NATION

PASSWORD

A solution for gay marriage

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Remove ads

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:06 am

North Defese wrote:

This was lost in a surge of more arguments, and I've seen points that I've attempted to counter or bring up, so I'll restate my position on this and hope it's not ignored for the sake of more unconstructive bickering. :unsure:


I can quite easily go to a registry office with my partner and get married without bringing any religion into the thing. The definition of marriage is already secular. People saying that marriage isn't the governments business and is a purely religious thing are the ones trying to redefine it

User avatar
Unidox
Minister
 
Posts: 2576
Founded: Jan 25, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unidox » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:06 am

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:That's not a compromise... That's giving the homophobes what they want...

I'd take that compromise. *shrug*

Buffy, will you civil union me?..

Nah, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. How about redefining the word "marriage" to become more synonymous with the term "civil union" and vice versa?
Caninope wrote:It's NSG. The 20th Circle of LIMBO!

Buffett and Colbert wrote:Always here to ruin the day. 8)

Living Freedom Land wrote:Oh, so now you want gay people to take part in the sacred institution of tax rebates too? You liberals sicken me.

Lacadaemon wrote:I mean, hell, in a properly regulated market, pension stripping schemes like Zynga wouldn't ever have a sniff of an IPO (see Groupon). But it's all wild westy now. Lie down with dogs and so forth.

User avatar
Laerod
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26190
Founded: Jul 17, 2004
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Laerod » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:06 am

North Defese wrote:This was lost in a surge of more arguments, and I've seen points that I've attempted to counter or bring up, so I'll restate my position on this and hope it's not ignored for the sake of more unconstructive bickering. :unsure:

Marriage wasn't orignially a religious institution. You could just as well argue that the church has no business in messing with an originally secular declaration of union between two persons.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15094
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:06 am

North Defese wrote:Since marriage is a religious matter sanctioned and handed out by religious institutions, the government shouldn't have the power to touch it.


Except marriage ISN'T a religious matter :P

If it were, the followers of the Church of the Grand Flaming Potato would be allowed to marry their sunflowers.

Which of course leads us the the tiny flaw with the OPs brilliant scheme: there is more than one religion - and many of them do not define marriage the way the Christian right wants.

So have fun with your religious unions of man and 9 year old girl, man and 300 women, man and horse - and yes - EVEN man and man. All completely and utterly equal to your own marriage.
Last edited by The Alma Mater on Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Coffee Cakes
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67360
Founded: Sep 19, 2010
Capitalizt

Postby Coffee Cakes » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:07 am

Libertarian Mesa wrote:
Malgrave wrote:I have a better idea. Just bloody legalize it already.

People do not want it.


Actually, trying to think who it was... I'm pretty sure Dyakovo... at least that sounds right... or maybe Geniasis... quoted a study in the last month or two that showed that over half of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't sound like people not wanting it to me.
Transnapastain wrote:CC!

Posting mod mistakes now are we?

Well, sir, you can have a Vindictive warning for making us look incompetent
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:You're Invisi Gay. Super hero of the Rainbow Equality Brigade!
Nana wrote:Being CC's bf is a death worse than fate.
Nana wrote:Finally, another reasonable individual.
Nana wrote: You're Ben. And Ben is many things wrapped into one being. :)
NSG Sodomy Club Member.
RIP WHYLT 11/14/2010-8/15/2011
Geniasis wrote:I've seen people lose credibility. It's been a while since I've seen it cast aside so gleefully.
Quotes Singing Contest of DOOM Champ. Softball
NS Kart Reppy Kart.


Asperger's
Satan's Apprentice Colleague
Lian's precious snowflake
Callie's Adorbs/Loyal Knight Prince's TET Husband

User avatar
Seperate Vermont
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Seperate Vermont » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:07 am

Unidox wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:I'd take that compromise. *shrug*

Buffy, will you civil union me?..

Nah, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. How about redefining the word "marriage" to become more synonymous with the term "civil union" and vice versa?

