Same Sex Marriages?

[Jessica Coconut]

Thanks Buddy. But, like I said, it takes a little working. But hey, can't be that hard!

[mushroom]

Jessica said:

Exactly right on the "civil union" thing. That's what I said on the other forum where they discuss what they'd do if they were in charge, and when we came to the gay marriages problem.

It wouldn't be called marriage, it wouldn't necessarily be done in a church, but the biggest similarity is that it would go into the gov't records that they are together as a couple legally etc. The whole idea of a wedding, getting dressed up all spiffy, and all that other marriage related stuff would work perfectly in it too.

The problem my mom found with that idea is if they divorced. Then, technically that person could then marry straight. That would be a little strange and a bit of a shock for his/her lover that found out he/she was once gay. She suggested that people register with their parent's at birth if they are male/female/gay/les. That's obviously a problem because not many people know as children what the difference is, or even what love will be like, or what the heck it matters. I suggested registering at 18. That's a problem because some folks become sexually active BEFORE 18. So it's a never ending battle to find a way to please everyone.

I'm confused. Are you kidding, too?

Regarding civil unions: I don't see the point. Call it a marriage. There's no reason not to. The religious people are saying, in effect, that a marriage is sacred and a civil union is not--which means that the problem isn't being solved any more than "separate but equal" facilities for whites and non-whites solved those problems.

[Jessica Coconut]

The point of not calling it a marriage is to not upset the religious folks that wont have gay marriages.

[mushroom]

Jessica said:

The point of not calling it a marriage is to not upset the religious folks that wont have gay marriages.

The religious folks will get over having gay marriages eventually the way they, and other bigots, got over interracial marriages eventually (or at least mostly died out). The homosexual couples will have a much harder time getting over having their desire to be fully recognized as married placed second to others' intolerance.

Edit: I said something I shouldn't have originally. If anyone read the original version, I apologize.

[Deleted]

Jessica said:

The point of not calling it a marriage is to not upset the religious folks that wont have gay marriages.

Well, the U.S. Constitution says that no religion shall be recognized, so legally calling marriage a different name for religious reasons would be against the Constitution.

[Stal]

TheComedian said:

Well, the U.S. Constitution says that no religion shall be recognized, so legally calling marriage a different name for religious reasons would be against the Constitution.

If you want to go that road, then I'll just state something. Marriage is from religious origin. Without Religion, there'd be no set marriage routines. So perhaps government-set marriages should be banned as religious operations.

[Smiley]

I agree with everything that KKM has said on the subject.

Register when your eighteen as to whether you are gay or straight? Maybe I read wrong, but that just seems... insane. Most people don't even KNOW by eighteen what their sexual orientation is.

And what if they registered as "bisexual"? That still wouldn't solve all of the problems - you could easily marry the same sex and then the opposite sex still.

I just find it insane. So, let's say that you're parents are extremely religious and completely, 100% against homosexuality. You are gay. You just turned eighteen, are heading out to college, but still relying on your parents for some financial and moral support. Naturally, you would want to register as straight just to keep them on your good side and because you're not sure how they would react if they knew the truth.

You would be a gay person bound to only to be involved with a person of the opposite sex. It would be incredibly unfair.

Who cares if you were once gay and are now straight? If the person you're currently with truly loves you, they'll set it aside and focus on who you are now. There shouldn't be government controls over who you can and cannot marry just because you were once gay.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was attacking you - that definitely was not my intention.

[mushroom]

Yuki said:

If you want to go that road, then I'll just state something. Marriage is from religious origin. Without Religion, there'd be no set marriage routines. So perhaps government-set marriages should be banned as religious operations.

With all due respect, that isn't true. The ceremonies involved may be religious, but quite a number of other animals--parrots, for one--have lifelong monogamous pairings.

[Jessica Coconut]

That's just courting. In the animal kingdom, they go from flirting, to finding a mate, and then do you know what.

I see your point Smiley. There would definitely be major problems with my the idea of registering "who" you are, as I said, it's a never ending battle to please everyone.

That would happen a lot I'm sure. Just for the record, that was my mom's idea, because she's against homosexuality because she believes half the folks out there that are, are "kidding themselves" or don't really know, or just... you know... like there are people out there that "change their minds", more often than you think. She finds that annoying. Like if you were truly gay, she'd have no problem with you, but if you were the sort of person that "flip-flopped", she'd be like... disgusted. But then, I was upset with that, because that sounds like she's against bis, but I'm sure she wouldn't have much problem with the individual or something. Maybe I should rephrase. With her, you have to be either totally gay, les, straight, or bi. If you say you're bi, fine. But if you say your gay to her one day, and straight the next, she'll be mad.

