gay marriage

[Shai Gar]

i say no.

but i also say that we destroy all legal rights of all marriage everywhere.

marriage is a religious institution, and while i dont agree with it as a private business they have the rights to say what flies in their institution. if you dont want to be a member make your own institution where you can allow it.

but actual marriage is not the issue, it is the confused issue, the real issue is letting gay couples visit each other afterhours in hospitals and have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. all couples everywhere should share the same privilages as each other but it should not be called marriage.

there.

[CapnEnnui]

And why shouldn't it be called marriage? Because marriage is a religious institution, shouldn't churches who are willing to marry gay people (and there are churches who are) be allowed to marry them?

Marriage is a word, words were made by people. Why can't people get over it. It could've been called "cocksucking" and everyone would want to protect the sanctity of cocksucking, instead offering gays to call their "impure" unions marriage, lest they offend God. Are people really so afraid of someone else using their word?

But I think you're right about dismantling the special legal "rights" of marriage, even though most of those rights are financially detrimental to the couple, which makes it a more useless institution.

[Avengardh]

So who's going to get the dog in the end?

Something has to be there, legally, if only for dividing what it is that you shared at one point, etc.

I don't think marriage is really the issue, it's religion and its involvement with politics.

[Garyincinci]

Marriage is no more a religious institution than Soccer is. People were forming marriages long before Christianity had spread. People proclaim their marriage with religion so that it has more meaning. By marrying before god, matrimony would be seen as having a greater purpose. Religion" took advantage of people wishing to marry before god and, through manipulation of the masses, convinced them that to not marry within the church was a sin. And yet, atheists of all time periods married.

Now that the 1000 year reign of Catholism has trickled down, religion plays an even less important role in marriage. Marriage is nothing more than a bond between two people. Society deems homosexuality as a deviance, yet they view mentally retarded people as deviants and they are allowed to marry.

Homosexuality has been a dominant gene in natures pattern. I believe it is natures way of saying that it's ok to be different...different is what caused you to evolve. It's time to evolve your way of thinking. Homosexual marriage isn't going to suddenly cause all the clocks to stop, cats to chase dogs up trees and the earth to slip off of the turtles back. It doesn't hurt anyone in any way and only encourages human interaction. The arguement is that gay marriage will corrupt morality and ethical standards. Well damn straight it will and it's about time. All the ignorant pricks out there need to stop being so ignorant and realize that life isn't about hating, it's about loving.

[jjt]

In New Zealand our Government has just passed a "Civil Union" Bill. Basically a gay couple (or even a straight couple) can have be joined in a Civil Union, which is secular but gives a couple all the rights of marraige like being the next of kin under law.

We have a fairly liberal governent with open gay and lesbian members of parliment as well as the world's first transgender Member of Parliament.

I think this is a good option.

[CapnEnnui]

But why are people so protective of a word? It's a word, "God" didn't tell people the English word for "marriage" and that they should protect it from homosexuals, lest he cast hellfire on the Earth. This whole thing stinks of "separate, but equal" mentality, just let them be called the same thing if they're legally in the same position as a regular married couple.

But maybe I just have hang-ups about religion.

[ApeTheDog]

I say yes.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to mary? Marriage, as I see it, is an expression of mutual love and a commitment to each other. Homosexuality exists, there is no way you can deny or change this. And homosexual love each other, and commit to each other, every bit as much and in the same way as heterosexuals do. There is no difference between them here. Why is it that only heterosexuals should be allowed the benefits of marriage?

In Belgium, my country, homosexuals are already allowed to be married, by the way, and I'm quite proud of that.

[floid]

If you can leave all your wordly possesions to your cat or your dog then why can't you live with whomever of whatever wavelength of the sexual spectrum and have them as your "life partner" with the full benefits society grants to judeo-christian partnerships?

[jjt]

There are also heterosexuals in New Zealand that were pleased to have an alternative to marriage because of the Christian basis of marriage and they didn't want that.

As a married person I do have a bit of a problem with homosexual marriage. Maybe I need to think about this some more!

[ApeTheDog]

I'm sorry, jjt, but I can't imagine any legitimate problems you might have with homosexual marriage. What are these problems you speak of?

[Shai Gar]

retards, the marriage i am talking about is the marriage in churches, that marriage is religious. attack religion all you want, you wont get any opposition from me, but the New Zealand Civil union thing is the one that should be universal, if people want to be joined with love and commitment then why do they want to do it within a religion that dispises their sexual choice? when a civil union should take its place as just as legal and commitment orientated.

floid, what makes you think that i have something against people giving their stuff to their lovers? did my post have anything in it attacking that? no. did you instinctivly react and post that without thinking at all? seems so.

avans post doesnt even deserve a response.

apethedog, only heterosexuals deserve a religious marriage because these religions are against homosexual unions. i am advocating civil unions that have all the legal rights of marriage at the moment and also advocating taking rights out of religious marriages. seperation of church and state mate.

ennui, i agree god does not (supposedly, though i argue) hate anyone. and if we are to believe that god gave a message to muhammed after he supposedly sent his son jesus, then one of these messages in the koran is that we are supposed to beat men who lie down with men, but if they do it again we are to forgive them and welcome them into society as it is something that they are. i believe that god doesnt want marriage for only certain people and not others, however these institutions do, and as a part of free speach and churches as private clubs and organisations they have rights to keep whoever they want out. civil unions should be put in place to replace these biggoted ideas.

gary, just plain wrong

[ApeTheDog]

I disagree. If this church was a golf club, and posted a sign outside saying: 'no homosexuals are allowed to use our facilities' they would get dragged to court. Yet for the church to do this is perfectly acceptable? Discrimination is illegal, it should be so even for the church, yet it appears not to be the case (yet).

[Shai Gar]

certainly if they had the sign out front where it can be seen by people. but it is not illegal to have it within its selection process that the person can not be gay

[mgb]

I think Canada is starting to get it right. Gays can marry, but churches can't be forced to marry them because they have the right to believe and do as they wish.

Shai, marriage is more than a religious institution. It predates christianity (obviously) and it predates Judaism. Abraham is considered the founder of Judaism and he had a wife. Since he already had a wife, it must have been fairly commonplace.

Churches claim that marriage is one of their institutions, but to believe that you are giving them a lot of power. If churches said that breathing is a religious (not that marriage is what keeps us alive) right would you believe them. No. Because man has been breathing longer than the church has been around.

These churches aren't going to last forever. None of them. Humans pre-date and post-date pretty much every religion that has ever existed. And through that history, there has been marriages. I think it would also be foolish to think that a man and man or women and women have never lived together as lovers through the course of human history.

Who cares what it is called? A civil union is still a marriage with a different name. Just because you get married by a judge instead of in a church, it doesn't make you less married, even in heterosexual marriages.

[ApeTheDog]

Actually, it is illegal to discriminate people on basis of sexual preference. I looked it up and it's all on this page.

http://www.playbytherules.net.au/whats.html

I'll tell you if somebody would found a church right now, in this day and age, it would not get away with only allowing heterosexuals to be married, with only allowing males to be priests, with molestation of young choirboys and the likes. The catholic church is really lucky that it's been around so long. It can still get away with all these things because it used to kick so much weight around during the creation of these laws and constitutions.

[Miss Anthropic]

I'm sorry, jjt, but I can't imagine any legitimate problems you might have with homosexual marriage. What are these problems you speak of?
Just those problems that those open-minded, loving, accepting Christians perceive.....

[Shai Gar]

Shai, marriage is more than a religious institution. It predates christianity (obviously) and it predates Judaism. Abraham is considered the founder of Judaism and he had a wife. Since he already had a wife, it must have been fairly commonplace.judaism was not the first religion religion goes back to the city of Ur, and not even rescued written history goes back that far (not sure if cuneform was around then but they certainly havent translated anything from that city)


These churches aren't going to last forever. None of them.thank god.


