11 of 11 US states vote against gay marriage

[Malchik]

Don't be cheeky Peregrine or I'll delete your posts or change the wording to 'I promise not to cheek the moderators' as you would have done in the past.

 

I agree totally with Moljnir. But having progressed through wars and revolutions to the elimination of Theocracy, there is nothing to say we must continue to progress. As the US regresses into a new intolerant Theocracy let the rest of the world weep. When hypocritical bigots have the power what hope is there for the future?

[draighox]

To White Wolf

As real as any church service.

Now that's a nonsence.

 

 

To Mojlnir

"Marriage" as the term is commonly used by most morons describes a religious ceremony that is highly discriminatory in nature.

First, who are you calling morons?! :angry2:

Second, back up your claim that marriage 'is highly discriminatory in nature'.

[Dark0ne]

Firstly, why hasn't this dude Indoril Nerevar been tagged for necroing threads, trolling and sheer idiocy? The mods used to shut this s**t down right quick back in the day, what happened to the flaming swords of damnation?

 

Maybe you'll get one for vigilantism? :rolleyes:

 

The mods ask me when they believe action needs to be taken.

 

"Marriage" as the term is commonly used by most morons describes a religious ceremony that is highly discriminatory in nature. Whereas "marriage" in the legal, not pea-brained, sense describes a union from which derive certain financial and legal benefits.

 

Then perhaps we can distinguish between the two without it being discriminatory? A marriage in the state-sense (anyone can be recognised as married by the state) and marriage in the religious sense, where the priests, pastors, reverends etc can personally choose to permit or not permit a couple to be married, without being told they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

As I see it Christian's, and other religious people, are personally allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs since to deny them their discrimination would be discrimination in itself. Surely? ;)

[ThetaOrionis01]

Firstly, why hasn't this dude Indoril Nerevar been tagged for necroing threads, trolling and sheer idiocy? The mods used to shut this s**t down right quick back in the day, what happened to the flaming swords of damnation?

 

Maybe you'll get one for vigilantism? :rolleyes:

 

The mods ask me when they believe action needs to be taken.

 

*coughs and points*

 

Mjolnir, Peregrine - believe me when I tell you that posts have been deleted and warnings have been issued. You're just seeing the tip of the iceberg - but it still doesn't excuse the vigilantism. The pm function is there for a reason.

 

"Marriage" as the term is commonly used by most morons describes a religious ceremony that is highly discriminatory in nature. Whereas "marriage" in the legal, not pea-brained, sense describes a union from which derive certain financial and legal benefits.

 

Then perhaps we can distinguish between the two without it being discriminatory? A marriage in the state-sense (anyone can be recognised as married by the state) and marriage in the religious sense, where the priests, pastors, reverends etc can personally choose to permit or not permit a couple to be married, without being told they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

As I see it Christian's, and other religious people, are personally allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs since to deny them their discrimination would be discrimination in itself. Surely? ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I don't have any objection whatsoever if religious groups want to have their own names for their own ceremonies. Baptism, Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation - whatever. Fine by me.

 

But - this only applies as long as those ceremonies then only have value within the church they pertain to, and there is no crossover into the secular, and especially the legal sphere. If I were to be told, for instance, that I can't register a child's birth because I'm an atheist and we now call registering a birth 'baptism' - then it would affect me, and I would object.

 

Marriage is not a religious term - people have been going through marriage ceremonies long before Christianity happened on the scene. Whether Christianity hijacked the term at some point - after all, they did to 'Easter' - doesn't matter, because in real terms marriage is a secular legal term.

 

I completely agree with Mjolnir and Malchik - religion has no business in public life.

[Peregrine]

As real as any church service.

 

Now that's a nonsence.

 

No, it's truth whether you like it or not. A church marriage has zero legal status without signing the non-religious contracts. Just like a marriage between dogs, it's just a ceremony with no recognition from the government. You can have your church marry you and your wife, you to another man, your dogs, you to your computer, whatever you feel like. And all are equally invalid as far as the government is concerned.

First, who are you calling morons?! angry.gif

 

I believe the comment was addressed to you and everyone on your side of the debate. And while not too polite, it's somewhat justified. It takes a real lack of intelligence to miss the laws about separation of church and state and try to enforce your religion's beliefs on other people.

 

Second, back up your claim that marriage 'is highly discriminatory in nature'.

 

Marriage as it exists right now discriminates based on sexual preference. It can only be between one man and one woman, despite there being no legal reason why that limit should exist.