She's one of the people that are against it for religious and biological reasons.

And on the against the constitution, for 1, I'm Canadian (but we have a similar one, I admit) (Happy Canada Day!), 2, you can't call it unconstitutional, because it wouldn't be for religious reasons, it would be for politically correct reasons. I'm just separating church and state. Because assuming that marriage is a religious act, but marriage doesn't have to be only between religious people, you can have a "civil marriage". See? You can be married with a church, you can be married without a church. (or other religious places of worship) Perfect split between church and state. Kinda.

[Deleted]

Now adays when I hear gay debates people often bring up "There are alot more gays now, there never used to be any." Which in fact is incorrect. There used to be many gays, however they had to hide their love or they would be killed. As well during the Cold War people who were gay fell in love with russians who then turned around to black mail them saying if they did not get information they would be revealed. As well, there is natural gay animals in the wild. So I do not think it is wrong two beings of the same gender being together is wrong. If they cannot be legally married gay people will continue to live together as if married. Since they already "act" married why not let them on paper? Wouldn't not allowing them to wed be considered discrimination or unequal? Isn't that what our nation strives for (equality)?

[Patjade]

Buddy said:

As a change of pace, mainly because I'm bored with saying this for what would be the one millionth time, I'm going to argue for the opposite side...

Personally, I see no reason in gay people getting married. Now, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against gay people! I just don't see it as right that they get married.

I think homosexuality is a choice. And if you choose to be homosexual, fine! Go ahead! But there's no reason homosexuals have to get married, nor is it in any way benefitial to society.

And if there must be a type of "union", well, civil unions, then. It's a good compromise - homosexuals get all the benefits of a married couple, but we still keep it seperate from "marriage", as marriage is a religious term, and few religions agree with homosexuality.

The whole thing really makes me uneasy, to be honest. And seeing citys go so far as to break the law so as to push forward their foolish ideals, well... it's just wrong...

OK... Although I disagree with homosexuality as a "choice" any more than being straight as a choice, I will make this particular postulation:

1. "Marriage", as you have stated, is a church function. Therefore, due to separation of Church and State, NO "Marriages" may be performed outside of Church.

2. Also due to the separation of Church and State, no Church marriages should be recognized by the State for any consideration..

3. In order to qualify for "marriage" benefits (taxes, working, death, etc.), you need to have a license and verification performed at a state office. It will be known as a civil union, or contract, since "Marriage" is a religious term and is not allowed.

4. Since "Marriage" IS a religious ceremony, all Church marrages shall be invalidated as null, void, and unconstitutional as per the US Constitution. Those seeking to legalize their status should seek the nearest Justice of the Peace, or courthouse to validate their unions immediately.

I think that should be fair enough for all parties involved, don't you? It also satisfies the Church's homophobia, since that, too, is illegal under tha law, as it is a form of discrimination.

[Crystal]

Well, from my point of view... I'm quite divided on the issue. I posted before on Jey's topic a bit down on this board.

Ninja said:

I'm unfortunately quite undecided on the issue myself. So I don't bother saying anything usually. I don't and have never hated homosexuals, but it's the act itself that I dislike. However, I usually choose a live-and-let-live kind of thing on this issue.

Of course, I HAVE been prejudiced rather on this - simply and extremely selfishly because it confuses my idea of what 'friendship' should be and what 'courting' should be. To take an example, right now, there is no way on earth I'm going to go out walking with just one of my friends, a guy, alone in the shopping mall, just the two of us or something. Even though I KNOW he's not intrested in me or anything... I just wouldn't, if you understand what I mean. But I WOULD go out alone with one of my girl friends. What would happen to this once you don't know who is a homo and who is hetero? I wouldn't hug anyone anymore, for fear of being teased. Nor would I dare to touch them, I'd behave towards them like the way most hetero people behave toward the opposite sex - aloof. I know this is all selfish and foolish and self-centered... but I can't help it. If I dig down far enough, this is why. It's not because it's different or anything, it's not because the Bible said so, even though that DOES play a major part. It's because it confuses my idea of what is appropriate.

