| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2008 10:35:01 AM · #826 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
The only thing I care about when it comes to idealizing marriage is that parents protect their children from harm and that my spouse commits to the vows he made. |
An admirable and thoroughly reasonable stance. One that all loving couples, no matter their composition, would certainly join you.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2008 04:37:57 AM · #827 |
| I am all for fairness to all people but I do feel that marriage is between a man and a woman by definition. The state has an interest in strong families and thus the benefits of being married are to strengthen those families. Gay couples should have the option of civil unions but they should not be viewed as marriages in any respect. In fact any two people regardless of their relationship should be able to team up, and get the same civil union to form a legal entity that has the same rights as a gay couple would have. Would anyone have a problem with that? |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 06:50:45 AM · #828 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I am all for fairness to all people but I do feel that marriage is between a man and a woman by definition. The state has an interest in strong families and thus the benefits of being married are to strengthen those families. Gay couples should have the option of civil unions but they should not be viewed as marriages in any respect. In fact any two people regardless of their relationship should be able to team up, and get the same civil union to form a legal entity that has the same rights as a gay couple would have. Would anyone have a problem with that? |
Honestly, I don't get this argument, gays should be able to have Civil Unions that entitles them to all the same rights of married heterosexuals but we just won't call it "marriage" because that something between a man and a woman. If you truly believe that the civil unions should have the same rights as a marriage then guess what, it's a marriage, you are just naming it something different because you disagree with it.
If the argument is that that the State has an interest in strong families, than it would benefit the State to allow gays to be married thus strengthening their families.
If the State allows gays to marry, do you feel that some how lessens or cheapens your marriage? If yes, then you have an issue with your marriage that goes beyond this issue anyway. If no, then who cares and let people be free and happy to express their love and commitment to each other since it will have no bearing on you anyway. I do not see how allowing gays to be "married" is going to hurt heterosexuals in any way.
Just seems like blatant discrimination to me, just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2008 06:32:11 PM · #829 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I am all for fairness to all people but I do feel that marriage is between a man and a woman by definition. The state has an interest in strong families and thus the benefits of being married are to strengthen those families. Gay couples should have the option of civil unions but they should not be viewed as marriages in any respect. In fact any two people regardless of their relationship should be able to team up, and get the same civil union to form a legal entity that has the same rights as a gay couple would have. Would anyone have a problem with that? |
Honestly, I don't get this argument, gays should be able to have Civil Unions that entitles them to all the same rights of married heterosexuals but we just won't call it "marriage" because that something between a man and a woman. If you truly believe that the civil unions should have the same rights as a marriage then guess what, it's a marriage, you are just naming it something different because you disagree with it.
If the argument is that that the State has an interest in strong families, than it would benefit the State to allow gays to be married thus strengthening their families.
If the State allows gays to marry, do you feel that some how lessens or cheapens your marriage? If yes, then you have an issue with your marriage that goes beyond this issue anyway. If no, then who cares and let people be free and happy to express their love and commitment to each other since it will have no bearing on you anyway. I do not see how allowing gays to be "married" is going to hurt heterosexuals in any way.
Just seems like blatant discrimination to me, just my 2 cents. |
It's not discrimination... It's definition. I don't want the definition of marriage to change. Marriage is not just the coming together of two people. It is the coming together of two people to become one flesh. It is the coming together of two people with the idea of creating a family through producing offspring. Gay couples cannot do this. I realize that their are a lot of people who will not agree with my thoughts on marriage and I respect that. These are however my thoughts and opinions. In my opinion marriage is an institution that God has prescribed as the way for people to procreate and then nurture the young until adulthood. As such I don't personally want anything such as homosexuality which is outside of the will of God to be placed in the same category as the Godly union of a man and a woman. Now before I get clobbered for being homophobic I want to state clearly that I am not for discriminating against Gay people and do not feel that they should be treated as second class citizens in any way. They should have all the rights that anyone else has. They are no more or less in my eyes than anyone who leads an ungodly lifestyle which includes people who have premarital sex or choose to be atheist. From a religious standpoint I do not feel that Gay couples should raise children and thus further the moral acceptance of an ungodly lifestyle anymore than I think that single women (by choice) should raise children for the mere fact that it furthers a lifestyle that is not the way that God intended. It is however a fact that these lifestyles are in existence and from the view of the state it does behoove them for the greater good of the country to recognize and help these types of familial organizations as the state is not a religious entity. So yes you are right, I don't agree with homosexuality and I don't agree with premarital sex and I don't agree with a lot of the decisions my fellow citizens have made in their lives but that is between them and God and marriage is between a man and a woman. How about the question I posed? Should any two people regardless of their relationship be able to form a civil union? If not then why not?