To some, marriage is something defined religiously, which is mainly why changing the definition upsets people. Apparently it can never be understood as separate, the definitions the government uses and religions use.
No, we are not obsessed with Maple Syrup. Speaking of that, Would you like some 100% Pure Vermont Maple Syrup? We have a surplus this year.
http://www.mechiwiki.com/nationstates/index.php?nation=Seperate_Vermont
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment

User avatar
North Defese
Minister
 
Posts: 2498
Founded: Jun 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby North Defese » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:08 am

Seperate Vermont wrote:
North Defese wrote:

This was lost in a surge of more arguments, and I've seen points that I've attempted to counter or bring up, so I'll restate my position on this and hope it's not ignored for the sake of more unconstructive bickering. :unsure:

Since marriage is a religious matter

Marraige is a confusing thing to argue, esentially because it has two definitions: the one of the government and the one of the church. Often, bickering occurs when someone uses "marriage" to define something by the government when some religiously-sensitive person assumes it is their religious definition of "marriage". Then there are those that do not care if the two are mixed and quite frankly wouldn't mind seeing it so.

However, in the eyes of who should and shouldn't- Marriage, the union of two people as a right of those people, is not a religious matter. It is something that can be done through religion.


Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.
"One minute Defesian logic is all happy and joyish with some seriousness involved. Then suddenly you look into the context and notice a brutal, bloody wording.
And you're like 'Holy shit, Defese is terrifying.'" - Restored Belka
The Defesian National Anthem
Pro: good things :)
Con: bad things >:(

User avatar
Seperate Vermont
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Seperate Vermont » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:08 am

Coffee Cakes wrote:
Libertarian Mesa wrote:People do not want it.


Actually, trying to think who it was... I'm pretty sure Dyakovo... at least that sounds right... or maybe Geniasis... quoted a study in the last month or two that showed that over half of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't sound like people not wanting it to me.

Oh, but traditionalists are always acting on the mandate of the people in opposition to the snobby idealistic elitists that seek to destroy popular rights in favor of their own progressive agenda.
No, we are not obsessed with Maple Syrup. Speaking of that, Would you like some 100% Pure Vermont Maple Syrup? We have a surplus this year.
http://www.mechiwiki.com/nationstates/index.php?nation=Seperate_Vermont
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 91260
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Farnhamia » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:09 am

North Defese wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Sure. It's unnecessary. The government should just issue "marriage licenses" to any couple that qualifies, without regard to their gender. Problem solved.


I agree with you, I see that as the best solution. We keep our seperation of church and state, religious organizations aren't forced to recognize the union (too bad really, but it's their right), and same sex couples get recognized by the government.

And no one who is serious about gay marriage is proposing that churches be forced to do anything except deal with the fact that we can get married and call it that. So good, what's next?
Ban Shredded Cheese! Make America Grate Again!
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickels
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo, Ashmoria | In support of Arch

User avatar
Libertarian Mesa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 814
Founded: Jun 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libertarian Mesa » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:09 am

Laerod wrote:
Libertarian Mesa wrote:This is not a rights issue (look at the OP), but the redefinition of marriage.

It's already been redefined. Gay marriage is legal in a few places by now. Also the redefinition of marriage has happened lots of times. For instance, it is now legal for blacks to marry whites in Virginia.

If people want it, I'm fine with it.

User avatar
North Defese
Minister
 
Posts: 2498
Founded: Jun 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby North Defese » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:09 am

Laerod wrote:
North Defese wrote:This was lost in a surge of more arguments, and I've seen points that I've attempted to counter or bring up, so I'll restate my position on this and hope it's not ignored for the sake of more unconstructive bickering. :unsure:

Marriage wasn't orignially a religious institution. You could just as well argue that the church has no business in messing with an originally secular declaration of union between two persons.


I am going to argue that the church has no place in messing with a civil union between two couples, because it's a legal matter and not up to the church or religious institution in question.
"One minute Defesian logic is all happy and joyish with some seriousness involved. Then suddenly you look into the context and notice a brutal, bloody wording.
And you're like 'Holy shit, Defese is terrifying.'" - Restored Belka
The Defesian National Anthem
Pro: good things :)
Con: bad things >:(

User avatar
Seperate Vermont
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Seperate Vermont » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:09 am

North Defese wrote:
Seperate Vermont wrote:
Marraige is a confusing thing to argue, esentially because it has two definitions: the one of the government and the one of the church. Often, bickering occurs when someone uses "marriage" to define something by the government when some religiously-sensitive person assumes it is their religious definition of "marriage". Then there are those that do not care if the two are mixed and quite frankly wouldn't mind seeing it so.

However, in the eyes of who should and shouldn't- Marriage, the union of two people as a right of those people, is not a religious matter. It is something that can be done through religion.


Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

What is marriage?
No, we are not obsessed with Maple Syrup. Speaking of that, Would you like some 100% Pure Vermont Maple Syrup? We have a surplus this year.
http://www.mechiwiki.com/nationstates/index.php?nation=Seperate_Vermont
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment

User avatar
Greater Cabinda
Senator
 
Posts: 4715
Founded: Jun 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Greater Cabinda » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:09 am

Coffee Cakes wrote:
Libertarian Mesa wrote:People do not want it.


Actually, trying to think who it was... I'm pretty sure Dyakovo... at least that sounds right... or maybe Geniasis... quoted a study in the last month or two that showed that over half of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't sound like people not wanting it to me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

There you go. :)
No, I wasn't banned, but this profile is now inactive due to it being abandoned by it's owner...

New Conglomerate is his new profile. Also, the first person to telegram him at his new profile gets the link to his former flag.

User avatar
Sovereign Spirits
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Apr 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sovereign Spirits » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:10 am

Get the government out of marriage. Then, folks can create whatever the hell churches they want to cater to whoever the hell they want. For goodness sake, you can get married at a joint in Vegas and it still counts. So why the hell not?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson, November 1787

User avatar
Greater Cabinda
Senator
 
Posts: 4715
Founded: Jun 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Greater Cabinda » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:11 am

Sovereign Spirits wrote:Get the government out of marriage.

You realize that government recognition of marriages denotes tax rebates and the like, right?
No, I wasn't banned, but this profile is now inactive due to it being abandoned by it's owner...

New Conglomerate is his new profile. Also, the first person to telegram him at his new profile gets the link to his former flag.

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:11 am

North Defese wrote:
Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

You can be married by the pope and unless you fill in the forms, you aren't married. A religious ceremony isn't a modern marriage, signing on the dotted line in front of a government official is what makes a marriage.

User avatar
Seperate Vermont
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Seperate Vermont » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:11 am

Sovereign Spirits wrote:Get the government out of marriage.

That protects far too many liberties and ensures people live free of pre-defined moral agendas.
No, we are not obsessed with Maple Syrup. Speaking of that, Would you like some 100% Pure Vermont Maple Syrup? We have a surplus this year.
http://www.mechiwiki.com/nationstates/index.php?nation=Seperate_Vermont
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment

User avatar
-St George
Senator
 
Posts: 4537
Founded: Apr 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby -St George » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:11 am

Karshkovia wrote:First off, this isn't a rant for or against gay marriage but a possible solution that could be acceptable to all sides of the issue.
Queue stupid compromise that tries to keep marriage a religious concept, which it isn't.
My thought is that Instead of issuing marriage licenses, the Government would be limited to issuing 'civil union licenses' instead for any couple, gay or straight with the same rights currently associated with marriage licenses. If a couple wishes to be married, they could find a church which then would perform a marriage ceremony over the couple and sanctify it by whatever religious belief that couple chose. This way, churches that refuse to marry gay couples wouldn't need to, and those churches that welcomed gay couples would be allowed to marry them.
Called it.
In the Government's eyes, all people...all couples...would be equal via civil unions. The large religious sects wouldn't be able to force their views/beliefs on the entire populous. "Marriage" would probably still be used by the general public to talk about these unions regardless if a marriage ceremony was performed by a church or not....and being married in a church wouldn't do anything more than provide a ceremony for the couple...as it is now.
Missing the PointTM. Marriage is not, and never has been, the property of the Church. I say this as a Christian. And de jure equality is not, and never has been, de facto equality. Your suggestion makes marriage a two tier hierarchy between Married couples, and civil union couples.
Again, a win-win for all sides.
No, it's not. At all.
[19:12] <Amitabho> I mean, a little niggling voice tells me this is impossible, but then my voice of reason kicks in
[21:07] <@Milograd> I totally endorse the unfair moderation.
01:46 Goobergunch I could support StGeorge's nuts for the GOP nomination
( Anemos was here )
Also, Bonobos

User avatar
Living Freedom Land
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1582
Founded: Jul 07, 2007
Capitalizt

Postby Living Freedom Land » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:12 am

Greater Cabinda wrote:
Sovereign Spirits wrote:Get the government out of marriage.

You realize that government recognition of marriages denotes tax rebates and the like, right?

