatever happened to celebrating diversity ? Why on earth would one start calling such different things the same thing ?

A contract is a contract.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

"Equal rights" ? How does a word award that ? If it does, why don't "gay" couples just start telling everyone they're "married" ?

Has anyone in this thead made such a claim?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Their "equal rights" (that they have already) will "magically appear"

No, they do not have equal rights respected under the law (in the United States). A gay man, in most of the United States, is not legally granted the same (equal) legal right as a woman to enter into a marriage contract with a man (consenting adults), and a gay woman (lesbian) is not granted the same (equal) legal right to enter into a marriage contract with a woman that a man has (consenting adults).

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

It's "bigotry" that many of us do not wish to publically condone and encourage people to engage in sexual practices that shorten their life spans or outright kill them.

Bigotry :rolleyes:

Nice try.

Other people's sexual practices are their business, not yours.

Originally Posted by noahath

I agree to an extent. A religious union should be able to determine who it allows to enter into a union under their rules, but seeing as society allows non-religious heterosexuals to enter into a non-religious union and still call it marriage, then the term "marriage" clearly doesn't apply solely to religious unions. Mind you, society regularly dictates the rules and conventions by which religious marriage can occur. A good example of this is polygamy, which is allowed by some religions, but western society says that it isn't legal. If the argument that religion should be able to determine who can enter into religious unions, then society at-large must also accept that some religions advocate positions different from conventional marriage.

There is an exception to the "religious union" idea, the state-church. No state church should be able to exempt itself from the laws of the state of which it is a part.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Yes, "bigotry."

It's "bigotry" if we do not condone calling such obviously different things, the same thing. Whatever happened to celebrating diversity ? Why on earth would one start calling such different things the same thing ?

And, yet AGAIN, I'm going to ask for sources as to how these "obviously different things", really are different. After all, if it's obvious, the you should have no problem, right?

You won't provide evidence, but I want it noted that I asked.

"Equal rights" ? How does a word award that ? If it does, why don't "gay" couples just start telling everyone they're "married" ?

Their "equal rights" (that they have already) will "magically appear"

Do you realise what legal protections marriage offers? Do you want to go without them?

It's "bigotry" that many of us do not wish to publically condone and encourage people to engage in sexual practices that shorten their life spans or outright kill them.

Bigotry :rolleyes:

Nice try.

Hey, has anyone else noted that the good Captain constantly says his opponents are wrong, then makes statements with nothing whatsoever to back them up?

Come on, give us some evidence! And explain why what you're saying doesn't also apply to, say, heterosexuals from sub Saharan Africa. I mean, considering the AIDS problem, and the sexual practices that "shorten their lifespans or outright kill them", shouldn't the governments stop recognising their marriages? Obviously no, but if you work with your "logic"...

Originally Posted by Wndrtch

So couldn't we simplify all of this by simply calling all commited relationships "Civil Unions"? I think it would preserve the rights of a religion and also permit alternative couples the same rights as traditional couples.

Am I wrong?

Maybe not, but it seems unnecessarily complicated. Marriage in the US has traditionally been a secular institution - even the Puritans disapproved of church weddings. But it is a vitally important institution - why do you think we're advocating for it? So, instead of stopping opposite sex marriage, and antagonising people, why not let opposite sex marriages continue, and just expand it to include same sex couples?

Son't get me wrong, I'll take civil unions, but it's not going to solve the issue once and for all.

Originally Posted by noahath

Mind you, society regularly dictates the rules and conventions by which religious marriage can occur. A good example of this is polygamy, which is allowed by some religions, but western society says that it isn't legal. If the argument that religion should be able to determine who can enter into religious unions, then society at-large must also accept that some religions advocate positions different from conventional marriage.

Do you agree that polygamists are being denied their right to marry?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Indeed it is.

Only for those that confuse good judgement with "bigotry." This has nothing to do with "bigotry." That word is only used in an attempt to make people with sensible reasoning capabilities look bad. It convinces only the simpleminded.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

A contract is a contract.

Marriage is more than a "contract." That this issue devalues it to that level is part of the reason most people resist it.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Has anyone in this thead made such a claim?

Why the concern about a word then ?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

No, they do not have equal rights respected under the law (in the United States). A gay man, in most of the United States, is not legally granted the same (equal) legal right as a woman to enter into a marriage contract with a man (consenting adults), and a gay woman (lesbian) is not granted the same (equal) legal right to enter into a marriage contract with a woman that a man has (consenting adults).

That is because a man is not a woman and a woman is not a man.

This "argument" can also be used to claim I don't have "equal rights" because I'm not allowed to go in and use the womens restroom.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Other people's sexual practices are their business, not yours.

Other peoples "sexual practices" are everybodies business when they cause social problems, disease and the early death of those engaging in them.

A society that encourages people to engage in deadly sexual perversions, by condoning them as the same thing as natures design, is dangerously confused.

"Gay marriage" is analogous to legalizing suicide or all hard drugs.

There is no such thing as sin in isolation. Sin affects everyone in society, everyone around the person(s) practicing it, whether he/she does it behind closed doors or not. Asking an entire nation to publically condone and celebrate this is asking an entire nation to openly accept and promote a deadly sin.

As long as America is healthy it will not do this.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Only for those that confuse good judgement with "bigotry." This has nothing to do with "bigotry." That word is only used in an attempt to make people with sensible reasoning capabilities look bad. It convinces only the simpleminded.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Marriage is more than a "contract." That this issue devalues it to that level is part of the reason most people resist it.

Legally, that is all that marriage is (a contract). Romantic/religious notions have no right place in law.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Why the concern about a word then ?

You tell me.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

That is because a man is not a woman and a woman is not a man.

Begging the question.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

This "argument" can also be used to claim I don't have "equal rights" because I'm not allowed to go in and use the womens restroom.

Your comparison fails, but bring on the coed restrooms.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Other peoples "sexual practices" are everybodies business when they cause social problems, disease and the early death of those engaging in them.

Other peoples sexual practices are their business and the consequences, if any, are for them to deal with. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell two consenting adults what they may or may not do (sexually) in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

A society that encourages people to engage in deadly sexual perversions, by condoning them as the same thing as natures design, is dangerously confused.

"Gay marriage" is analogous to legalizing suicide or all hard drugs.

There is no such thing as sin in isolation. Sin affects everyone in society, everyone around the person(s) practicing it, whether he/she does it behind closed doors or not. Asking an entire nation to publically condone and celebrate this is asking an entire nation to openly accept and promote a deadly sin.

As long as America is healthy it will not do this.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Evidence?


Begging the question.


Evidence?

Evidence ?

Evidence ?

Begging the question :rolleyes:

Obviously you have nothing of substance to offer other than your view that homosexuals should be able to "get married."

Which will always be an oxymoron whether you like it or not

Two men or two women don't "get married"

I'll never be the Queen of America for the same reasons two men or two women can't get "married."

That this escapes you is amusing in kind of a disgusting way.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Evidence ?

Evidence ?

Begging the question :rolleyes:

Obviously you have nothing of substance to offer other than your view that homosexuals should be able to "get married."

Which will always be an oxymoron whether you like it or not

Two men or two women don't "get married"

I'll never be the Queen of America for the same reasons two men or two women can't get "married."

That this escapes you is amusing in kind of a disgusting way.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence to back-up your claims in this post of yours.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

ied"

I'll never be the Queen of America for the same reasons two men or two women can't get "married."

To be honest, it'd be ridiculously easy to crown you Queen of America. Sure the title wouldn't give you any benefits besides laughter. But all you have to do is convince some people that said label is amusing.