NATION

PASSWORD

House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

If you were an MP in the Commons tonight, how would you vote?

Aye! Yes to same-sex marriage
224
84%
No! No to same-sex marriage
37
14%
Other
7
3%
 
Total votes : 268

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33354
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:34 pm

Tmutarakhan wrote:
Grenartia wrote:Also, I'd say that even Paul wasn't saying it was a sin. Given the fact that Paul made up the word arsenokoitai, instead of using the already existing Greek word for homosexuals.

He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.[/quote]
I believe Mit like Mitah is the word for bed... and Shakav means 'to lay.'
-NS's one and only Tanna!
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
The NS Steam Thread
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Prussia-Steinbach
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22386
Founded: Mar 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Prussia-Steinbach » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:36 pm

Hevzane wrote:
Divair wrote:You are indeed homophobic.


A homphobe is somebody who HATES gay people, I don't hate them. I just don't agree with it. Do you have a problem with that?

No, a homophobe is someone who is afraid of or has an aversion to homosexuals.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. ― William S. Burroughs


User avatar
Tmutarakhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8319
Founded: Dec 06, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tmutarakhan » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:39 pm

Menassa wrote:
Tmutarakhan wrote:He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.

I believe Mit like Mitah is the word for bed... and Shakav means 'to lay.'

sh-k-b like most Hebrew roots is not specifically either a noun nor a verb, but both, and is used both ways within the verse: "Do not sh-k-b a male in the sh-k-b of a woman" so the Greek preserves this by using the koit- root both as verb and as noun here, although in Greek it is less common to take a noun and "verb" it.
Last edited by Tmutarakhan on Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and a musical to those who sing.

I am the very model of a Nation States General,
I am a holy terror to apologists Confederal,
When called upon to source a line, I give citations textual,
And argue about Palestine, and marriage homosexual!


A KNIGHT ON KARINZISTAN'S SPECIAL LIST OF POOPHEADS!

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33354
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:41 pm

Tmutarakhan wrote:
Menassa wrote:He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.

I believe Mit like Mitah is the word for bed... and Shakav means 'to lay.'

sh-k-b like most Hebrew roots is not specifically either a noun nor a verb, but both, and is used both ways within the verse: "Do not sh-k-b a male in the sh-k-b of a woman" so the Greek preserves this by using the koit- root both as verb and as noun here, although in Greek it is less common to take a noun and "verb" it.[/quote]
Correct, my point is the verse wanted to say bed it would have used Mitah or Mit.

But that's nit-picking.

yeah....
Last edited by Menassa on Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-NS's one and only Tanna!
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
The NS Steam Thread
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Curiosityness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 811
Founded: Jan 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Curiosityness » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:42 pm

Although I don't live in the UK id like to see it pass
left/libertarian
economic left:-2.88
social libertarian:-5.54

User avatar
Tmutarakhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8319
Founded: Dec 06, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tmutarakhan » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:46 pm

Menassa wrote:
Tmutarakhan wrote:sh-k-b like most Hebrew roots is not specifically either a noun nor a verb, but both, and is used both ways within the verse: "Do not sh-k-b a male in the sh-k-b of a woman" so the Greek preserves this by using the koit- root both as verb and as noun here, although in Greek it is less common to take a noun and "verb" it.

Correct, my point is the verse wanted to say bed it would have used Mitah or Mit.

No, the verse could have, and in fact DID, use shakav in the meaning of "bed". Yes, a different noun existed which did not have a correlative verb; but the author chose instead to use a verb and its derivative noun from the same root.
Menassa wrote:But that's nit-picking.

No, I don't really think it is. Grenartia is treating the Pauline usage as if it were a new coinage out of nothing, which might mean anything; in the context of the Biblical translations, it is clear that Paul's word is intended as a specific reference to the Leviticus verse.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and a musical to those who sing.

I am the very model of a Nation States General,
I am a holy terror to apologists Confederal,
When called upon to source a line, I give citations textual,
And argue about Palestine, and marriage homosexual!


A KNIGHT ON KARINZISTAN'S SPECIAL LIST OF POOPHEADS!

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33354
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:49 pm

Tmutarakhan wrote:
Menassa wrote:Correct, my point is the verse wanted to say bed it would have used Mitah or Mit.

No, the verse could have, and in fact DID, use shakav in the meaning of "bed". Yes, a different noun existed which did not have a correlative verb; but the author chose instead to use a verb and its derivative noun from the same root.

To in turn mean: lay.... 'The Author' which is what he wanted to portray... if he wanted to mean Bed... he would have said bed.

Tmutarakhan wrote:
Menassa wrote:But that's nit-picking.

No, I don't really think it is. Grenartia is treating the Pauline usage as if it were a new coinage out of nothing, which might mean anything; in the context of the Biblical translations, it is clear that Paul's word is intended as a specific reference to the Leviticus verse.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me I was only talking about the verse in Leviticus.
-NS's one and only Tanna!
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
The NS Steam Thread
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Internal Union
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Feb 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Internal Union » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:53 pm

From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33354
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:54 pm

Internal Union wrote:From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

Where does God say that it's wrong?
-NS's one and only Tanna!
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
The NS Steam Thread
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Internal Union
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Feb 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Internal Union » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:54 pm

what the fuk is other

User avatar
Internal Union
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Feb 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Internal Union » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:57 pm

Menassa wrote:
Internal Union wrote:From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

Where does God say that it's wrong?

In genesis a man shall not lay with another man nor shall he lay with an animal, God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease

User avatar
Tmutarakhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8319
Founded: Dec 06, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tmutarakhan » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:57 pm

Menassa wrote:
Tmutarakhan wrote:No, the verse could have, and in fact DID, use shakav in the meaning of "bed". Yes, a different noun existed which did not have a correlative verb; but the author chose instead to use a verb and its derivative noun from the same root.

To in turn mean: lay.... 'The Author' which is what he wanted to portray... if he wanted to mean Bed... he would have said bed.

Tmutarakhan wrote:No, I don't really think it is. Grenartia is treating the Pauline usage as if it were a new coinage out of nothing, which might mean anything; in the context of the Biblical translations, it is clear that Paul's word is intended as a specific reference to the Leviticus verse.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me I was only talking about the verse in Leviticus.

And I was explaining the structure of the verse in Leviticus, using the same root for the verb "to lay" and for the noun "bed", because that is why the Greek translation did the same thing, even though that is unusual in Greek, which is why Paul's word looks odd: it makes sense only because of how the Greeks were imitating the Hebrew usage.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and a musical to those who sing.

I am the very model of a Nation States General,
I am a holy terror to apologists Confederal,
When called upon to source a line, I give citations textual,
And argue about Palestine, and marriage homosexual!


A KNIGHT ON KARINZISTAN'S SPECIAL LIST OF POOPHEADS!

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33354
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:00 pm

Tmutarakhan wrote:
Menassa wrote:To in turn mean: lay.... 'The Author' which is what he wanted to portray... if he wanted to mean Bed... he would have said bed.


I'm sorry if you misunderstood me I was only talking about the verse in Leviticus.

And I was explaining the structure of the verse in Leviticus, using the same root for the verb "to lay" and for the noun "bed", because that is why the Greek translation did the same thing, even though that is unusual in Greek, which is why Paul's word looks odd: it makes sense only because of how the Greeks were imitating the Hebrew usage.

Right... so we agree?

Or at least realize we're talking about different things?

Internal Union wrote:
Menassa wrote:Where does God say that it's wrong?

In genesis a man shall not lay with another man nor shall he lay with an animal, God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease

So... there are 50 chapters in Genesis... I'm going to need a chapter and a verse.... also I'll give you a hint... it's not in Genesis.

Edit: Are you Jewish?
Last edited by Menassa on Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-NS's one and only Tanna!
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
The NS Steam Thread
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Tmutarakhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8319
Founded: Dec 06, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tmutarakhan » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:10 pm

Menassa wrote:
Tmutarakhan wrote:And I was explaining the structure of the verse in Leviticus, using the same root for the verb "to lay" and for the noun "bed", because that is why the Greek translation did the same thing, even though that is unusual in Greek, which is why Paul's word looks odd: it makes sense only because of how the Greeks were imitating the Hebrew usage.

Right... so we agree?

Or at least realize we're talking about different things?

No, we're talking about the same thing. You were saying the noun form of sh-k-b couldn't mean "bed" because there exists a different word for that; there are often multiple synonyms.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and a musical to those who sing.

I am the very model of a Nation States General,
I am a holy terror to apologists Confederal,
When called upon to source a line, I give citations textual,
And argue about Palestine, and marriage homosexual!


A KNIGHT ON KARINZISTAN'S SPECIAL LIST OF POOPHEADS!

User avatar
Transhuman Proteus
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Mar 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Transhuman Proteus » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:32 pm

Internal Union wrote:From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed


Curious to see proof of either. Mainly which biologists say it is wrong and how they are a threat to mankind - you do know that there have been homosexual relationships for practically as long as there has been humanity right? Yep, they are such a deadly threat to humanity as to warrant death yet they have had no discernable impact on the spread and progress of "mankind" in 90,000+ years.

Internal Union wrote:
Menassa wrote:Where does God say that it's wrong?

In genesis a man shall not lay with another man nor shall he lay with an animal, God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease


Yeah, your argument isn't off to a good start if you know the bible so poorly that you think that is in Genisis.

And what happens when God gets pissed? Care to identify something that is proven to have been a literal act of God?

Oh, and it is worth pointing out medicine disagrees with you claim it is a disease.
Last edited by Transhuman Proteus on Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tmutarakhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8319
Founded: Dec 06, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tmutarakhan » Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:34 am

Transhuman Proteus wrote:you do know that there have been homosexual relationships for practically as long as there has been humanity right?

For considerably longer than there has been humanity, you mean.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and a musical to those who sing.

I am the very model of a Nation States General,
I am a holy terror to apologists Confederal,
When called upon to source a line, I give citations textual,
And argue about Palestine, and marriage homosexual!


A KNIGHT ON KARINZISTAN'S SPECIAL LIST OF POOPHEADS!

User avatar
Grenartia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39487
Founded: Feb 14, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Grenartia » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:27 am

Tmutarakhan wrote:
Grenartia wrote:Also, I'd say that even Paul wasn't saying it was a sin. Given the fact that Paul made up the word arsenokoitai, instead of using the already existing Greek word for homosexuals.

He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.


So basically, what you're saying is, it is still debunked by my point about Leviticus itself.

Internal Union wrote:From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed


God doesn't say its wrong. And no reputable biologist says that. And you've obviously never even heard of the Gay Uncle Theory, which holds that homosexuality, if genetic, is actually beneficial.

Internal Union wrote:
Menassa wrote:Where does God say that it's wrong?

1. In genesis a man shall not lay with another man 2. nor shall he lay with an animal, 3. God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and 4. pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, 5. homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease


1. Your misinterpreted passage isn't in Genesis (and unless you're referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a condemnation of RAPE, and not consensual sex).

2. Of what relevance is beastiality to this discussion? They're two different things. In one instance, you have two adults performing a consensual act, and in the other, you have a person raping an animal, which can't give consent.

3. Assuming, of course, that God sees homosexuality as a sin. And assuming that one religious group's views should be enforced over the ones of everybody else. Such is a gross violation of religious freedom.

4. If you're referencing Sodom and Gomorrah, see the above. Unless you're going to try to convince us that the angels actually WANTED to have sex with the men of Sodom. Which would then be saying that God allows homosexuality, as He has homosexual angels in His service. And I doubt you'd actually argue that, because then your argument becomes self-defeating.

5. Every reputable psychological and medical association disagrees with that assertion.
Impeach Humanity, Legalize Death Stars, Life is TheftWis/Gren 2016 Something all cisgender allies should start doing. I wear teal, blue & pink for Swith. ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧
I'm a pansexual Androgyne. Also a Christian.
Please use they/them/their when referencing me, as I do NOT appreciate the other pronouns.
Textbook definition of irony
Quotes of awesomeness

"Don't take life so serious. It isn't permanent."-Dyakovo

User avatar
Oneracon
Senator
 
Posts: 4735
Founded: Jul 18, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Oneracon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:00 am

Wow this place has gone off-topic.

