Same Sex Marriage?

[Jennasis]

Actually, there still is some debate over the intellectual capacity of a zombie to make an informed decision on marriage. Some higher functioning ones, such as Bub(from Day of the Dead) may very well be classified as a consenting adult zombie. So, it appears that you stand corrected.

But seriously, that comment about animals and dead people was so completely ridiculous - does it even warrant a response?

Awww.........

 

[CandyMandy]

We're not puting this in front of voters here.

And we can understand why, since in the 11 times a referendum has been put on a state ballot to legalize gay marriage, it has lost, in most cases overwhelmingly and thirty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage.

So yes, we can understand why some want to remove voters from deciding the outcome of this issue!

 

[roscoepc1]

Ok people....I need to get up for work tomorrow.....quit making thought-provoking and interesting points so I can stop refreshing the page and go to bed!



This thread is seriously one of the best, well-thought-out, interesting discussions on this issue I've ever been a part of!

 

[ashley0139]

While I believe that gay marriage should be legal, I'm not so sure that it isn't a slippery slope, especially when you can't talk about just gay/lesbian people anymore. It's always GLBT. If bi-sexuality is recognized as legitimately as homosexuality, how can you stop bi-sexual people from marrying both genders (polygamously)? Wouldn't you be halting their "pursuit of happiness?"

Bisexuality in NO WAY implies polyamorous. In fact, every bisexual person I know is also monogamous. I don't know why so many people assume bisexual people automatically want to be with people of both sexes at the same time.

I have never heard an argument against same sex marriage that I can respect. Not everyone is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Why should everyone have to follow the traditional "laws" of those religions. If I'm atheist, why should I be bound by the rules of a religion I don't follow?

Regarding the marriage vs. civil unions argument, when has separate but equal EVER worked? Gay marriage is the civil rights movement of our time. I can only hope with all my heart that in 50 years we will look back on this time and marvel at the fact that this was ever even an issue, as we do with interracial marriages now.

 

[autumnpalm]

I'm a conservative Christian and I support civil unions recognized by the government. In my opinion, marriage is a religious covenant between man and God. I believe that covenant was intended for one man and one woman and believe that it should stay that way.

However, I do believe that those in same-sex relationships should be afforded the same legal rights as those in differing-sex relationships. I do see where the separate-but-equal distinction here becomes problematic and I like ChrizJen's suggestion of letting the government handle secular unions and having religious institutions handle "marriage" in its religious form.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Gay marriage is the civil rights movement of our time. I can only hope with all my heart that in 50 years we will look back on this time and marvel at the fact that this was ever even an issue, as we do with interracial marriages now.

I am certain that we will.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

However, I do believe that those in same-sex relationships should be afforded the same legal rights as those in differing-sex relationships. I do see where the separate-but-equal distinction here becomes problematic and I like ChrizJen's suggestion of letting the government handle secular unions and having religious institutions handle "marriage" in its religious form.

Isn't that they way it already is? Dh and I were married in a religious ceremony, but the legal part of it was completely separate. The only issue that I see is that the government and religious institutions both call it "marriage", but they really are two separate processes.

 

[autumnpalm]

Isn't that they way it already is? Dh and I were married in a religious ceremony, but the legal part of it was completely separate. The only issue that I see is that the government and religious institutions both call it "marriage", but they really are two separate processes.

Quite possibly! Maybe another Canadian can chime in for me here as I am not yet married and unsure of the exact logistics.

Then to clarify what I meant is that all couples should be afforded the right to a legal/civil/government "marriage" while religious "marriage" should be reserved for the religious definition of marriage.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

I'd prefer a Vampire over a Zombie any day....are Vampires capable of consent?

Hmmm. . .I'd say Twilight and Anne Rice type vampires would be. Dracula and Buffy vampires wouldn't be, as they're mostly vessels for evil. (With the exception of Angel and Spike. . .Angel I think would need his own special rule, but Spike would likely be considered consenting. . .which brings up all kinds of. . .ahem.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Actually, there still is some debate over the intellectual capacity of a zombie to make an informed decision on marriage. Some higher functioning ones, such as Bub(from Day of the Dead) may very well be classified as a consenting adult zombie. So, it appears that you stand corrected.

Well, according to G-ddam- Redneck Surfer Zombies all zombies want to do is to surf, so unless the act of matrimony would convey rights to an excellent beach, I doubt they'd be interested.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

You know, the more I think about the whole marriage/civil union divide, the more I like it.

Let all marriages be the ones done in churches. If you're getting hitched in a court house or by a justice of the peace, it won't be a marriage, only a civil union.

Civil unions will be what is recognized by the state exclusively. Your civil union will be the basis for all tax and legal matters.

Marriage would be confined to the church and has no legal bearing, not any whatsoever. It would be defined by any church or religious body as whatever that religious body defines it as.

Marriages are an act of unity before that person's God (or Gods or dieties or spirits), and would be strictly defined as one this way.

Civil Unions would then become acts of becoming as one legal person for the purposes of domicile, partnership and the raising of children.

I like it a lot!

 

[roscoepc1]

You know, the more I think about the whole marriage/civil union divide, the more I like it.

Let all marriages be the ones done in churches. If you're getting hitched in a court house or by a justice of the peace, it won't be a marriage, only a civil union.

Civil unions will be what is recognized by the state exclusively. Your civil union will be the basis for all tax and legal matters.

Marriage would be confined to the church and has no legal bearing, not any whatsoever. It would be defined by any church or religious body as whatever that religious body defines it as.

Marriages are an act of unity before that person's God (or Gods or dieties or spirits), and would be strictly defined as one this way.

Civil Unions would then become acts of becoming as one legal person for the purposes of domicile, partnership and the raising of children.

I like it a lot!

I do too!

 

[TheZue]

You know, the more I think about the whole marriage/civil union divide, the more I like it.

Let all marriages be the ones done in churches. If you're getting hitched in a court house or by a justice of the peace, it won't be a marriage, only a civil union.

Civil unions will be what is recognized by the state exclusively. Your civil union will be the basis for all tax and legal matters.

Marriage would be confined to the church and has no legal bearing, not any whatsoever. It would be defined by any church or religious body as whatever that religious body defines it as.

Marriages are an act of unity before that person's God (or Gods or dieties or spirits), and would be strictly defined as one this way.

Civil Unions would then become acts of becoming as one legal person for the purposes of domicile, partnership and the raising of children.

I like it a lot!

So who decides what church is worthy of providing marriages? Can I start a church of the Jedi to make sure I get my marriage and not my civil union? And why do those of us that didn't get married through a church have to change our name for our marriage? I'm fine sharing it, if you don't want to be inclusive why don't you pick a different name?

 

[roscoepc1]

Quite possibly! Maybe another Canadian can chime in for me here as I am not yet married and unsure of the exact logistics.

Then to clarify what I meant is that all couples should be afforded the right to a legal/civil/government "marriage" while religious "marriage" should be reserved for the religious definition of marriage.

I'm Canadian, but have been married for 18+ years, so maybe things have changed? I'd have to ask a younger newlywed, but at the time I married, they were kind of inter-twined. Yes, you got your licence at Town Hall, but it was the Minister who signed it at the church who "made it legal"....

 

[roscoepc1]

So who decides what church is worthy of providing marriages? Can I start a church of the Jedi to make sure I get my marriage and not my civil union? And why do those of us that didn't get married through a church have to change our name for our marriage? I'm fine sharing it, if you don't want to be inclusive why don't you pick a different name?

I would say the same way a church is recognised for charitable purposes etc...although that's inserting gov't again, lol...it'a tangled web.

As far as "why don't you pick a different name", b/c religion originated it in the first place. Gov't didn't.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

So who decides what church is worthy of providing marriages? Can I start a church of the Jedi to make sure I get my marriage and not my civil union? And why do those of us that didn't get married through a church have to change our name for our marriage? I'm fine sharing it, if you don't want to be inclusive why don't you pick a different name?

If you wnt to start the Church of the Jedi and perform Jedi marriages, why not in this scenario? It would be like taking the sacrament or getting baptized or having a bar mitzvah, something your church does. If you're not religious and wanted to get married, I suppose that some bodies of worship would be fine with marrying outsiders. Or you could even decide you were "married" without any church's blessing - it wouldn't legally matter, so that would be up to you. You could happily say "we stood in our backyard and were married". That would be your choice, not mine and not anyone else's rules.

However, going to the courthouse would be the act of civil union and the legal act. What you do after that, whether you call yourself married or not would totally be your business.

 

[mamacatnv]

Ok people....I need to get up for work tomorrow.....quit making thought-provoking and interesting points so I can stop refreshing the page and go to bed!



This thread is seriously one of the best, well-thought-out, interesting discussions on this issue I've ever been a part of!

I agree, very good discussion it has given me pause to think

 

[TheZue]

If you wnt to start the Church of the Jedi and perform Jedi marriages, why not in this scenario? It would be like taking the sacrament or getting baptized or having a bar mitzvah, something your church does. If you're not religious and wanted to get married, I suppose that some bodies of worship would be fine with marrying outsiders. Or you could even decide you were "married" without any church's blessing - it wouldn't legally matter, so that would be up to you. You could happily say "we stood in our backyard and were married". That would be your choice, not mine and not anyone else's rules.

However, going to the courthouse would be the act of civil union and the legal act. What you do after that, whether you call yourself married or not would totally be your business.

Okay if anyone can just call themselves married anyways why not leave the government unions as marriages?

As for Canada, they are ALL marriages. We don't do this seperate but equal BS.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Okay if anyone can just call themselves married anyways why not leave the government unions as marriages?

As for Canada, they are ALL marriages. We don't do this seperate but equal BS.

Ahhhhh. . .but you forget how important the authority of a religious body can be for some people. It's not the matter of unity for many people, it's the matter of being joined by a priest/minister/rabbi/worship leader/priestess/reverend of their faith. I think if you want a big fat Catholic wedding, you should be able to have it and have a priest bless it. But is it right in the USA for that priest's blessing to consitute a legallly binding agreement?

So separate the two. Your Catholic wedding is blessed by God. Your Civil Union to the same person is blessed by the State.

 

[TheZue]

Ahhhhh. . .but you forget how important the authority of a religious body can be for some people. It's not the matter of unity for many people, it's the matter of being joined by a priest/minister/rabbi/worship leader/priestess/reverend of their faith. I think if you want a big fat Catholic wedding, you should be able to have it and have a priest bless it. But is it right in the USA for that priest's blessing to consitute a legallly binding agreement?

So separate the two. Your Catholic wedding is blessed by God. Your Civil Union to the same person is blessed by the State.

Who cares if it's a priest doing the joining? Our officiant was actually a priest who did a non religious ceremony. Does their being religious somehow make them less able to do so? A judge had nothing to do with our non religious MARRIAGE. And btw it wasn't in Canada, it was in Vegas so the US laws would affect us.

I just don't get the need to take away the term marriage for those who choose to get married outside a church. I view marriage as something to do with humanity as a whole, not just the religious. If it was just a religious ritual it wouldn't be universal across the globe; yet it is. Bhuddists get married, hindus get married, Romans got married when they were still pagans, Ancient Egyptions got married when they worshiped their gods...and yes athiests get married. Yes religion is key in many people's marriages but marriage exists in many spheres outside of religion. And it is FAR older than governent which is why the idea of government dictating some people get to have a civil union and others get to have a marriage is bizzare...if they want to track it fine; but don't start dividing based on sexual preference or religion.