MarkusB
Ensign
Addicted to BSG
Posts: 94
|
Post by MarkusB on Mar 17, 2005 13:22:30 GMT -5
I don't care who gets married. Churches should not be forced by the state to perform ceremonies though. Freedom works for both equally in my opinion. Word!
|
|
|
Post by Blade Runner on Mar 17, 2005 15:39:11 GMT -5
Word! In yer shell like, come here, theres more
|
|
MarkusB
Ensign
Addicted to BSG
Posts: 94
|
Post by MarkusB on Mar 17, 2005 20:46:35 GMT -5
In yer shell like, come here, theres more Okay..........
|
|
|
Post by caseOrange on Mar 18, 2005 3:48:46 GMT -5
There needs to be something that allows same sex couples the legal status and protection of marriage. In the US, that's called a civil union, which is available for both hetero- and homosexual couples. There's a couple of problems with legalizing gay marriage. First, let's say it is legalized in Canada, Europe, and the US; but that's it. When married gay couples move to a part of the world where homosexuality is not accepted, much less gay union, their marriage is null and void. Then what do you do--try to get it legalized there and introduce a cultural issue that is totally alien to a soveriegn nation? Second--and this is going to get a little "blue" here--is the issue of consummation of marriage. Granted, the nature of the question is kind of goofy given that it's hard to prove, but it has been a deciding issue in some cases. For instance (and i'd have to look this up in my old college notes in order to cite the case), there was a divorce proceeding where the man had filed for divorce, saying that he had been married to his wife for 2 years and that she had denied him sex for the entirety of the marriage. The woman admitted that this was true, and that she didn't want to have sex with him for a variety of reasons. At this point, the judge ruled that there was no need for a divorce proceeding because the marriage was null and void being that it had never been consummated. This sounds silly, but it is a legally binding argument. The traditional legal definition of consummation of marriage (and i'm slightly paraphrasing here) is copulation which is intended to or can bring about offspring. This could easily be rewritten to include other types of intimacy, but then arises the issue of sodomy laws--another silly, yet legal, reality. In the US, most states have laws against sodomy. And even in states that don't have laws against it, the question becomes: should the "consummation of marriage" be whittled down from an attempt at procreation to a bj in the parking lot after the wedding? Personally, i don't care if someone wants to marry a piece of scrap metal. But to argue that gay marriage is necessary for gay couples to have any kind of legal protection is, IMO, off-the-mark. If i wanted to, i could make my boss a beneficiary of my life insurance policy (although i'm sure he'd have me killed soon after). i could will my house to my best friend or an old drinking buddy--it doesn't matter. IMHO, the fight for legalization of gay marriage is more of a movement to justify or otherwise gain public approval for a particular lifestyle. And although it may seem that i'm against it, i'm voting "other" because, in the end, i really don't care. It was an issue that was pushed a lot during the presidential campaign to polarize undecided voters either left or right, but since the election, the brou-ha-ha seems to have subsided.
|
|
Darth Marley
Ragtag, fugitive fleeter
Daggit Wrangler
Posts: 110
|
Post by Darth Marley on Mar 18, 2005 6:50:06 GMT -5
There is remarkably little in the bible about marriage, notably absent is a prohibition on polygamy, yet the Mormons got screwed over on that.
The Catholics did not make marriage a "sacrement" until about 1000 years ago, so the notion that "it has always been like this" does not apply.
What I would like to see is an approach that forbids the government from granting rights on the basis of marital status.
Paternity responsibilities have nothing to do with marriage.
Get the government out of marriage completely. This solves the insurance, hospital visits, and inheritance problems for all parties.
|
|
MarkusB
Ensign
Addicted to BSG
Posts: 94
|
Post by MarkusB on Mar 18, 2005 8:46:49 GMT -5
Awesome Post caseOrange!
|
|
|
Post by Blade Runner on Mar 18, 2005 11:23:25 GMT -5
Looks like people are saying 'YES'
|
|
|
Post by cranky1c on Mar 18, 2005 12:02:24 GMT -5
Whether or not govt. should be involved in marriage, in fact it is. While I don't thing govt. has any business telling a church which marriages they should bless, I similarly don't believe that a devoted couple should be denied the rights and protections of the law based simply on religious disaproval.
|
|
MarkusB
Ensign
Addicted to BSG
Posts: 94
|
Post by MarkusB on Mar 18, 2005 14:30:57 GMT -5
Looks like people are saying 'YES' Yes this is typical. Go with what is "popular" with little intellectual input ....... just go with the flow..... Politically correct rules these days, and that's just how it is right now. I voted yes but not defining it the same as traditional marrage ( name only). Same benefits for it's function. I think that's fair.
|
|
|
Post by Crashdown on Mar 18, 2005 15:31:31 GMT -5
Ahhh, yes. Of course. If everyone's siding against you, it must just be that they're going with the flow. Would you be saying the same if all these people were saying yes without any real input? Of course not. It'd probably be a great landslide victory.