Oh, so now you want gay people to take part in the sacred institution of tax rebates too? You liberals sicken me.
fnord

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15094
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:12 am

North Defese wrote:
Laerod wrote:Marriage wasn't orignially a religious institution. You could just as well argue that the church has no business in messing with an originally secular declaration of union between two persons.


I am going to argue that the church has no place in messing with a civil union between two couples, because it's a legal matter and not up to the church or religious institution in question.


And you fully support the idea that a religious marriage performed by Religion X between a man, a cow and a thousand 9 year old girls is just as holy as your own ;) ?
Last edited by The Alma Mater on Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
North Defese
Minister
 
Posts: 2498
Founded: Jun 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby North Defese » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:12 am

Seperate Vermont wrote:
North Defese wrote:
Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

What is marriage?


Personal definition?
A recognition of a union between two people are recognized by the church, another religious institution, or a legal body.

But because we have the issue of the government becoming involved in religious matters, I've always tried to keep two definitions of marriage. One religious, and one legal definition.

Because just as same sex couples have the right to have their union recognized by the government, we shouldn't force religious institutions to recognize them if (and when) it goes against their traditional definition of marriage. It's not the place of the government to determine what an organization of faith does.

(Obviously I don't condone exteremist views or violence against homosexuals, which would be rather masochist of me)
"One minute Defesian logic is all happy and joyish with some seriousness involved. Then suddenly you look into the context and notice a brutal, bloody wording.
And you're like 'Holy shit, Defese is terrifying.'" - Restored Belka
The Defesian National Anthem
Pro: good things :)
Con: bad things >:(

User avatar
Seperate Vermont
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Seperate Vermont » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:12 am

Unchecked Expansion wrote:
North Defese wrote:
Because marriage is done mostly done in a church or by a religious figure, I consider it a religious pratice. A union between two same sex couples should not be forced through that process when it could just as easily be recognized by the government with all the legal benefits (and problems) of heterosexual couples.

You can be married by the pope and unless you fill in the forms, you aren't married. A religious ceremony isn't a modern marriage, signing on the dotted line in front of a government official is what makes a marriage.

And in that respect, a marriage is the union of two persons that is recognized by the government, and one way to do that is to go through religion or a religious service.
No, we are not obsessed with Maple Syrup. Speaking of that, Would you like some 100% Pure Vermont Maple Syrup? We have a surplus this year.
http://www.mechiwiki.com/nationstates/index.php?nation=Seperate_Vermont
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15094
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:13 am

Seperate Vermont wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:You can be married by the pope and unless you fill in the forms, you aren't married. A religious ceremony isn't a modern marriage, signing on the dotted line in front of a government official is what makes a marriage.

And in that respect, a marriage is the union of two persons that is recognized by the government, and one way to do that is to go through religion or a religious service.


Why only two ? Solomon had more wives ;)
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:14 am

Seperate Vermont wrote:And in that respect, a marriage is the union of two persons that is recognized by the government, and one way to do that is to go through religion or a religious service.

But the thing is, the religious service, the vows and everything, are not required. You can be married wherever and however you like - the important part is the legal recognition

User avatar
Coffee Cakes
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67360
Founded: Sep 19, 2010
Capitalizt

Postby Coffee Cakes » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:14 am

Terrasricas wrote:Here's a solution: get rid of the gays, and gay marriage becomes a moot point.


Same thing if we got rid of straight people.

As long as there are people disagreeing, nothing will ever become a moot point, marriage included.
Transnapastain wrote:CC!

Posting mod mistakes now are we?

Well, sir, you can have a Vindictive warning for making us look incompetent
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:You're Invisi Gay. Super hero of the Rainbow Equality Brigade!
Nana wrote:Being CC's bf is a death worse than fate.
Nana wrote:Finally, another reasonable individual.
Nana wrote: You're Ben. And Ben is many things wrapped into one being. :)
NSG Sodomy Club Member.
RIP WHYLT 11/14/2010-8/15/2011
Geniasis wrote:I've seen people lose credibility. It's been a while since I've seen it cast aside so gleefully.
Quotes Singing Contest of DOOM Champ. Softball
NS Kart Reppy Kart.


Asperger's
Satan's Apprentice Colleague
Lian's precious snowflake
Callie's Adorbs/Loyal Knight Prince's TET Husband

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Immoren, Internationalist Bastard, Kyrinasaj, Ostroeuropa, Socialist Czechia, The Flutterlands, Trumptonium, Washington Resistance Army, Western-Ukraine

Remove ads