Peregrine Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Did you flagrantly disregard that line? They can have their legal mumbo-jumbo for all I care. Did you flagrantly disregard the fact that all these bans are talking about banning anything even close to marriage? They aren't satisfied with protecting their precious definition, they want nothing given to homosexual couples. All that "legal mumbo-jumbo" is for one man, one woman only. Perhaps you didn't notice I spoke nothing of religion in respect to this argument. I, infact, denounce its use in this argument. Except that the religious context is the only one that can allow discrimination. Marriage in its legal contract form must be free of discrimination. Unless you want the legal form of marriage to be renamed for all couples? This has no relevence to the argument. The dictionary says that marriage is between "man and woman"...its right there, 1a of the dictionary definition of marriage - "The union of a man and woman as husband and wife". This doesn't ratify your changing the argument to a completly irrelevent format. The very defining parameters are "man" and "woman". Not colour, height, age or weight or anything else. But your actual sex..thats all. It's entirely relevat. Or have you forgotten the opposition to interracial marriage? I'll give you a hint, replace the terms in the present debate, and you've got the exact same arguments that were used in favor of banning interracial marriage. I suggest you read some more of American history before you say my arguments aren't relevant. As far as I'm aware several courts have disallowed such marriages taking place, and I'm only aware of Mass. currently accepting homosexual marriage as legal. You missed my point completely. The courts said discrimination in marriage based on race is illegal and unconstitutional. The same arguments everyone is using to ban homosexual marriage have already been thrown out a long time ago. ====================================== I don't see why gay people need to get married, considering marriage is just a "title" given to a couple by the state. A title that brings various legal, social, and financial benefits. I've long given up the "marriage needs to be between man and women" but if the gay community wants their "right" sooo bad, do what nzdbox said and rename the title. Why should they have to? "Separate but equal" has already been rejected as absolutely unconstitutional. Let gay couples have a civil union but do not let them "marry". Even if it is just word, it's an important word. Allowing a gay couple to marry is like a slap to the Christian Church. Its about as bad as someone getting on live television and dropping the N-bomb. Let them have the same advantages a married couple receives, but just don't call it marriage. Good. I just wish the "slap" was "smashed in the face with a baseball bat". If the church (by the way, nice generalization: not all churches have that view) insists on being a group of narrow-minded fanatics, they deserve that slap. Before it was a legal status, it was a holy sacrament in the Bible (Catholic Church). Ever hear of "separation of church and state"? What the Catholic Church decides to do is absolutely irrelevant to the government. ===============================================Do the clever thing next time and don't mention religion in your debates...you just give Peregrine a reason to go anile on us all rolleyes.gif Give Peregrine a chance to go "anile"???? You're the one who hates the subject of religion. Don't blame me for your policies. =============================================== Gay Marriage - no. By allowing gay marriage, a President would alienate nearly every Christian Church. I'm not talking about bringin religion into state - without these votes, a President would have no chance of election. Allow union, but defacing the word "marriage" would, as stated, alienate many people. That would be a very, very stupid move for the Pres. So it's ok if the government has to violate people's rights just so they can win elections? Would you still make the same argument if the president had a choice between banning christianity (with a penalty of execution for ignoring the ban) to win the critical atheist vote, or doing the right thing and accepting a lost election? Plus, y'know, I just don't like homosexuality. Which is of course absolutely relevant, since we're talking about mandatory homosexual marriages..... Why should what you prefer for yourself have any effect on what other people do? For all I care, clone Nixon and make him Pres. His clone wouldn't have been elected 2 times, so it's prefectly Constitutional. In fact, we should do that. Now. Before I get Cambodian on your a**es. Oh brilliant idea. Let's bring in the most corrupt president in recent history. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 What I find sickening and disgusting is that the narrow-minded 'moral values' of the right-wing Christian extreme are now being imposed upon everyone. I thought separation of Church and State was enshrined in the US constitution? It certainly no longer looks that way. Discrimination of any kind IMO is morally wrong. Plus, y'know, I just don't like homosexuality. Don't sleep with a member of the same sex then - no one's forcing you. It's your choice. But if this homophobia manifests itself in supporting policies which deny others the same legal rights you take for granted..... that's discrimination. And it's wrong. Marriage is a legal term, with legal implications. To claim that it is a purely Christian term is to ignore the legal realities - and it's a slap in the face for every non-Christian. So, obviously marriage only applies to a legal union between a Christian man and a Christian woman who underwent a ceremony in a Christian church? In that case, as an atheist who got 'legal-unioned' at a registry office I suppose I'd better have my 'marriage' certificate changed to 'legal-union' certificate..... <_< It's an absurd excuse for discrimination. The way the term 'marriage' is being used here is making me ashamed to apply the term 'married' to my familial status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I have to agree with Theta. I, a confirmed agnostic/borderline atheist was married in a church to a non-believer because both our families wanted a church wedding and it was easier to go with the flow than risk alienating everyone. Perhaps we should have objected more strongly but the fact was we didn't care to. So I have the bits of paper that say I had a Christian marriage. They are totally meaningless. If two people decide to form a union they should have the same legal rights as everyone else regardless of their race, gender, sexuality or shoe size! Christians have no right (moral or ethical) to impose their views on non-Christians. Dark0ne, my 1993 Chambers dictionary also has these definitions for 'marriage' "a similar ceremony between homosexuals", "any close union". I do agree that 'union' might be a compromise but it would have to be accorded the same LEGAL status. And I suspect if it was, all the fuss would blow over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Did you flagrantly disregard the fact that all these bans are talking about banning anything even close to marriage? They aren't satisfied with protecting their precious definition, they want nothing given to homosexual couples. All that "legal mumbo-jumbo" is for one man, one woman only. Dark0ne, my 1993 Chambers dictionary also has these definitions for 'marriage' "a similar ceremony between homosexuals", "any close union". I do agree that 'union' might be a compromise but it would have to be accorded the same LEGAL status. And I suspect if it was, all the fuss would blow over. Just want to reiterate MY point. I'm not opposed to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as any man/woman marriage irrespective of current laws. I believe that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman. I believe a man-on-man union or a woman-on-woman union can be called something different from marriage without homoesexuals feeling the need to say "I'm discriminated against". Except that the religious context is the only one that can allow discrimination. How is that the case? My morals and opinions don't come from God but I still believe that the two unions, hetro and homo can be called seperate things. I can never be a black person or a woman (without the appropriate surgery) - I don't feel discriminated against because the national census won't accept I'm a black female...in the same way homosexual unions should not feel discriminated against simply because they can't have "marriage" but instead have "garriage". It would be like a 5 year old feeling discriminated against because, when he walks into a bar, he can't get a drink since he's underage. You missed my point completely. The courts said discrimination in marriage based on race is illegal and unconstitutional. The same arguments everyone is using to ban homosexual marriage have already been thrown out a long time ago. Where as a black man, hispanic man, black woman, hispanic woman are still classed as "man" and "woman"..."man" and "man" is not "man" and "woman". In layman's terms:Black woman + Black man = Woman and manHispanic woman + hispanic man = Woman and man Black man + Black man = Man and man I fail to see where the argument is the same. Reitterate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Just want to reiterate MY point. I'm not opposed to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as any man/woman marriage irrespective of current laws. I believe that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman. I believe a man-on-man union or a woman-on-woman union can be called something different from marriage without homoesexuals feeling the need to say "I'm discriminated against". Why the need for this distinction? Why not have one term which defines the legal union between adults? Once you start making legal distinctions based on gender or sexuality - and is discriminating against a couple because one of them is a certain gender not also sex discrimination? - you set a dangerous precedent. Where does it end? 'Hetero-only' neighbourhoods? Mandatory pink stars to be worn by all homosexuals? History has shown many times where discrimination can lead..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Why the need for this distinction? Why not have one term which defines the legal union between adults? Fine. We'll have "union" as the word for all legal-couples. Marriage for man/woman. Garriage for man/man or woman/woman. Similar to "humanity" encompassing blacks, whites, hispanics, pinks etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 In Ohio, and in other states, the new state law that 'bans gay marriage' was not actually banning gay marriage. In Ohio, we already had a law banning gay marriage, what the law did was: 1) define marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman, and 2) ban any union that attempts to mimic any aspect of marriage from gaining state support. That means that civil unions are banned as well. So all those poeple who say: "I'm against gay marriage but I wouldn't mind letting them have civil unions" got screwed because they thought they were voting for something that they weren't. But it's not even just gays that are affected by this ammendment. Heterosexual partners living in a civil union are effected also. That means that if you and your girlfriend don't get married but wish to be in a civil union, you are screwed now. But you also used to be able to be in a civil union with a friend just for convienience and finantial/economic reasons, you may not be gay but your civil union partner would be the same sex. Now everyone is screwed. This country, and Ohio specifically, has shown that we are frightened and bigoted people. Anyone who says that they are not bigoted but then says that gays should not be allowed to marry is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 QUOTEI don't see why gay people need to get married, considering marriage is just a "title" given to a couple by the state. A title that brings various legal, social, and financial benefits.How 'bout this...a gay couple and a lesbian couple marry each other, but stay gay/lesbian. They get all the benefits of marriage, so that would take care of that. I admit, it would just be a work-around, and so wouldn't be a good solution, but... Mandatory pink stars to be worn by all homosexuals?If such a thing came about, even though I'm not gay, I would be morally required to wear one too, simply because it would be the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Mandatory pink stars to be worn by all homosexuals?If such a thing came about, even though I'm not gay, I would be morally required to wear one too, simply because it would be the right thing to do.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Theta is referring to Nazi Germany when the reasons you were in a concentration camp varied. Homosexuals had to wear pink stars to distinguish them from jews and Roma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Laguna Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I thought separation of Church and State was enshrined in the US constitution?Not quite, as with many things in the US Constitution, it is written in an indirect manner open to interpretation: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”That one sentence is the basis of any argument supporting the separation of church and state. It is not much, but it's enough to both keep this necessary wall in place, and leave it open to attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.