And believing in equality is called political correctness now? Funny, here I was thinking that it was just part of being a decent human being. Ho hum, guess you learn something new every day, huh?
|
|
MarkusB
Ensign
Addicted to BSG
Posts: 94
|
Post by MarkusB on Mar 18, 2005 18:17:32 GMT -5
No. Politically correct is not offending anyone or hurting anyones feeling. I agreed with the equal rights bit if you read all of that. You know exactly what I mean when I say people who go with what's popular w/o much thought. It's around us everywhere. People for the most part are followers. You can't put "politically correct and equality together" that was not my point, and another thing.....it's not siding with ME. This has nothing to do with me. If thinking that there is no right or wrong or that no one should speak their opinion...well I guess you are a more decent human being than me. If everyone is truly equal then this item is flyshit and pepper.
|
|
|
Post by Crashdown on Mar 18, 2005 18:49:00 GMT -5
Okay. I'm sorry. I may have come on a little strong. Sometimes I let my mouth run away with me. Or my typing. Whatever.
I never said I was right or any other opinion was invalid.
And as for the political correctness/equality thing, I guess I didn't explain that as well as I might have. All I meant was that as far as I'm concerned, allowing same sex marriages is a matter of equality. What you said sounded somewhat like people being in favour was a simple matter of political correctness. On rereading, it becomes obvious that you were simply saying that the knee-jerk reaction to agree was a matter of PC thuggery, which I actually kind of agree with.
One of my biggest pet peeves is folks preaching text book PC and then, when you read between the lines, in other stuff they say, you see their true opinions creeping in.
|
|
MarkusB
Ensign
Addicted to BSG
Posts: 94
|
Post by MarkusB on Mar 18, 2005 19:47:08 GMT -5
No worries man. I just like to hear peoples reasoning before they just "jump" to that answer. You obviously are not one of those people I can't stand "blue pills" . The only reason I get kind of "edgy" with this whole topic especially with the equality bit is because people are starving, dying and tortured. This topic is only tip of the iceburg when it comes to equality.
|
|
Kass
Nugget
Posts: 26
|
Post by Kass on Mar 23, 2005 7:28:50 GMT -5
In the US, that's called a civil union, which is available for both hetero- and homosexual couples. In nearly all states, even a civil union does not provide the same rights and benefits that marriages do. They don't get the same tax benefits as a married couple does because that is set by the federal government. When people who have a civil union cross state (not international) lines, they lose the few rights they were given. A civil union is far inferior to a "marriage." The reverse is actually true. More countries outside the US whose residents might want to immigate here lose their marriage rights. Iceland is one example.
|
|
|
Post by caseOrange on Mar 23, 2005 12:35:34 GMT -5
In nearly all states, even a civil union does not provide the same rights and benefits that marriages do. They don't get the same tax benefits as a married couple does because that is set by the federal government. i didn't know being doubly taxed was a benefit. The reverse is actually true. More countries outside the US whose residents might want to immigate here lose their marriage rights. Iceland is one example. i don't know about immigrants from Iceland, but i've never heard of immigrants from anywhere else having to re-marry once they got to the States. That only aplies to the dissolution of marriage. It has nothing to do witha couple that remains together. Yes it does. If the marriage was never consummated and in some way it is brought up in a legal matter, all contracts, etc., entered into by the marriage parties are null and void. Admittedly it's rare, but the possiblity does exist. Marriage isn't all about kids. My aunt and uncle NEVER had children; never wanted any. Does that make their marriage null and void? Of course not. i didn't say that. The act of consummation has to be one that could possibly bring about procreation, in other words penis/vagina. A man and woman who are both sterile can still consummate a marriage. It is a legal definition--i didn't make it up just to piss off gays. If someone does leave in their will valuable property to a same-sex partner, other members of the family can challenge the will and often win, leaving the partner homeless or without even the littlest sentimental memento. Many families do it out of spite because they so disapproved of the lifestyle. This happens regardless if it concerns gay relationships or not. Most of my family are vultures, as far as i'm concerned, and i've watched them battle each other tooth and nail for a dead relatives possessions. However, to challenge a will, they must show that the person who wrote the will was either under duress or not of sound mental faculties when they wrote the will. If a homosexual falls in love with someone from another country and gets married there, their spouse is not allowed to move to the US unless they find some sort of alternate visa (student, work, whatever). The couple is denied the equal right of getting to actually live with their spouse. Once they get their alternative visa, they can move right in. And no, it doesn't come with all the bells and whistles of a hetero marriage, but it's not like they're barred from doing it. ...the government has no business legislating a religious sacrament. It should not be issuing "marriage licenses." Agreed. It should also not be in the business of approving or disapproving lifestyles. This is why i made no mention of religion in my post. Marriage should only be performed by churches and only if their church chooses to recognize homosexual marriage. There is a verse in the Bible, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Leviticus 20:13. So, if the only recognized marriages are those performed in churches, then it cannot be Christian, Jewish or Muslim (the big 3 as far as religions go). You'll have to try another religion or make up your own with your own god who approves of homosexual marriage. If we go by the letter of the Bible, heterosexual rape is acceptable by this passage. Oh yeah, I hope you aren't eating any pork products either. That's a no-no. The problem with the Bible is that if it is read in traditional ways (i.e., literally, metaphorically, or allegorically), sooner or later one will come across a verse that contradicts a previous verse. This is why it's so easy to be a preacher--one can always find something that justifies their point of view. Another reason i chose to leave religion out of this. What i was trying to say in my post is that the reason there is such a controversy over gay marriage is because of some legal problems that have to be resolved for it to take place. Certain things have to be rectified so that if gays truly want recognition for their lifestyle they don't have to do it through vigilante weddings like those that took place in San Francisco last year. If you're trying to peg me to one side of this issue or another, you're wasting valuable typing time. As i said before, i really don't care--let those who have more of a stake in it debate it. Who am i to concern myself with who should or shouldn't get married?
|
|