We're told to avoid certain kinds of contact with the opposite sex, especially for me because of the enviroment in which I was brought up. You know, avoid intimate hugs towards the opposite sex, avoid holding hands, except on really special occasions and stuff. What if I have to behave that way to everybody? Hold myself aloof the way I do now to the guys? I mean, guys and girls go out in groups, we laugh and talk together, we're friends. But it's just the way here. You don't touch each other. Even holding hands is too far unless you're going out. I don't want to lose being able to hug and glomp my female friends, too. And this is the way everybody I know behaves.

Maybe things are different in the US. Please don't laugh or sneer or spurn me because of what I said. Maybe just don't reply to this post at all. I know I'm selfish and self-centered in this, you don't have to tell me that. I'm sorry. But I AM telling you the truth. And I can't change the truth.

Maybe I shouldn't post this at all...

Maybe...

Meh. From a religious standpoint, I'm saying it's wrong. Period. From a biological standpoint... well, animals may be mating with the same sex, but they also have sex in front of the kitchen and in public and stuff... (personal experience *cough*) In my school trip we stayed for about a week in a nice school which had closed down and was now rented out. There were a couple of dogs there, which belonged to the caretaker, (not sure about the gender...) and they persisted in mating almost everyday right out in plain sight and usually in the dining hall at dinner. I certainly hope no human will be doing that anytime soon.

My personal standpoint is in that link there.

As for 'Seperation of Church and State"... well, that's a positive joke here. In Malaysia, it's 'Union of Mosque and Government'. They never come out and say that, but you get the idea.... I don't know about other countries surrounding, but heck, my church had to get a permit from an Islamic board - an ISLAMIC board - to buy a new piece of land and raise a new and bigger church (ours has become too small, too many people). I'm not holding my breath by any means.

We finally gave up (although I don't know whether because of that or because we didn't have enough funds to do that project) and are currently trying to buy a plot of land for carparks instead.

I don't know what Islam thinks about homosexuality though.

[Oily]

Jessica said:

That's just courting. In the animal kingdom, they go from flirting, to finding a mate, and then do you know what.

Actually, some animals will stay together for life - like swans. Even if their partner dies, they will never go to seek out a new one: more faithful than humans in some ways.

I'm not totally sure but I think Islam isn't too happy with homosexuality. Being gay is still a crime in some countries, after all.

I really don't see the point of the register though. If you're going to get married to someone, you should be told by them if they were previously married, or are bi etc. If you have to go and look it up on a register, then you shouldn't be getting married to them anyway. Trust is very important in a relationship.

And I don't see why gay people shouldn't be married. Sure, a religion shouldn't have to marry them if it's against homosexuals. But it should be taken to task over it. And it's possible to have non-religious marriages anyway, so saying marriage is a religious term is invalid.

I think I may quote Desmond Tutu's words, which I read yesterday in the paper. He was the Archbishop of Cape Town and struggled against apartheid.

"Homophobia is as unjust as that crime against humanity, apartheid....black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about - our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups.

We are all, all of us, part of God's family. We all must be allowed to love each other with honour. Yet all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them from our community. We make them doubt that they too are children of God - the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.

The voices of hate, fear and persecution are also strong and lamentably often supported by faith leaders. From Egypt to Iran, Nigeria to India, Burma to Jamaica, gay men, lesbians and transgender people are harassed, imprisioned, beaten and forced out. Some states even make homosexuality punishable by death. The Christians are not vocal enough in opposing these vicious injustices, while some even encourage such persecution.

Hatred and prejudice are such destructive forces. They destroy human beings, communities and whole societies - and they destroy the hater, too, ftom the inside. Reading the words of homophobia...is frightening, it is terrifying. It shows we all have within us a seed, a potential, that can grow into prejudice, hatred and destruction. But prejudice is a bleak wasteland. A loving, understanding humanity is sustained by justice.

A parent who brings a child up to be a racist damages that child, damages the community in which they live, damages our hopes for a better world. A parent who teaches a child that there is only one sexual orientation and that anything else is evil denies our humanity and their own too.

We cannot answer hate with hate. We can only answer it with love, understanding and a belief in and commitment to justice. This is how we will build a world of human understanding, compassion and equality: a true rainbow world."

Homophobia is bigotry - to allow it, to even sanction it by law, is cruelly unjust.

[Buddy]

Patjade said:

OK... Although I disagree with homosexuality as a "choice" any more than being straight as a choice, I will make this particular postulation:

1. "Marriage", as you have stated, is a church function. Therefore, due to separation of Church and State, NO "Marriages" may be performed outside of Church.