 

-----------------------------

 

Then perhaps we can distinguish between the two without it being discriminatory? A marriage in the state-sense (anyone can be recognised as married by the state) and marriage in the religious sense, where the priests, pastors, reverends etc can personally choose to permit or not permit a couple to be married, without being told they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

Concession accepted then.

 

That's already how it is now, the religious side is entirely meaningless to this debate. Religions can refuse to marry people outside of their religion (which the government can't do), or marry two men (which the government won't do), and that choice means absolutely nothing outside of that church and its members.

 

The issue is whether the state-marriage can be limited to one man, one woman. An issue you have just conceded.

 

As I see it Christian's, and other religious people, are personally allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs since to deny them their discrimination would be discrimination in itself. Surely?

 

Of course they are, they can run their private lives however they want. But those beliefs only apply to those who are willing members of that religion, and are irrelevant to the debate here.

[Mojlnir]

I'm not going to get into an argument where I am forced to provide proof for the statements I made in my previous post. I will, however, apologize to the moderators for my "vigilantism."

 

I'm sorry.

 

The basic founding principle of the United States is to be free from tyranny. Add to that the Founders rabid zeal for protecting the minority from the majority and you should have a fool-proof system. Somewhere along the line we dropped the ball.

 

Religion is private. If and what you choose to believe is yours and yours alone. You have NO right to force that belief on anyone else, nor do you have the right to codify that belief as law. You are protected from persecution under the law and so is everyone else. Your rights end where the next person's begin.

 

Peregrine is absolutely correct when he points out the marriage is meaningless in the eyes of the law until it is sanctioned by the government. By preventing gays and lesbians from achieving the legal status of marriage, the government is acting contrary to its founding principles.

 

If a particular denomination won't marry gays or lesbians that's their right. As private institutions they are perfectly capable of such acts. But the government cannot act in the same way. All people must be equal in the eyes of the law or our system is for nothing.

 

Gay rights is the same fight as women's rights and its the same fight as desegregation.

 

Only a frightened bigot would see it otherwise.

[Dark0ne]

I thought the whole argument for gays having it called "marriage" rather than a civil-union or other different name was that it had some sort of prestige. A prestige provided by the religions that provide the marriage, whether it be because it is in a church or whatever. Is not a "marriage" that takes place in a town hall or other public building seen as a civil union in the eyes of the government? In which case, hasn't the prestige then been lost?

[Peregrine]

I thought the whole argument for gays having it called "marriage" rather than a civil-union or other different name was that it had some sort of prestige. A prestige provided by the religions that provide the marriage, whether it be because it is in a church or whatever.

 

No, it's the prestige provided by the government that I'm talking about. Calling it a "civil union" for some and "marriage" for others is not equal because of the prestige factor.

 

And in any case, as I've said before, the religious side is completely irrelevant. It is entirely separate and can not be regulated by the government. But it also can not have any effect on the government's policy.

 

Is not a "marriage" that takes place in a town hall or other public building seen as a civil union in the eyes of the government?

 

No, it's seen as a marriage in the eyes of the government. The contract you sign calls it a marriage, and you are treated as being just as married as any marriage performed in a religious ceremony. It doesn't matter if you have an elaborate religious ceremony or just quietly sign the contract at the local courthouse, it's the exact same marriage.

 

Just like no matter what the religious ceremony is, no matter how traditional or sincere, it means nothing unless you sign those exact same papers. Try getting married in a church without them, and claiming you're married on your tax forms. The IRS will have a nice visit with you and inform you of just how relevant your religious ceremony is.

[Dark0ne]

No, it's the prestige provided by the government that I'm talking about. Calling it a "civil union" for some and "marriage" for others is not equal because of the prestige factor.

 

Surely the prestige provided by the government is because of the benefits the government provides. Therefore providing homosexuals the same benefits, the same prestige from the government, and calling it a civil-union should be fine. Seperate but equal, thats how I see it :)

[Peregrine]

Surely the prestige provided by the government is because of the benefits the government provides. Therefore providing homosexuals the same benefits, the same prestige from the government, and calling it a civil-union should be fine.

 

One of those benefits being the name "marriage". Civil unions are always mentioned as a compromise position, something almost as good as marriage. Unless you are going to make all unions between couples regardless of gender "civil unions" then it is not fine.

Seperate but equal, thats how I see it.

 

Except that separate but equal is inherently unequal, and therefore unacceptable. Just the fact that the two things are separate creates inequality between them.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

If the name "marriage" on the government contract does not provide any prestige, why are you so stubbornly insisting on keeping the old definition of marriage? If the only thing that matters is the definition, why does it matter to you if the government calls a relationship between two men a "marriage"?