| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2004 07:10:38 AM · #26 |
isnt there some other place for discussuions like this?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 07:55:43 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
isnt there some other place for discussuions like this? |
There are plenty of places for discussions like this - it isn't something that needs to be annexed off in a corner. Seems a lot more resonable compared to some of the previous posts in Rant. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:06:04 AM · #28 |
I am all for it! Although I am not gay myself, I do work in the television industry where many gay men and women also work. So, a lot of my friends are gay and I support their need for equal rights.
Besides, I live in Toronto! We accept gay marriages here. And, we welcome anyone who wants to have the ceremony performed. We definitely need the tourism after last year's SARS, the power outage, and mad cow. So, everyone is welcome to our city for whatever reason, just come and visit. We need your help to restore our battered economy.
By the way, by legalizing gay marriages in both Toronto and Vancouver, our government has not fallen, the morel fibre of the society has not deteriorated, and the division between church and state is still as confused and interwoven as it always has been since the time of Christ. So, the bottom line is what's the big deal? If it makes us all equal citizens under the law and in the eyes of each other, it can not be a bad thing. Right?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:06:54 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Come on people, not everything can be "legal" because a small selfish minority wants it. Vote on it! It won't pass! |
Tyranny is tyranny, no matter whether it's by a majority rule or by an individual. To deprive certain people of rights afforded to others based on sexual preference is just as wrong as depriving based on skin color.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:09:38 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Homer Simpson:
Has the whole world gone gay? |
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:15:02 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by mbardeen:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Come on people, not everything can be "legal" because a small selfish minority wants it. Vote on it! It won't pass! |
Tyranny is tyranny, no matter whether it's by a majority rule or by an individual. To deprive certain people of rights afforded to others based on sexual preference is just as wrong as depriving based on skin color. |
we live in a democracy...just because skirting the law and making up your own has become a normality does not make it right. there are processes in place, but no one wants to go through those processes because they know the will of the people is NOT to allow gay marriage. why else would they be breaking the law?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:18:18 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by achiral:
we live in a democracy...just because skirting the law and making up your own has become a normality does not make it right. there are processes in place, but no one wants to go through those processes because they know the will of the people is NOT to allow gay marriage. why else would they be breaking the law? |
So you think Rosa Parks should go to the back of the bus, like the law said too ? Seems like the same argument.
There seems to be quite a well established idea in the US that you are allowed to stand up against laws that you feel are unjust. I found a good link that seems to summarise this idea. Not sure if you would support it though.
But I'm just a stranger here myself.
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 08:22:35. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:23:24 AM · #33 |
i think civil disobedience is far less serious than the mayor of one of the biggest cities in the country deciding to break the law 3000 times. i mean maybe i am wrong on this and the california supreme court will rule in favor of gay marriage...anyway even then it won't stop there because people will fight this all the way to the US supreme court.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:27:15 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i think civil disobedience is far less serious than the mayor of one of the biggest cities in the country deciding to break the law 3000 times. i mean maybe i am wrong on this and the california supreme court will rule in favor of gay marriage...anyway even then it won't stop there because people will fight this all the way to the US supreme court. |
So the mayor doesn't have the same rights you have to civil disobedience ? I don't quite understand that idea.
Anyway, its a democracy like you said - he'll just get voted out, if everyone disagrees with it like you believe - right ?
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 08:27:39. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:31:32 AM · #35 |
ok i see your point, but what is the end game? is there no process involved? should any person or group of people be able to break the law merely because they don't agree with it? what's the process here?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 08:48:18 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by achiral:
ok i see your point, but what is the end game? is there no process involved? should any person or group of people be able to break the law merely because they don't agree with it? what's the process here? |
I think you described the process.
People find a law they feel is unjust.
They protest it, usually by deliberately flaunting it - get arrested, get convicted by a lower court judge (who should typically just follow the law)
Then a series of appeals, and it goes to the Supreme Court, eventually, who decide if the law is just or not.
That's typically the process. The government may or may not stick its nose in to the whole process at various points along the way, but the Supreme Court is the final say on these sorts of things as far as I understand it.
But the key part is, to get it in front of the supreme court, you have to typically break the law in the first place - it just seems to be how it is done in the US.
I'm sure this is massively simplified, and I'm just a foreigner anyway but it seems to be a pretty reasonable way to handle things. The fact that the whole process is politicised, included judicial selection and all maybe tarnishes the overall appearance of fairness, but it seems to be a better system than most.