Who cares what it is called? A civil union is still a marriage with a different name. Just because you get married by a judge instead of in a church, it doesn't make you less married, even in heterosexual marriages.my point exactly, thank you


and it is not illegal in the united states to exclude people on basis of sexual preference. proof: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june00/scboyscouts.html

[ApeTheDog]

Yes, well, the united states aren't exactly the posterchild for sanity, but you have a point there. How you managed to score it, I'll never know. I don't agree at all with this law. I mean... these boy scouts are sounding pretty retarded to me - you must believe in God to be a leader? What does this have to do with having fun at all - which is what I think these organisations are all about, aren't they?

The fact also still remains that in your australia, and in the vast majority of the civilised world, it is still illegal to discriminate against people based on sexual preference. There are lots of examples about sports clubs on that page I quoted, and the only time they're allowed to not allow somebody is in certain sports, and then only over the age of 12 - and that's understandable, because it's mainly so the boys don't beat up the girls in boxing and stuff like that.

[Shai Gar]

i wont rise to the personal attack on my knowledge and research skills

the boy scout oath involves god, and if you read the charter by the founder it involves belief in god. scouting is about teaching scouting, religious values and citizenship to children. you dont like it? dont join.

and as i said earlier mr man who refuses to read and understand. it is illegal to discriminate outrightly, but organisations all around the globe are free to choose their selection criteria.

[ApeTheDog]

That wasn't intented as a personal attack. I don't have anything against you or any of your skills.

And I hear you perfectly clear, but I can't just take your word for it. Did you see philadelphia, where Tom Hanks was fired for being gay? That didn't fly. I know for a fact that in Belgium if you were to stop somebody from enterring your organisation on ground of his gayness, it wouldn't fly.
You can say that I refuse to read and understand, but that's not the case here. I read and understand what you say - I just can't buy it if I don't see any evidence supporting your theory, and I do have evidence supporting mine.

[CapnEnnui]

Originally Posted by Shai Gar
retards
ennui, i agree god does not (supposedly, though i argue) hate anyone. and if we are to believe that god gave a message to muhammed after he supposedly sent his son jesus, then one of these messages in the koran is that we are supposed to beat men who lie down with men, but if they do it again we are to forgive them and welcome them into society as it is something that they are. i believe that god doesnt want marriage for only certain people and not others, however these institutions do, and as a part of free speach and churches as private clubs and organisations they have rights to keep whoever they want out. civil unions should be put in place to replace these biggoted ideas.

Okay, first of all, don't start with the "retards," unless you want me to get hostile back. So I'll just get passive aggressive and snide. How about you go back and read my first post, buddy. There ARE churches out there who ARE willing to *MARRY* gay people. These are Christian churches, but NOT the ones that don't allow gay marriage. It isn't asking to force religious organizations to marry gay people against their beliefs, but to allow those that WILL marry two gay people to do so. So your argument is invalid. The issue here is the word marriage, and since there are churches who WANT to use it for homosexual civil unions, there's not a reason to force them to call it a "civil union" and heterosexual unions "marriage." "Separate, but equal," some morons may say, except by CALLING it something different, you are MAKING it something different, and you are therefore putting it out of acceptance, and continuing the inequality that exists for homosexuals today.

"Retard." At least be creative in your attempts at dismissal.

[Shai Gar]

here is the situation with my posting at the moment, my computers modem is not working properly as it is dialing me in and then knocking me off not letting me redial. (problem with the modem i need to fix when i find the driver). i have some small access to the libraries computers but i do not have any of my links here and i just cant think with lots of fucking children running around pissing me off. plus dads laptop is out of town at the moment with dad so i cant use it to make myself comfortable in a quiet room pumping out marilyn manson.

i apologise for not posting my arguments in a reasonable manner but i have not the time, the mood or the links.