|
| Thread: France legalizes gay marriage |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · NEXT» |
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted April 23, 2013 08:34 PM |
|
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 08:51 PM |
|
|
Another country stripped of its freedom and morality.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 08:55 PM |
|
|
Care to elaborate?
Personally, I do not see it really disrupting the lives of French citizens. If anything, people have more freedom as to who they can and cannot marry. As to the morality issue, I've become so jaded about marriage that I'm pretty indifferent to its morality angle.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 09:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Another country stripped of its freedom and morality.
I've honestly never understood this viewpoint.  Care to elaborate what you are basing this off of?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 09:46 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 22:02, 23 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Another country stripped of its freedom and morality.
I've honestly never understood this viewpoint. Care to elaborate what you are basing this off of?
Simple. When a country, despite popular discontent, shovel forces a policy just because of being politically correct.
The problem with morality of this issue is that theists or conservatives believe that gay marriage is immoral and regard gays as being sinners or mentally sick people.
"Marriage should be the union between man and women" is their view.
Personally, I could not care less about gays and their problems. Humans will never learn to respect people who behave in ways that diverge from the social norm, in this case gays. Just because its legal de jure, does not mean its possible.
Eventually, with economic turmoil, this laws will be repealed and the loudmouths will make the laws.
I dont know the legal procedures of marriage. But "Marriage" is regarded as a religious procedure. Perhaps if they called it "Gay Legal Union", it would have been more acceptable.
Regardless, this is the simple case of what is fair and what is thought to be right.
It would seem fair that gays should have the same rights as non gay people and it does not seem right to think of gay marriage as something lamentable.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 09:53 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:56, 23 Apr 2013.
|
When France outlawed the words "Mother" and "Father" in legal documents you could see that one coming. The activists have the French Parliament in their hip pocket.
Rather than the legislature engineering society such a thing should be put up for the people's vote and the will of the people be carried out.
Mankind has to genders. Male and female. Children have a mother and a father regardless of what the French say. And a true marriage is between a male and female regardless of how the "legal" definition changes.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:12 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 22:23, 23 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
It strips the freedoms of any who dare to have a different opinion to homosexuals,
That is the nature of right and wrong. If you are wrong, you should not have the right to say anything about said subject.
Quote:
homosexuals could get married before,
I dont know about that. Sounds interesting. Then what is the point of this news?
Quote:
Homosexuals could get civil partnerships before, or get married in secular churches that condone the union of gay couples.
What is the difference now? If that was true before, what do they gain now?
Quote:
There is no middle ground for them.
Actually, there is no middle ground. You are either pro or against.
Either something is wrong or not. There are exceptions of course in everything.
Laws that dont define something well enough are either ineffective or casue a lot more holes in the judiciary.
Quote:
It's not fair, for you are expected to accept them unconditionally yet they have no respect for your personal beliefs.
Thats because they are not gay by choice. Unlike gays, you can choose not to be, say, a scientologist. Respect and social norms are different things. For example, I hate people with dogs but it is a social norm let them, say, have a free pass when they are passing.
Invert thisnow and say: It is a social norm to eat dogs. I should have the right not to eat dogs and if other people percieve me as bad or evil, than that is their problem.
Respect is earned and percieved. Say, richard dawkins is a respected by scientists and some atheists but in the eyes of a theist he is a hellspawn.
Quote:
All Catholics and Muslims want to do is be left alone,
I disagree. I dont want to delve into why. It should be fairly obvious why. Hint: They try to impose their will, beliefs and viewpoint on others without good reasoning, whether they are right or wrong does not matter.
Quote:
but that can't be tolerated can it? No, ALL religious institutions either accept homosexuals and fall, or reject them and fall all the same.
Homosexuality is not a belief. You cant reject a Schizophrenic, you can reject a belief. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, belief or so. Its a condition.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Homosexuality is not a belief.
But accepting it as a sin is. I'm with Tsar on this IF the situation is like he explained. Marriage as a secular contract of law should be enough for them, there is no point in expecting the religion to change its doctrine when it hurts no one.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:19 PM |
|
|
Tsar, I did not see the part where it said that the law would force churches to perform the ceremonies regardless of religious doctrine. In fact, I sort of assumed that it meant that civil unions will just be called marriages now, and that the same judges and government officials that ran civil unions would now be running homosexual marriages. If they take it to the point where they are attempting to redefine religious doctrines, then yes I agree that the morals of the country in question are more than slightly broken (Note, I do not believe a marriage outside of a religion has any part of that religion's doctrine, so a redefinition of state marriages is perfectly fine in my books). As it stands, I see nothing in this bill that affects religious practices in the slightest, other than the fact that they must allow the government to perform homosexual marriages alongside atheist or agnostic marriages.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:30 PM |
|
|
English version of the recent Gay marriage Act
Quote:
Ministers had already stated that legislation allowing same-sex marriages in England and Wales would not compel any religious organisation to conduct such marriages. Culture Secretary Maria Miller said the Church of England and the (Anglican) Church in Wales had stated their strong opposition to same-sex marriages. But they are not the only religious organisations to have done so. The legal ban may have the effect of protecting the Church of England from legal claims that as the Established Church it is bound to marry anyone who requests it.
I withdraw my previous post on the grounds of re-evaluation of my current stance, I guess I read incorrect source materials. Can anyone explain to me what this legislation does exactly. Perhaps placed in the OP? (I'd search myself but I need a canon version that we all use so that the discussion goes smoother)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:34 PM |
|
|
Basically just calls civil unions a marriage. Again, I do not understand all the fuss.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:43 PM |
|
|
|
What fuss? I see no mob with tar and feather...
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Basically just calls civil unions a marriage. Again, I do not understand all the fuss.
Semantics...
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 10:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Basically just calls civil unions a marriage. Again, I do not understand all the fuss.
Semantics...
Those things that laws should not be based off of in a mature society? You're probably right, but that's not a good reason.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 12:27 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:31, 24 Apr 2013.
|
There's actually a point in the whole "The government has no right to redefine marriage" argument.
It's true because marriage really shouldn't have anything to do with law or politics in the first place.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 12:31 AM |
|
|
Eh.
If a man wants to marry a man, should be deny him of that right? I don't think it's fair at all. I PERSONALLY consider Marriage a fundamental human right that everyone should be able take advantage of, if they would want to.
the great advantage of marriage is ofc is that it is also a legal institution, meaning that it protects those that start one. in most cases, it is preferable to cohabitation, especially if you think your partner is THE ONE.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 12:37 AM |
|
|
I don't get why it should provide legal advantages.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 12:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't get why it should provide legal advantages.
If you had a child, or were the non-working spouse in a single-earner household, you'd understand.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 12:59 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:00, 24 Apr 2013.
|
Can't you have those kind of contracts without it being tied to marriage?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 01:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Can't you have those kind of contracts without it being tied to marriage?
Well, marriage is kind of that contract itself. The ceremonial, romantic part is the glorification not the sub structure.
|
|
|
|