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 08:50:38. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 09:08:25 AM · #37 |
The gay marriage issue has already been dealt with in Scandinavia. Perhaps we in the U.S. should have a look at the results before taking action one way or the other: //www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
Ron |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 09:34:55 AM · #38 |
well, i'm havin' a bad day at work, so i might as well have a forum thread for breakfast.
i feel that i've made some pretty good friends here, and i'm actually kind of excited that we are able to have a grown-up discussion about this. god knows no one in the media is able too. so, since we're all pals:
10 things about me you may or may not give a crap about
1) gay
2) lucky enough to have health insurance through 'domestic partner' benefits
3) hate the term 'partner' because it makes us sound like we're out to knock over a 7-11 or something
4) don't wanna get married, but wanna have the RIGHT to if i choose. separate and equal doesn't work. sorry.
5) not religious. got turned off from that a long, long time ago. it's not easy to grow up having the entire world telling you that you're an abomination. just sit there for 10 seconds and think about what that feels like to a child. not enough people do.
6) think the SF mayor is quite ballsy for doing as he is doing, and his entire point is that the statute prohibiting gay marriage is, in fact, breaking the law in the first place; his argument is that the CA state constitution (and, well, the big dog in Washington too) mandates equal rights. so is he breaking a law that's breaking a law? as gordon said, the only way to get this stuff in front of the courts is to be naughty in the first place.
7) believe that it's so incredibly sad that, with everything going on in the world, this is what we're consumed with this week. there must have not been a lot of developments in the laci petersen case, so everyone's decided to hop on this bandwagon for a while.
8) have lately been enraged by news and have self-prescribed a 'hard' news holiday.
9) also lately feel a great deal of shame and embarrassment just for being an american.
10) think that if people would actually put an ounce of effort into managing their OWN lives instead of MINE, the world would be a much happier place.
i just want to remind anyone within eyeshot that when W came to town, he did so as a "uniter, not a divider." i've not seen the country so divided in my entire few short decades.
i would also like to point out that, with the exception of prohibition (and we all know how that ended), the constitution and bill of rights (read that again: bill of RIGHTS) are all about what we are LEGALLY ALLOWED to do. it has nothing in it about what we are NOT allowed to do. a constitutional amendment in itself is huge; an amendment such as this would be an incredible shift in paradigm.
11) i can't believe i just used the word paradigm.
rob |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:01:02 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Personally, I view this as an issue of the term marriage being mis-used. What I think is fueling the opposition is that people feel changes in civil 'marriages' affect their definition of religious marriages. Personally, I think anything done outside of a religion sould be called a civil union. The problem stems from the fact that clergy has being given the right to administer civil unions and officer of the court have been given the right to administer marriage.
In my view, marriage is a religious institution, a sacrement in most cases. A court does not have the authority to grant a marriage. If someone wants to be married, they have to go through a religion.
That being said, if you want the state to recognize that marriage, you must go through the court and file for a civil union. That will grant you all the rights as prescribed by law. And that applies to dual- or same-sex couples.
That is the way it is done in many countries. I was married in Peru. The priest did not have the authority to grant a legal union. All he did, and could do, was administer the sacrament of marriage. Afterwards, my wife and I went to a court and got a civil union. That union is recognized world wide.
End result: The entire issue of same sex marriages is out of the hands of government or legislation. It is an issue each religion must decide for themselves. Some religions may not grant matrimony to inter-faith couples, others won't grant matrimony to same sex couples. That is their perogative. If a religion wants to grant same sex marriages, more power to them. Legally, however, the state should only united people by civil unions. And those can be done between any two people, regardless of sex, race, or religion. And each civil union is as legally abiding as any other.
EDIT: Based on the above, I feel that a constitutional ammendment defining marriage is just as ridiculous as one defining baptism. |
Trinch......well put.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:27:42 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
It's very refreshing to hear the (generally) supportive attitude towards gay marriage here. It really means a lot to me... I've been aggrivated all day since our President decided to interfere with my life in such a direct fashion by endorsing the FMA. Anyone here supporting the FMA should know that you're telling *me* that my loving *eight year* un-marriage with my wonderful partner means absolutely nothing, and that we will always be second class citizens, without any of the legal protections that we will need as we grow old together.
Geocide is right. The issue is about legal status, and in my opinion, respect. If your church doesn't want to marry me, so be it! But do we really need to amend the very constitution that this country was founded on to specifically deny me the right to marry in word as in deed?
This is not a country of majority rule. This is a country where we try to protect the right of the disenfranchised, as it always has been. The FMA feels suspiciously like a republican ploy to divide the nation, in an attempt to obscure George's horrid record in the face of his dropping popularity. What easier way to do this than whip up fear? Marriage will crumble! It's an irreplacable institution! If that's so true, why are the only people trying to destroy families the conservatives, and gays are the ones trying to create them? Why is divorce legal and common? Why do heterosexually run households disintegrate around us all the time? Stop blaming me!
Tell me again why I can't marry.
Tell me again why it's wrong for me to live my life.
Is it anything more than prejudice? Don't try to pin this one on God either, the Bible says a lot of freaky stuff about what's right and what's wrong, and you're breaking a lot of the rules right now.
Come on, I dare you.
- Mousie, putting a human face on homosexuality since 1971 |
You dare me/us? I'll tell you why, although I'm not casting a judgment and if people choose to live a way I don't agree with as a Born Again Christian, it's still their life and affects me in no way..that being said Homosexuality makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust, although He loves everyone equally, He made it very clear in scripture that homosexuality wouldn't be tolerated. Marriage originally stems from the Bible hence why so many people do'nt agree with samesex marriages. If courts want to allow civil same-sex marriages than that's fine but you CANNOT as a gov't tell a religion what to do and then try to force their hand. ...blah, go ahead, I DARE THEM! I won't want to be around to see the repercussions. I would die for my faith and would die for my Lord and would NEVER let anyone force me to live the way of this earth instead of the way of our Lord.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!
P.S. I have gay friends and family, knowing the facts and having beliefs doesn't make me a Homophobe..
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 10:31:18.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:46:03 AM · #41 |
Ok.... here are my thoughts
I agree with the statement earlier about our priests are out molesting little boys, but we are supposed to sit back and trust our faith in their hands? No way! I am not an athiest, I do believe in religion.... but lately it has shaken me.
Which is why I didn't get married for religious reasons.... I got married to proclaim my love for my husband! Which is what marriage is to me. It's a way to bond yourself with someone, to show you are eachothers...
It don't matter if you are straight, gay, bi-sexual, or whatever your case may be... it doesn't change the fact that you are a human and that you are feeling love and joy. Somehow in a world where people are at war, there is death all around, starvation... this seems to be the most important "PROBLEM" of the time! What is wrong with people?
And you know what else pisses me off?? Why is OK for a man to marry his horse? Or a woman to marry her house.... but we can't marry another human being of the same sex? There is something really wrong today.
People are people.... homophobia is just another predjudice.... I am sick of predjudice! We are all humans... I guess everyone just forgets that!
Sorry for rambled thoughts, but this topic makes me angry!
Let everyone live how they want to live!
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:50:09 AM · #42 |
not that I'm about to dig deeply into this, but...
Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
What do the laws of the earth have to say about that? I suspect in that case 'living the way of the Lord' (ok, the bible...there's a difference) will getcha thrown in jail...
just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:52:27 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by nsoroma79:
Ok.... here are my thoughts
I agree with the statement earlier about our priests are out molesting little boys, but we are supposed to sit back and trust our faith in their hands? No way! I am not an athiest, I do believe in religion.... but lately it has shaken me.
Which is why I didn't get married for religious reasons.... I got married to proclaim my love for my husband! Which is what marriage is to me. It's a way to bond yourself with someone, to show you are eachothers...
It don't matter if you are straight, gay, bi-sexual, or whatever your case may be... it doesn't change the fact that you are a human and that you are feeling love and joy. Somehow in a world where people are at war, there is death all around, starvation... this seems to be the most important "PROBLEM" of the time! What is wrong with people?
And you know what else pisses me off?? Why is OK for a man to marry his horse? Or a woman to marry her house.... but we can't marry another human being of the same sex? There is something really wrong today.
People are people.... homophobia is just another predjudice.... I am sick of predjudice! We are all humans... I guess everyone just forgets that!
Sorry for rambled thoughts, but this topic makes me angry!
Let everyone live how they want to live! |
You've confused Priests with being the Be-all-to-end-all of religion...and so have most people. There were NO priests in the Bible, I agree that priests have been placed apon pedestals and given power or authority that God NEVER intended. No man is higher than another, and only God Himself has the authority to rule over Faith. Same with the pope..he's JUST another man same as you or I. Nsoroma79, don't be bitter because so many other people are confused. And I said, having faith doesn't make you/me a homophobe, that opinion is completely false and unjust.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:53:43 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
not that I'm about to dig deeply into this, but...
Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
What do the laws of the earth have to say about that? I suspect in that case 'living the way of the Lord' (ok, the bible...there's a difference) will getcha thrown in jail...
just sayin'. |
yeah, having faith sometimes will do that to you...Persecution for faith is all apart of the game. I couldn't care less what the world thinks of it.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:55:59 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
yeah, having faith sometimes will do that to you...Persecution for faith is all apart of the game. I couldn't care less what the world thinks of it. |
Do you eat pork ? or is it more of a selective application of the christian faith ?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:58:58 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Geocide is right. The issue is about legal status, and in my opinion, respect. If your church doesn't want to marry me, so be it! But do we really need to amend the very constitution that this country was founded on to specifically deny me the right to marry in word as in deed?
|
You dare me/us? I'll tell you why, although I'm not casting a judgment and if people choose to live a way I don't agree with as a Born Again Christian, it's still their life and affects me in no way..that being said Homosexuality makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust, although He loves everyone equally, He made it very clear in scripture that homosexuality wouldn't be tolerated. Marriage originally stems from the Bible hence why so many people do'nt agree with samesex marriages. If courts want to allow civil same-sex marriages than that's fine but you CANNOT as a gov't tell a religion what to do and then try to force their hand. ...blah, go ahead, I DARE THEM! I won't want to be around to see the repercussions. I would die for my faith and would die for my Lord and would NEVER let anyone force me to live the way of this earth instead of the way of our Lord.
AMEN!!!!!!!!! |
I don't think anyone is suggesting that churches be FORCED to marry same sex couples. That is certainly beyond the capacity of the US and/or state governments to legislate. However, the US and state governments are not religious governments and should not have the right to exclude individuals for sexual orientation, race, religion, hair color etc.
Many legal marriages are carried out in a secular manner in front of a judge or other official. Are straight couples joined by these ceremonies unmarried? Of course not. They are married. I don't see how the US or state governments can exclude gay couples from that secular union and the legal status it affords.
The US and state governments' attempts to define marriage, based on religious doctrine/beliefs are just wrong. Just as it was wrong to exclude interracial marriages earlier in this century.
Gay marriage may be considered an abomination by the churches, and they are free to define their doctrine that way and act accordingly. The US and state governments do not have that luxury and must afford equal protection to all persons.
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 11:09:00.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:00:29 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Gay marriage may be considered an abomination by the churches, and they are free to define their doctrine that way and act accordingly. The government does not have that luxury and must afford equal protection to all persons. |
That's the thing, in BC the gov't last year was trying to FORCE Anglican [and other] churches to perform same-sex marriages. Churches refused, and vowed to close their doors. Other churches caved under pressure. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:06:12 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Gay marriage may be considered an abomination by the churches, and they are free to define their doctrine that way and act accordingly. The government does not have that luxury and must afford equal protection to all persons. |
That's the thing, in BC the gov't last year was trying to FORCE Anglican [and other] churches to perform same-sex marriages. Churches refused, and vowed to close their doors. Other churches caved under pressure. |
I was only referring to the US Government and have edited my post above to reflect that.
I am not familiar with Canada's constitution, laws or government, so, I cannot comment on those events. My opinion remains the same.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:11:19 AM · #49 |
if were to ever get married, it wouldn't be in a church. the last thing i'd need is a hail of fire and brimstone raining down on all of my guests.
we need to separate the religious from the civil. getting married before the eyes of god is one thing. getting married before the eyes of the irs is another. i don't feel that anyone is trying to force their way into a church to get married. why would you want to have an event at someplace that doesn't welcome you? what most people are talking about is the right for ANY marriage, be it in a church, town hall, or casino, to be recognized as valid.
think of it this way: gender discrimination. by virtue of having a penis, i'm not allowed to marry the person of my choice. this has nothing to do with me being gay; rather, it's the fact that i'm a man that's preventing it.
so why is it that men can sue to become hooter's girls, and women can sue to enter military schools, but this type of discrimination is going to be documented and proudly displayed for all to see? doesn't make sense to me.
and, i'll say again, this whole thing is a complete waste of the country's time. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:11:22 AM · #50 |
| George Bush is a sick man, I feel sorry for Americans |
|
