Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.

Poll

Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?

Yes67%67% - 112
No27%27% - 45
I don't know0%0% - 0
Plead the fifth3%3% - 5
Other? (Please State)1%1% - 3
Total: 165
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|4124

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Well it's not really marriage anyway it's a civil partnership, marriage is a religious ceremony, civil partnership is a legal recognisation of a couples right to be together, so religion is actually a complete non-factor in this.

Oh, and I support it BTW.
Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|4232|Argentina

ghettoperson wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Well it's not really marriage anyway it's a civil partnership, marriage is a religious ceremony, civil partnership is a legal recognisation of a couples right to be together, so religion is actually a complete non-factor in this.

Oh, and I support it BTW.
Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?
It only counts as real marriage if God approves it.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|4003|Global Command

xBlackPantherx wrote:

My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends.  It's how I raised myself.
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|4124

sergeriver wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Well it's not really marriage anyway it's a civil partnership, marriage is a religious ceremony, civil partnership is a legal recognisation of a couples right to be together, so religion is actually a complete non-factor in this.

Oh, and I support it BTW.
Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?
It only counts as real marriage if God approves it.
So the majority of 'married' atheist's are not actually married?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|4232|Argentina

ATG wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends.  It's how I raised myself.
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.
Don't leave them alone with your kids, I wouldn't leave them with my kid, but I don't have a problem with them getting married.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-08-24 06:52:13)

ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|4124

ATG wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends.  It's how I raised myself.
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.
Why? Because they're more likely to rape them than a straight person? Or because they'll give your kids 'the gay'?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|4056|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
Does the US not have secular government? If so, without religion is precisely the right way to look at the issue.

It is involving religion in these types of debate that is totally wrong, but has become so much the norm that it is treated as the way it should be, which is very wrong. It's almost on a par with these backward countries that don't have secular governments - like in the ME.


Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-08-24 06:55:09)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|4232|Argentina

ghettoperson wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


Wait, so if I married someone without going to a church, I would not in fact be married, but civil partnershipped?
It only counts as real marriage if God approves it.
So the majority of 'married' atheist's are not actually married?
I guess I'm not then, lol.  Woot I'm single!!!!!!!
jord
Member
+2,382|4152|The North, beyond the wall.
Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|4124

Bertster7 wrote:

Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|4232|Argentina

ghettoperson wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.
Agreed.  If they want to call it marriage I don't see the fucking deal there.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-08-24 07:00:39)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|4056|SE London

ghettoperson wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.
When did I say it was the same thing? Should have all the same rights was what I said. Including rights involving adoption, because I totally disagree with comments like this:

jord wrote:

Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
As for why the need for differentiation, because it is different. It's also a less controversial way of branding it, which should lead to fewer problems from homophobic nutjobs.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|4003|Global Command

ghettoperson wrote:

ATG wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

My cousin is gay and I have several gay friends.  It's how I raised myself.
I don't have a issue with gays or gay marriage, I just don't trust them alone with my kids.
Why? Because they're more likely to rape them than a straight person? Or because they'll give your kids 'the gay'?
Deviant by nature in my opinion.
jord
Member
+2,382|4152|The North, beyond the wall.

Bertster7 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Back to the issue at hand: I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.
When did I say it was the same thing? Should have all the same rights was what I said. Including rights involving adoption, because I totally disagree with comments like this:

jord wrote:

Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
As for why the need for differentiation, because it is different. It's also a less controversial way of branding it, which should lead to fewer problems from homophobic nutjobs.
So you totally disagree with my comment, but do you disagree with the numerous comments about parents not leaving their kids with gays?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|4056|SE London

jord wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


Why the need for differentiation though? You said it yourself, it's the same thing.
When did I say it was the same thing? Should have all the same rights was what I said. Including rights involving adoption, because I totally disagree with comments like this:

jord wrote:

Wouldn't have wanted to be left alone with a gay as a kid either.
As for why the need for differentiation, because it is different. It's also a less controversial way of branding it, which should lead to fewer problems from homophobic nutjobs.
So you totally disagree with my comment, but do you disagree with the numerous comments about parents not leaving their kids with gays?
Yes.
TheEternalPessimist
Wibble
+412|4094|Mhz

Bertster7 wrote:

I believe they should be allowed civil partnerships that give all the rights of marriage, but should not be called marriage. Not for any religious reasons, but simply as a differentiation.
Precisely the point, calling it marriage or using the term wedding at all is essentially wrong, marriage is simply a religious ceremony, the legal rights side of the partnership is not religiously based at all and should be applied to civil parnerships also, the same rights apply to couples from other religions whose marriage wouldn't be recognised by a Christian church so why should it not apply to a civil parnership?