Message edited by author 2008-05-25 18:34:34. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 07:41:45 PM · #830 |
I'm sure this thread has gone around and around every possible angle by now, but I guess I'll take it for another spin. If marriage is a term reserved for people who are planning to reproduce, then I had better get divorced ASAP because there is a good chance that reproduction is not going to happen for us.
My 86 year old next door neighbor was just joking about finding a man and getting married again. God forbid she is serious, because I'd hate to be the one to tell her that this is unacceptable. She would probably be looking for companionship only, because I doubt she is healthy enough to have an active sex life; and I guarantee she is not having any more children. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 08:17:57 PM · #831 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I'm sure this thread has gone around and around every possible angle by now, but I guess I'll take it for another spin. If marriage is a term reserved for people who are planning to reproduce, then I had better get divorced ASAP because there is a good chance that reproduction is not going to happen for us.
My 86 year old next door neighbor was just joking about finding a man and getting married again. God forbid she is serious, because I'd hate to be the one to tell her that this is unacceptable. She would probably be looking for companionship only, because I doubt she is healthy enough to have an active sex life; and I guarantee she is not having any more children. |
Allright, I get you. No marriage is not for the sole reason to produce children but that is the intent of marriage from a Godly perspective in those who are capable--- to produce families. Gay relationships hold 0 prospects for producing offspring as a result of their relationship regardless of age. Please try to look past all of the possible exceptions and look to the rule as it were. I would not deny marriage to infertile couples or those too old to bear children obviously. How about the question? Should any two people be allowed to have a civil union? |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 09:05:14 PM · #832 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I'm sure this thread has gone around and around every possible angle by now, but I guess I'll take it for another spin. If marriage is a term reserved for people who are planning to reproduce, then I had better get divorced ASAP because there is a good chance that reproduction is not going to happen for us.
My 86 year old next door neighbor was just joking about finding a man and getting married again. God forbid she is serious, because I'd hate to be the one to tell her that this is unacceptable. She would probably be looking for companionship only, because I doubt she is healthy enough to have an active sex life; and I guarantee she is not having any more children. |
Allright, I get you. No marriage is not for the sole reason to produce children but that is the intent of marriage from a Godly perspective in those who are capable--- to produce families. Gay relationships hold 0 prospects for producing offspring as a result of their relationship regardless of age. Please try to look past all of the possible exceptions and look to the rule as it were. I would not deny marriage to infertile couples or those too old to bear children obviously. How about the question? Should any two people be allowed to have a civil union? |
I guess I would have to question a person's authority to define marriage for me. Is there any reason, in particular, that I (a non-Christian) should be forced to give that privilege over to a group with whose ideals don't really resonate with me?
If one group is to dictate the actions of another group, I would at least think there would be some consistency. Fine, if the term "marriage" pertains to the act of joining for the purpose of reproduction, then marriage should be temporary, if and until reproduction takes place. In that case, my marriage is a sham. I am married to my husband because he is my best friend and we wanted to spend our lives together while enjoying the perks that society allows a united couple. For all anyone knows we never have sex and are unable to reproduce. Truth is, that's no one else's business but ours.
If we are going to dictate the parameters of marriage, then there should be "Marriage Police" who go about making sure that everyone who joins in the institution is actively fulfilling their obligations.
