Question for those opposed to same sex marriage

[LightHorseman]

Sure, you have to file paperwork.

My suggestion is seperate the two so there can't be this debate at all. Marriage = church (and some church bodies support gays and gay marriage)
Civil union = goverment and doesn't have to be about sex/sexuality but just union in a legal sense...
those who want both can have both (if they can find participating church bodies to do it)
and the government doesn't have to "force" marriage onto states which violates state rights.

Sounds good in theory... except of course the state sometimes has a vested interest in declaring people "married".

In Australia we live in the interesting situation where the government will declare 2 homosexual men a "couple" so they can reduce benefits payments to them (if they're recieving benefits, obviously), but the same government will refuse to recognise them as a couple if they voluntarily want to be declared as such but aren't recieving government benefits.

Money talks, as they say.

 

[IreneAdler]

why do you say the vested interest? because of taxes, etc? sure, but I think that's totally uncalled for as well. tax breaks and penalties based on living situation. Gar-Bage

 

[LightHorseman]

why do you say the vested interest? because of taxes, etc? sure, but I think that's totally uncalled for as well. tax breaks and penalties based on living situation. Gar-Bage

I'm not disagreeing.

 

[IreneAdler]

but that is what you meant right?

It's kinda strange because you cannot be MADE to call yourself married and in essence, could live together for 50 years without being that, not be taxed, etc. The civil union thing would of course come with the icky taxation thing I'm sure, but then good little Christians could get married and not be taxed because marriage wouldn't be a part of governmental workings. (which I think would be great cause if I get married again, it will be in a church and I'd love not to be penalized for doing it)

 

[LightHorseman]

It's kinda strange because you cannot be MADE to call yourself married

Actually here, you can be. Or at least, you can be made to call yourself defacto, which is essentially the same thing.

 

[IreneAdler]

wow. that sux.

 

[LightHorseman]

wow. that sux.

I agree.

 

[IreneAdler]

we have the whole common-law marriage but that still requires you to declare (at least in Texas) that you are married

 

[Archer93]

I'm anti gay marriage and anti marriage frankly... (any governmental participation in either) but then my opinions are strange. I think marriage is a church thing and should be handled by church bodies as they see fit. Period. However, cival unions should be legal for anyone, whether you're having sex or not. Just MHO.

The thing is, while there is now an idea that marriage is a church thing, it isn't really. It's not even a religious thing, as marriage (in the sense of two (or more) people forming a socially binding contract) pre-dates all current major religions (with the understanding that Judaism is monotheistic, having developed from earlier polytheistic Semitic religions).

As far as Christianity goes, marriage as a religious rite is rather newer than the Nicean Creed.
Christian views on marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is not a purely Christian thing at all.

One can't even say that the word 'marriage' refers specifically to the Church, since it comes from a Latin word that predates Christianity-
Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In English common law, the important aspect of a marriage is the agreement between the two parties, not the religious aspect
Marriage | LII / Legal Information Institute
And in Britain in particular, the ability of Church of England priests to conduct the legal side of a marriage is an exception, since other types of religious marriage require the same legal procedures as a civil marriage.
To try to remove this, however, would be pretty much impossible in the UK- it would be pure disestablishmentarianism.

 

[IreneAdler]

But the church aspect of it is what causes the problem. And I appreciate the semantics of marriage, but you don't often see the other groups causing a stir about it (and being Messianic I get the Jewish thing as well, better than most I'd think). In the US the main argument against gay marriage is religion. Why not make two seperate entities and leave it at that. The government gets what they want, people get secure legal unions if they want, others get to have their secluded idea of what marriage should be. frankly I dont' see why it matters what you call it. I think the whole idea that your religious beliefs dictate someone else's life is stupid, yes, even mine.

 

[Archer93]

But the church aspect of it is what causes the problem. And I appreciate the semantics of marriage, but you don't often see the other groups causing a stir about it (and being Messianic I get the Jewish thing as well, better than most I'd think). In the US the main argument against gay marriage is religion. Why not make two seperate entities and leave it at that. The government gets what they want, people get secure legal unions if they want, others get to have their secluded idea of what marriage should be. frankly I dont' see why it matters what you call it. I think the whole idea that your religious beliefs dictate someone else's life is stupid, yes, even mine.

The church aspect is only a problem when some (by no means all, as you yourself show) want to make the church aspect part of civil law.
There is no serious effort to force churches to offer a religious solominization for any pairing that goes against the church in question's beliefs. On the contrary, much work has been put into legislation to ensure that no such pressure can be brought to bear. There are doubtless cases where members of a church might try to persuade the governing body of their church to extend such solomnizations to, say, same-sex couples, but that is a private matter within the church in question and has nothing to do with the legal status of such ceremonies.

I can't really speak for other religions, but I am given to understand that many Jews do not have an issue with the matter, and I know that certain Christian groups do not either (the Quakers, for example).

Given the history of both the concept of, and the word, 'marriage'; there is a strong argument, far stronger than there is for the opposing argument, for having the term 'marriage' applied to the legal, civil form and having a different, specific term for the religious. It could be called a 'religious union', or a 'church union', for example.
I do not think that this should happen, I merely point out the stronger argument, if there are to be separate terms for religious and civil contracts.

 

[Archer93]

Um. Looking at my last two posts, guess who's been watching too much 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' recently....

 

[IreneAdler]

Personally I'd rather lose a term to fundies than lose my rights and the rights of others, kwim?

 

[David Brider]

Um. Looking at my last two posts, guess who's been watching too much 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' recently....

This is no bad thing, sir Humphrey. Erm, I mean Archer93.

 

[IreneAdler]

(girl from Texas is lost)

 

[tanzanos]

How can one have an "opinion on gays"? It's like having an "opinion on whites".. an "opinion on Jews" an "opinion on blacks" do you really place groups of people in a box with your opinion label? I thought we learned not to do that kind of thing back in the 60's?

Hey, I don't live in the US where everyone has to be politically correct therefore hypocritical. I have an opinion on everything and no one can take that from me.

opinion [əˈpɪnjən]n

1. judgement or belief not founded on certainty or proof
2. the prevailing or popular feeling or view public opinion
3. evaluation, impression, or estimation of the value or worth of a person or thing
4. an evaluation or judgement given by an expert a medical opinion
5. (Law) the advice given by a barrister or counsel on a case submitted to him or her for a view on the legal points involved
a matter of opinion a point open to question

be of the opinion (that) to believe (that)[via Old French from Latin opīniō belief, from opīnārī to think; see opine]

I fit in the first category!

I am so happy that in my country one is not afraid to voice his opinion!

Have a nice day everyone

 

[IreneAdler]

I think she means the categorization of people by superficial descriptives... but maybe I'm mistaken

 

[wanderingone]

Hey, I don't live in the US where everyone has to be politically correct therefore hypocritical. I have an opinion on everything and no one can take that from me.

opinion [əˈpɪnjən]n

1. judgement or belief not founded on certainty or proof
2. the prevailing or popular feeling or view public opinion
3. evaluation, impression, or estimation of the value or worth of a person or thing
4. an evaluation or judgement given by an expert a medical opinion
5. (Law) the advice given by a barrister or counsel on a case submitted to him or her for a view on the legal points involved
a matter of opinion a point open to question

be of the opinion (that) to believe (that)[via Old French from Latin opīniō belief, from opīnārī to think; see opine]

I fit in the first category!

I am so happy that in my country one is not afraid to voice his opinion!

Have a nice day everyone

So you have an opinion about gay people in general rather than opinions on specific issues... I find that if one says "gay people ...." "white people....", "Jewish people" they are usually simply spouting off stereotypical notions (even when talking about a group they consider themselves to be a part of) rather than opinions on any particular issue.

But if you have opinions about an entire groups of people knock yourself out... I see you have a rather single minded opinion about Americans despite seeing the differing views on such topics as the one addressed in thread.

Since same sex marriage is not something all sexual minorities agree about I wouldn't think we'd be talking "gay people" in general. My boss thinks it's insane that anyone would WANT to be part of the norm of the notion of commitment sealed with a license and a blessing particularly people who are not accepted as part of the society that views themselves as the creators of that norm. He and his partner have been together about a decade, to me I would think they would want the protections of legal marriage.... but he just rolls his eyes at the idea.

 

[wanderingone]

(girl from Texas is lost)

I believe Archer93 is referring to BBC television...

The Yes (Prime) Minister Files - For Your Eyes Only

 

[IreneAdler]

Oh, I just saw the location. Athens is a beautiful place. I got to live there for a couple years on the military base.