2. Also due to the separation of Church and State, no Church marriages should be recognized by the State for any consideration..

3. In order to qualify for "marriage" benefits (taxes, working, death, etc.), you need to have a license and verification performed at a state office. It will be known as a civil union, or contract, since "Marriage" is a religious term and is not allowed.

4. Since "Marriage" IS a religious ceremony, all Church marrages shall be invalidated as null, void, and unconstitutional as per the US Constitution. Those seeking to legalize their status should seek the nearest Justice of the Peace, or courthouse to validate their unions immediately.

I think that should be fair enough for all parties involved, don't you? It also satisfies the Church's homophobia, since that, too, is illegal under tha law, as it is a form of discrimination.

The reason I said that was to try and get a good argument from somebody, one I might be able to use in the future.

Thank you, Pat. Those are good points, at least as far as I'm concerned. And I'll be sure to keep them in mind from now one.

How do I really feel? Look at everything I said earlier, then assume the opposite...

I never have, nor do I think I ever will, see a reason why gays can't be married.

Registration? I'm sorry, but I find that idea just plain disturbing. Why should someone have to place down as "offical" for a record, that they're "gay/straight/lesbian/bisexual/whatever"? Why does it have to be on the record for all to see?

Civil unions? Personally, I would happen to think that homosexuals would be offended by the concept. It's like say "Okay, we'll give you you're benefits, but only as long as you stay in you're class over there."

Marriages don't have to be done in churches to be legal. They can be done in court houses. This is the only place I draw the line - churches, no matter how ignorant or unfair I find they're views to be, shouldn't be forced to perform religious services that are against they're religion.

It doesn't really matter if marriage started out as a religious ideal - it is that no longer, at least in the legal sense. If churches choose not to marry people in their churches based on their religion, then so be it. But the government should not deny people marriage.

And I say marriage - not civil unions. Please, don't patronize these people.

[Stal]

Patjade said:

OK... Although I disagree with homosexuality as a "choice" any more than being straight as a choice, I will make this particular postulation:

1. "Marriage", as you have stated, is a church function. Therefore, due to separation of Church and State, NO "Marriages" may be performed outside of Church.

2. Also due to the separation of Church and State, no Church marriages should be recognized by the State for any consideration..

3. In order to qualify for "marriage" benefits (taxes, working, death, etc.), you need to have a license and verification performed at a state office. It will be known as a civil union, or contract, since "Marriage" is a religious term and is not allowed.

4. Since "Marriage" IS a religious ceremony, all Church marrages shall be invalidated as null, void, and unconstitutional as per the US Constitution. Those seeking to legalize their status should seek the nearest Justice of the Peace, or courthouse to validate their unions immediately.

I think that should be fair enough for all parties involved, don't you? It also satisfies the Church's homophobia, since that, too, is illegal under tha law, as it is a form of discrimination.

Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Marriage License given out by the state what recognizes a marriage in the first place? If you don't have a Marriage License, then any wedding ceremony in the first place is void?

I'm just a little confused on that aspect so go ahead and let me know.

But getting back to something else, the government actually HAS to recognize marriages performed by religions. It's not just marriages from one religion, it's marriages from all religions. No religion is above the other. To not recognize a religious marriage would be pushing forth the religion of "Non-Religion/Secular Humanism" and violating the Seperation (All ready declared religions by United States Supreme Court to begin with. So by all legal definitions, not technical ones, I am correct.)

And just as the government has to provide priests/clerics/ministers from your religion when you are in the military lest they get in trouble for opressing and/or violating your rights, the same goes for marriages. Your postulate could use a little bit of reworking.

Oh? My beliefs. I belief Homosexuality is a choice, and is wrong. This comes from my very deep religious beliefs.

But though I do not support any form of Homosexual Marriages due to my beliefs, I cannot give any reason why the government should not allow them to marry. No arguement I could give would be able to push forth anything but my own religious bias.

EDIT --

One final thing for those people saying animals have monogamous relationships. Sure. But do animals have marriages?

I know humans who have monogamous relationships even though they're not married. What I am saying is that marriage itself is a religious practice. Otherwise it'd be anywhere from a "Well, you want to shack up, live together forever, and have sex?" to, more likely, a sexual free-for-all. Take out any religious influence, and I garuantee marriages would never have existed.