Message edited by author 2008-05-25 21:05:59. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 09:56:53 PM · #833 |
 dponlyme, you are entitled to your opinion and your beliefs, I do not deny you that right. The issue is when your religious beliefs are imposed on others who do not believe in what you believe. You have made it clear that you believe marriage is an institution that God created, that the will of God is that marriage is between man and women, but this is your God and not necessarily everyone else's. We have separation of church and state for a reason, so some state sponsored religion can't come in and dictate what the law should be according to their God and impose their beliefs on all others, regardless of their beliefs. You should be allowed to keep your definition of marriage as it pertains to your religion. If your congregation wants to deny that two people of the same sex be denied marriage, then so be it, that's your right to practice your religious convictions inside your house of worship, however, you should not be allowed to make your religious beliefs the law of the land. If you truly believe that people's ungodly acts are between them and God, then why deny them the marriage? God will sort it all out in the end anyway correct?
To answer your question about any two people being allowed a civil union, as it stands now any man and women regardless of their true relationship status are allowed to marry why should any other consenting adults be denied the same? So yes to your question. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 09:58:03 PM · #834 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
No marriage is not for the sole reason to produce children but that is the intent of marriage from a Godly perspective in those who are capable--- to produce families. |
Unless you happen to be Joseph...
There were legal marriages LONG before there was any concept of Christianity, so the "definition" of marriage certainly didn't originate there. People have tried to impose their religiously biased concepts of marriage on others before, and a few decades from now this moral stance will seem just as obsolete in its fear and prejudice as the last one. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 10:05:58 PM · #835 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I guess I would have to question a person's authority to define marriage for me. Is there any reason, in particular, that I (a non-Christian) should be forced to give that privilege over to a group with whose ideals don't really resonate with me?
If one group is to dictate the actions of another group, I would at least think there would be some consistency. Fine, if the term "marriage" pertains to the act of joining for the purpose of reproduction, then marriage should be temporary, if and until reproduction takes place. In that case, my marriage is a sham. I am married to my husband because he is my best friend and we wanted to spend our lives together while enjoying the perks that society allows a united couple. For all anyone knows we never have sex and are unable to reproduce. Truth is, that's no one else's business but ours.
If we are going to dictate the parameters of marriage, then there should be "Marriage Police" who go about making sure that everyone who joins in the institution is actively fulfilling their obligations. |
You cannot define marriage, it is already defined. You can only redefine marriage to include a broader definition. I do not seek to know the intentions of everyone and to make sure that they fulfill their obligations but when it is completely obvious that the union two people have is not "marriage" as already defined then it should be a civil union or in other words a man made union of two people for the purpose of legal status. My question is then why cannot two people who do not love one another and do not have a sexual or romantic relationship but nonetheless have determined to team up to help pay bills and be a help to one another in other ways also have this civil union and thus be afforded the opportunity to all the benefits that are offered to a gay couple? |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 10:13:30 PM · #836 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
My question is then why cannot two people who do not love one another and do not have a sexual or romantic relationship but nonetheless have determined to team up to help pay bills and be a help to one another in other ways also have this civil union and thus be afforded the opportunity to all the benefits that are offered to a gay couple? |
They can... In states that offer domestic partnership agreements you don't have to be the same sex.
Message edited by author 2008-05-25 22:17:43. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 10:14:37 PM · #837 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You cannot define marriage, it is already defined. |
By who? |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 10:17:09 PM · #838 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
why cannot two people who do not love one another and do not have a sexual or romantic relationship but nonetheless have determined to team up to help pay bills and be a help to one another in other ways also have this civil union and thus be afforded the opportunity to all the benefits that are offered to a gay couple? |
By the same token, two people who DO love each other and have a sexual or romantic relationship should have the right to marry... with or without your personal approval. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 10:19:03 PM · #839 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You cannot define marriage, it is already defined. |
By who? |
Merriam-Webster. ;-)
mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
(Interesting that the word only dates to the 14th century, no?)