For those who aren't familiar with Civil Partnerships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_part … ed_Kingdom


This bit supprised me, kudos to the Scottish Church on this one for not being as uptight as the rest of the world.
In Scotland, however, all of the mainstream churches, except the Catholic church, offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2008-08-24 07:38:23)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|3879|North Carolina
The best way to resolve the gay marriage issue is to replace all government recognition of marriage with civil unions.  Marriage is technically a religious institution, so the separation of church and state should prevail on both the federal and state levels.

If marriage went back to being a private religious institution, then churches could bicker over gay ceremonies, and the government could focus on enabling gay civil unions, which are clearly a civil rights issue.  There is no legal way to back up the banning of gay civil unions.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|3818|tropical regions of london

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
yet people dont see the hypocrisy in criticizing shariah
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|3885|'Murka

Other.

Marriage should only be in relation to a given church.

Anything else should be a civil union with the same legal ramifications of a marriage. So, marriage should be a subset of civil unions. If you get hitched at the JOP, then you've got a civil union unless the JOP is an ordained minister.

If a church wants to sanctify a union between two people of the same gender, have at it. But don't have the state force that upon the churches if it goes against their basic tenets.

So...can't really talk "marriage" without talking about religion.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|4181|67.222.138.85
Considering I don't even agree with what I wrote and it got such a violent reaction from a few different people, I'm not even going to try to back it up. The point is it is very stupid to in the OP essentially say "the other side can't mention the basis of their argument, because it is invalid".

edit: I also agree with the above two posts.
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|3913

lowing wrote:

Yes I agree with gay marriage. Gay marriage does nothing to hinder everyone else's rights to life liberty and happiness. It also can not tarnish an institution that has a 70% failure rate already. I say more power to them, as long as special privileges and "rights" do not go along with it that is not afforded to everyone else.

Not to mention the fact that it is none of anyone elses business
Damn lowing, just when I thought I had you pigeonholed, lol.  Nice...

Considering marriage has been around since before written history, I don't really know what Christianity or any other modern religion has to do with it.   Religion wasn't even incorporated into marriage until the 9th century.  Ancient Greeks even devalued marriage, saying Love was a thing between 2 men, and that marriage to a woman was for inheritance.  Hell, if a woman's dad died with no male heirs, she could be forced to marry her nearest male relative. 

So yes, you can have the marriage argument without religion, because marriage started without religion.

Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2008-08-24 10:21:31)

God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|3818|tropical regions of london
i strongly agree with lowing's post
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|3879|North Carolina

God Save the Queen wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
yet people dont see the hypocrisy in criticizing shariah
So true.  Religion in general is often practiced in such an asinine way.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Considering I don't even agree with what I wrote and it got such a violent reaction from a few different people, I'm not even going to try to back it up. The point is it is very stupid to in the OP essentially say "the other side can't mention the basis of their argument, because it is invalid".

edit: I also agree with the above two posts.
Good point here as well.  I love for the fundies to defend their views because it's usually pretty easy to tear them down.  So yeah, I think it's a good thing to have them contribute.  It gets pretty boring if only one viewpoint is expressed anyway.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|4056|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Marriage is technically a religious institution, so the separation of church and state should prevail on both the federal and state levels.
No it isn't.

I don't know where this idea comes from, but marriage is not inherently a religious institution.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|3879|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Marriage is technically a religious institution, so the separation of church and state should prevail on both the federal and state levels.
No it isn't.

I don't know where this idea comes from, but marriage is not inherently a religious institution.
Let me restate...  The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics.  This is why it becomes a religious institution.  There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic.  The same could be said for other religions like Islam.

The point is...  religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.

Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America.  Granted, the irony is that your country's government has more of an official connection to religion.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard