Your stance on gay marriage

[Samuraikoku]

I think the government should just totally butt out of it. Leave it up to the churches to argue its validity. If that's your thing, by all means, go for it. Just don't try and force the churches to change their policy in order to suit your desires. Find one that's cool with it.

It's a good thing this won't happen, or else no church will be cool with it.

[Germanic Templars]

I think the government should just totally butt out of it. Leave it up to the churches to argue its validity. If that's your thing, by all means, go for it. Just don't try and force the churches to change their policy in order to suit your desires. Find one that's cool with it.

true. Seperation of Church and State.

[Britarvia]

I strongly oppose Same Sex marriage "marriage".

And I ask: Where is the equality to gay people?

They can have a Civil Union

[Samuraikoku]

And I ask: Where is the equality to gay people?

They can have a Civil Union

Gay people have the same right to call their union "marriage" as heterosexuals do.

[Ifreann]

I trust you understand that this makes you come off as either a child or an unrepentant bigot.

Nah, I could carry out a good arguement but I don't feel like it...

This is exactly what I'm getting at. This sounds like something a child would say. Surely you realise that?

[Samuraikoku]

I saw you deleted this, Britarvia.

Well I think marriage is a sacred Union between one man and one woman.

Same Sex couples can just have a civil Union

Marriage is a concept out of any church. Marriage belongs to the law.

[Totalitarianople]

People should be able to do what they want. I mean, you're not going to see me at a Gay Rights protest anytime soon, but gay couples should still be given the right to marry.

Totalitarianople

[Britarvia]

Yes, I did because I forgot to quote it with your post.

[Furious Grandmothers]

And I ask: Where is the equality to gay people?

They can have a Civil Union

And you can have not a wife, but an acquaintance you have sex with.

Do you see the impact of labels already?

[Samuraikoku]

They can have a Civil Union

And you can have not a wife, but an acquaintance you have sex with.

Do you see the impact of labels already?

I guess he's more concerned with protecting the "sacred" aspect of marriage.

[The IOAS]

I think the government should just totally butt out of it. Leave it up to the churches to argue its validity. If that's your thing, by all means, go for it. Just don't try and force the churches to change their policy in order to suit your desires. Find one that's cool with it.

It's a good thing this won't happen, or else no church will be cool with it.

Not true. There's several Reform Jew and liberal Christian churches that both permit and perform gay marriage ceremonies. That and nearly every non-Abrahamic faith has either a supportive or "indifferent but cautious" view on the whole thing.

[Miem]

A church that would be cool with gay marriage would be the Unitarian church. Alot of gays go to the Unitarian in my town. And there's been a wedding as far as I know.

[The IOAS]

And even if there weren't any churches around that would perform the ceremony, you could just resort to a judge performing the ceremony. In my state, the marriage license application doesn't even ask for genders of the parties anymore.

[Samuraikoku]

And even if there weren't any churches around that would perform the ceremony, you could just resort to a judge performing the ceremony. In my state, the marriage license application doesn't even ask for genders of the parties anymore.

Which shows precisely why the State shouldn't be left out of it. As a human right, marriage should be left to uphold in the hands of the State, not of any church.

[Dusk_Kittens]

*snip*

Nope, not meant towards you. My disagreement with you stems from the fact that you seem to disregard the law in the concept of marriage, but I know you're pro gay marriage and do not want to call it something else. If I remember correctly, you said you're bisexual.

When I use the term "Marriage" without any qualifiers, I am either being imprecise (I do it too, and did so more often earlier in the thread) or I am referring to the general concept of "Marriage" as a bond or union between two or more competent and freely-consenting adult parties which is capable of existing and/or has being at a level that transcends legal regulation, social prejudice, cultural aesthetic preferences, physical handicaps, external sexual characteristics, chromosomal sex, gender identity, and religious dogma and psychological dysfunctions.

Law as profession (what is the female form of "Esquire"?) and Law as legislation or judicial finding/verdict need not, apart from any precedent or maxim, cannot define "Marriage" as a general term applicable to all situations.

Fortunately, neither can religion.

Both can only define "Marriage" in terms of what they recognize as such, which then requires qualification by the use of precise modifiers so as to distinguish the two from one another, while not trespassing on the other territory. Hence, "Legal Marriage" and "Sacramental Marriage" or "Religious Marriage" or "Mystical Marriage" or the like. Naming the latter is not the business of law, but if they don't distinguish, then law is forced to pick a way of modifying "religious marriage" so that it is understood to be "religious marriage" as distinct from Legal Marriage. In the absence of any current consensus of those concerned with "religious marriage" as to what it should be called, and with diverse religious views on the matter, I believe it is fair for us to refer to the matter as "religious marriage" if we so choose, for purposes of clarity in discussion.

"Religious marriage" is less particular than "Sacramental Marriage" (since not all sects even in Christianity view their religious marriage as "sacramental", much less other religions than Christianity entirely). While I might, for aesthetic preferences, like to call it "Mystical Marriage," some sects exist which would find some objection to that term. Even "religious" has its detractors. Nevertheless, for purposes of legal discussion of the legal concept of the legal status of Legal Marriage, if "religious marriage" is considered, it should be called something that is more or less emotively neutral, and the best option I have yet seen is "religious marriage."

I propose we hereafter refer to "religious marriage" as "religious marriage" if we're going to discuss it at all. Legal Marriage will still be called "Legal Marriage," and "Marriage" qua "Marriage" should be labeled with something like "Meta-Linguistic Marriage" (the adjective only to make plain that we're talking about "Marriage" and not Religious Marriage and/or Legal Marriage, except insofar as each status reflects on Meta-Linguistic Marriage by way of influence.

Same-sex bond/union already occurs in terms of Meta-Linguistic Marriage.

Same-sex bond/union as a legal status is either implied or included by Constitutional considerations, and must be recognized as covered by the term "Legal Marriage," such that same-sex couples may indeed enter into a legal contract like any other competent, freely-consenting adults.

Same-sex bond/union as a religious status has existed in the past and likely exists in some religion(s) even now. Some religions may not recognize same-sex union/bond as "religious marriage" while other religions may recognize and bless same-sex bond/union and call it "religious marriage."

Everybody needs to butt out of other people's personal choices.

[Samuraikoku]

When I use the term "Marriage" without any qualifiers, I am either being imprecise (I do it too, and did so more often earlier in the thread) or I am referring to the general concept of "Marriage" as a bond or union between two or more competent and freely-consenting adult parties which is capable of existing and/or has being at a level that transcends legal regulation, social prejudice, cultural aesthetic preferences, physical handicaps, external sexual characteristics, chromosomal sex, gender identity, and religious dogma and psychological dysfunctions.

Okay, I understand what you're trying to do there, but it still doesn't change the fact that it would need the law to exist as marriage. Of course, it does happen in real life (commonlaw marriage), but the law is interested in making an institution out of marriage for the same reason that law is intended to regulate human behavior.

Law as profession (what is the female form of "Esquire"?) and Law as legislation or judicial finding/verdict need not, apart from any precedent or maxim, cannot define "Marriage" as a general term applicable to all situations.

Esquire is used for both male or female. And, I don't see how the definition you provided above could not fit in a legal definition (except of course for the transcending legal regulation aspect).

All the rest you said, I find no reason to disagree.

[Grave_n_idle]

I appose, and yes, it's due to my religious beliefs. But it is not hatred as many would think.

The problem with basing decisions on your religious beliefs... is that your religious beliefs are your own.

Someone else might have very different religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that might work against what you would like to see in this world. Religious beliefs that might make you unhappy. That might even cause you harm.

Think about how you feel about THOSE religious beliefs being applied to you - how you feel about someone acting on their desire to make you unhappy or cause you harm.

Meditate on it.

Perhaps you can understand why other people are less than impressed by what you wish to see happen to others, based on your religious beliefs.

No?

[Grave_n_idle]

And even if there weren't any churches around that would perform the ceremony, you could just resort to a judge performing the ceremony. In my state, the marriage license application doesn't even ask for genders of the parties anymore.

How could you 'just resort to a judge'?

Didn't you want to remove marriage from the civil theater and put it in the hands of churches? You've just neutered the judge.

See why it's important to keep the civil aspect of marriage first and foremost?

[Grave_n_idle]

And I ask: Where is the equality to gay people?

They can have a Civil Union

Not everywhere.

[Grave_n_idle]

I strongly oppose Same Sex marriage "marriage".

I strongly oppose a situation where people are not treated equally in the eyes of the law.

The difference between our perspectives, is that the law of this land is based on a document that explicitly guarantees just such protection.

[United Central Europe]

It is not the government's right to say who can and cannot get married. If homosexuals want to get married and their respective religion allows so, then they have their right to marriage.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is not the government's right to say who can and cannot get married. If homosexuals want to get married and their respective religion allows so, then they have their right to marriage.

What if their religion doesn't allow them?

[Liriena]

Marriage has been for a long time an institution independent from religion, and it is not something exclussive of Abrahamic religions either (which are the religions that oppose LGBT rights the most.

And since there is no scientific, ethic or logical proof that homosexuality, bisexuality or transexuality are unnatural (and in fact they has been proven to be perfectly natural, just like heterosexuality) there is no logical reason to deny consenting same-sex couples the right to belong to the LEGAL institution of marriage.

The RELIGIOUS institution of marriage is an entirelly different matter. I would not force religions to carry out same sex marriage ceremonies.

Since most civilized nations have sepparated the State from Religion, religious arguments hold absolutelly no ground on this matter, which would be a LEGAL matter, and thus, moral values based on religious values have no say on the matter either.

Therefore: I, a fairly devoted Catholic, fully support same-sex marriage.

[Brodskopolis]

Why the hell shouldn't they marry?

[Haktiva]

i don't care
but if i was forced to voice my opinion, it's really up to the individual religious leader to marry them