Message edited by author 2008-05-25 22:22:23. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 11:29:53 PM · #840 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You cannot define marriage, it is already defined. You can only redefine marriage to include a broader definition. I do not seek to know the intentions of everyone and to make sure that they fulfill their obligations but when it is completely obvious that the union two people have is not "marriage" as already defined then it should be a civil union or in other words a man made union of two people for the purpose of legal status. |
"Completely obvious" is completely subjective. For example, it is completely obvious to me that my two gay friends have been monogamous for 15 years and have raised a well-rounded child in a positive environment. It is equally obvious that my heterosexual neighbor abuses his wife and children after he returns home from drinking at the bar and having sex with some strange woman he met there. Guess whose "marriage" is considered legitimate? There is something obviously wrong with that to me. I contend that if we are going to subject a contract, as personal as marriage, to a strict definition, then it should be well defined and all participants should be held to the same standard. Otherwise the whole institution is a farce. What is the point in saying "I'm not sure what it is, but I'm sure it's not what you are doing"?
Originally posted by dponlyme:
My question is then why cannot two people who do not love one another and do not have a sexual or romantic relationship but nonetheless have determined to team up to help pay bills and be a help to one another in other ways also have this civil union and thus be afforded the opportunity to all the benefits that are offered to a gay couple? |
My question is: What difference does that make to anyone else? Really? Perhaps I am being completely naive, but how in the world does a stable relationship between two partners working together hurt you in any way? Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but this is a common practice. Gay couples currently adopt one another to reach the same end. I suspect that most people don't know it; and I'm pretty sure that fewer still are feeling disenfranchised because of it. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 11:34:58 PM · #841 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
My question is then why cannot two people who do not love one another and do not have a sexual or romantic relationship but nonetheless have determined to team up to help pay bills and be a help to one another in other ways also have this civil union and thus be afforded the opportunity to all the benefits that are offered to a gay couple? |
For two reasons ...
In Brown vs Board of Education the US Supreme Court ruled that "separate" systems are inherently unequal, and thus violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution ensuring equal protection under the law.
Civil unions in no case confer the same rights as legal marriage -- custody, property, hospital visitation/medical decision-making, inheritance, and taxation are but a few of the areas in which even those currently in registered civil unions are denied the rights of "married" couples.
"Godliness" is not a criterion allowed in establishing laws in this country -- the Founding Fathers learned from the historical record that theocracies had been tyrannical failures throughout history (the current state of the Middle East would seem to validiate their prescient analytical abilities) and are the enemy of the liberty they were currently pledging their "lives, fortune, and sacred honor" to achieve.
Your church may define marriage any way it wants for its members, but if the law defines marriage as a contract between two consenting adults, the government has no business determining who those two persons are, or treating any pair of such contractually-related persons any differently. |
|
|
|
05/25/2008 11:38:12 PM · #842 |
| But the french base comes from the Latin "maritatus", which definitely predates the Christian definition. I'd say it's already been rewritten at least once. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 08:16:34 AM · #843 |
| I have read all of your replies and what I have come to is that there really shouldn't be marriage in the eyes of the state. It should all be civil unions as the state has no business recognizing anything that might be defined in a religious or sexual context. Marriage is not defined except by the people who wish to use the word. Civil unions however can be defined by the state and it can be codified to include everyone for any reason so as not to impede anyone's happiness. I think that we should all push for this to become the law of the land and then their will be no more wrangling about gay marriage. There will be no marriage. There will be no families because this cannot really be defined either. There will be no reason for either of these things to be recognized by the state. It will be left up to each individual what is best for them. For instance if my child grows up and wishes to enter into a civil union with me then that should not be frowned upon because there should be no sexual or religious connotation to these civil unions. They are merely to get benefits from the government and denote only an interdependence upon one another. In fact why should we limit them to just two people? I think I should be able to enter into a civil union with as many as I want if that is what will make me happy. And anyway why shouldn't parents be allowed to have sex with their adult children as long as they are both consenting. What right does the state have to stand in the way of their happiness. So long as all resulting pregnancy are terminated by abortion or prevented through sterilization there will be no resulting problems in the gene pool. No victims here right. Society is not harmed by two consenting adults having sex. |
|
|
|
05/31/2008 11:05:19 AM · #844 |
yeah, and don't forget a healthy dose of bestiality & child molestation while you're at it, Darren. I mean, we all know that THOSE are the real goals here anyway, right??? oh, and don't leave out the parts about leaving cigarettes & alcohol & loaded firearms lying about. ohh! and lots of porn.
please put your storybook aside for a few minutes and actually consider your own statements v. the points made by others. It <seems> you may be (re)spouting the same regurgitated garbage so many other 'christians' are spewing these days.
Ironic, that it sounds just like the same excuse for why women shouldn't vote, why slaves shouldn't have been freed, and why various races shouldn't have served in the military. (ie - the lord don't want it that way; only good christians get to do things the way they want, and everyone else be damned)
|
|
|
|
05/31/2008 01:45:09 PM · #845 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Ironic, that it sounds just like the same excuse for why women shouldn't vote, why slaves shouldn't have been freed, and why various races shouldn't have served in the military. (ie - the lord don't want it that way; only good christians get to do things the way they want, and everyone else be damned) |
Here, Here... Billy, you hit the nail on the head IMO. And then the "good christians" can hide under that title in order to do things like this link or this link among many others that we could google up.
For those of you that think gay people are granted the same rights as straight people you are living in a cave... This would not have happened to a girl and guy link
Message edited by author 2008-05-31 13:52:14. |
|
|
|
06/02/2008 08:48:51 AM · #846 |
I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I intend to...I have the rant threads turned off in my preferences and noticed that this thread was still active (visiting another members' profile and noticed a recent post to it).
My opinion is that marriage is for a man & woman only. Marriage of gay couples is just plain wrong and immoral.
Like it, don't like it...don't care. That's my take on it, and you'll never convince me otherwise. :-) |
|
|
|
06/02/2008 09:52:55 AM · #847 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I intend to...I have the rant threads turned off in my preferences and noticed that this thread was still active (visiting another members' profile and noticed a recent post to it).
My opinion is that marriage is for a man & woman only. Marriage of gay couples is just plain wrong and immoral.
Like it, don't like it...don't care. That's my take on it, and you'll never convince me otherwise. :-) |
Life is less about letting people know what you think is wrong with them, and more about what you love about other people. Life is about living well enough so that those you love understand and learn from your compassion. The avoidance of intentionally enhancing suffering is a high purpose; there's no greater act of compassion than actively reducing other people's suffering. |
|
|
|
06/02/2008 09:54:56 AM · #848 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Marriage of gay couples is just plain wrong and immoral. |
Yep. However, marriage is recognized by the state and other agencies (insurance). I'm all for civil unions (state version of marriage). Of course, there are churches that regonize gay unions, so you can call yourself married.
Is it a distruction of the family? Um people...get a clue! Distruction of the family is seen in:
1. Divorse
2. Kennel Care for children (child day care)
Not in gay marriage. It would be sad if a child grew up without a mom or dad (because their parents are both dads or moms), but there are single parents with children and society accepts them (all you single parents, I don't know how you do it sometimes).
And California has now seen that it's unconstitutional to not accept a civil union. It's going to take a constitutional amendment to reject civil unions. Wow, that's pretty heavy handed. We'll see how this plays out.
Good luck all to all those out there living in union, I'm glad I have it easy being a bisexual union (that's really what straight marriage is).
|
|
|
|
06/02/2008 05:22:07 PM · #849 |
Originally posted by joshua:
here's my problem...it's against the law right now for gay marriages to be part of the legal system. it's in the constitution. so you have these judges basically denying their responsibility to uphold the constitution and allowing gay marriage. the fact is that right now 2/3 of americans do not support gay marriage, so my question would be what's the big fuss about the big fuss? |
It's in the Consititution? I don't think I have ever seen it there. I think it is activist judges and polititions who are trying to put it there, but... what do I know. |
|
|
|
06/02/2008 05:29:45 PM · #850 |
Not going to read through all the tread, just start off here. I think that people should be happy with whatever they are dealt with in life.
who are we to judge, we are not. If two people make each other happy, then whats the problem. just let it be and be happy in the choices you make
the end |
|