Though who am I kidding, any thread about LGBT issues always descends into this. :palm:
Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Oneracon IC Links
Factbook
Embassies

"The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power"
Pro:LGBTQ+ rights, basic income, secularism, gun control, internet freedom, civic nationalism, non-military national service, independent Scotland, antifa
Anti: Social conservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, NuAtheism, PETA, capital punishment, Putin, SWERF, TERF, GamerGate, "Alt-right" & neo-Nazism, Drumpf, ethnic nationalism, "anti-PC", pineapple on pizza

Your resident Canadian neutral good socdem graduate student.

*Here, queer, and not a prop for your right-wing nonsense.*

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:07 am

Oneracon wrote:Wow this place has gone off-topic.

Though who am I kidding, any thread about LGBT issues always descends into this. :palm:


Of course it does.

People are so determined to show that the debate shouldn't be governed by religious beliefs that they can't help but turn it into a debate about religious beliefs.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
Kvatchdom
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7846
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kvatchdom » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:08 am

Finland is still so far away from this, but good going UK!
For: Trade Unionism, Patriotism, Operaismo, Insurrectionarism, Semi-Command economy, voluntary secularism
-
Against: Capitalism, Nationalism, Legalism, Third way social democracy, Liberalism, Enforced secularism

Happily married 22-year old guard and an infamous football hooligan

User avatar
Betalia
Envoy
 
Posts: 296
Founded: Jun 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Betalia » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:27 am

Personally as a Bi/Gay person as long as civil unions provide the exact same legal guarantees as a marriage and the difference is in name only, it wouldn't bother me at all to not have gay marriage, if full civil unions are provided. I know a lot of people on the right who just want the government out of marriage altogether as well who aren't specifically against gays being married, just the idea of government marriage altogether.
Proud Member of the INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM ALLIANCE!

User avatar
Oneracon
Senator
 
Posts: 4735
Founded: Jul 18, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Oneracon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:52 am

Betalia wrote:Personally as a Bi/Gay person as long as civil unions provide the exact same legal guarantees as a marriage and the difference is in name only, it wouldn't bother me at all to not have gay marriage, if full civil unions are provided. I know a lot of people on the right who just want the government out of marriage altogether as well who aren't specifically against gays being married, just the idea of government marriage altogether.


My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.
Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Oneracon IC Links
Factbook
Embassies

"The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power"
Pro:LGBTQ+ rights, basic income, secularism, gun control, internet freedom, civic nationalism, non-military national service, independent Scotland, antifa
Anti: Social conservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, NuAtheism, PETA, capital punishment, Putin, SWERF, TERF, GamerGate, "Alt-right" & neo-Nazism, Drumpf, ethnic nationalism, "anti-PC", pineapple on pizza

Your resident Canadian neutral good socdem graduate student.

*Here, queer, and not a prop for your right-wing nonsense.*

User avatar
Betalia
Envoy
 
Posts: 296
Founded: Jun 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Betalia » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:55 am

Oneracon wrote:
Betalia wrote:Personally as a Bi/Gay person as long as civil unions provide the exact same legal guarantees as a marriage and the difference is in name only, it wouldn't bother me at all to not have gay marriage, if full civil unions are provided. I know a lot of people on the right who just want the government out of marriage altogether as well who aren't specifically against gays being married, just the idea of government marriage altogether.


My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.


My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.
Proud Member of the INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM ALLIANCE!

User avatar
Ovisterra
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16017
Founded: Jul 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovisterra » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:56 am

Betalia wrote:
Oneracon wrote:
My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.


My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.


Why? They didn't invent it.
Removing the text from people's sigs doesn't make it any less true. I stand with Yalta.

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:56 am

Betalia wrote:My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

Marriage is not an exclusively religious concept, didn't even start as one. So no.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Andsed, Dumb Ideologies, Free Arabian Nation, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Greater Westralia, Infected Mushroom, Nea Byzantia, Novus America, Pingu Armada, South Acren, Technoscience Leftwing, The Feylands, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, The Xenopolis Confederation, Thermodolia, Vassenor, Washington Resistance Army, Western Vale Confederacy, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads